Claire C Smith

Discovered & studied science since age 6

Tutored SEND students gaining valuable experience

Created her astronomy & science website in 1999 & continues to build it

Wrote 95+ topics on astronomy, astrophysics & physics

Attended an astronomy event with & at the house of, famous
astronomer Sir Patrick Moore

Presented astronomy talks

Tweets & writes threads about science

Contributed her website as an educational tool

Published in a paper & science book on mathematical
Information Theory (2002)

Theorises & returned to writing about mathematics

Extra interests:

Astronomy (Sun/Moon/Saturn)

Astrophysics (black holes/neutron stars)

Physics (electromagnetism/engineering/photonics)

Mathematics (complex & vector analysis /probability/statistics/
algebra/number theory)

Education (thinking skills/cognitive science/psychology/SEND)

Varied (animals/nature/art/music)

---

Also hosts
@badas_tweets

Ok for an amateur?

NEW UPDATES directly below - tells you what is going on with my site.

Website last updated -(updated December 23rd 2021) What's been added? -

Where it all started...

Science and Art in the 1970's

Certain things just stay in your mind. When I was about 6 years old, I loved and used to delve into two subjects, science and art, especially physics, astronomy and art. At about the same age, I got hold of a book called ‘The Wonder Book of Science’ by Harry Golding http://childrensbookshop.com/book.php?cno=59908 this book set me off on a journey into the wonderful world of science and ultimately astronomy and all the things related to it. I remember seeing a fantastic picture of an electricity bolt near the front of this book and a saying at the start of the book, referring to science as a 'magical carpet’ and this was enough for me to read more. The book was printed in 1931 so the science then was very different to about the early to mid-70’s but it served as a precursor to what became an interest that remains to this day

Light and Dark

This title light and dark, refers to an explanation that I put in one of my Quote of the Month instalments where the theme that month focused on dark (I will do a light theme in the future) - this was in December 2012 (see link for the quote of the months). I will explain here in a bit more detail what I mean though. When I was younger I often used to study a glass ornament that was displayed in our south facing lounge window sill. When I looked at it closely, I noticed that the Sun would make it reflect light in different colours. In my mind this was a science and an art. It also gave me an incentive to study further.

I called this website cthisspace with the emphasis on the letter c denoting the speed of light in physics, also meaning to see in art and then space. It was later, at about age 7-8 that I came across a copy of Scientific American magazine when visiting my Aunt and Uncle's house. I remember reading this mag that took most of my afternoon and evening away, which lead me into another world of interest about science. I remember the magazine had an article about light, and from this I had my first read about the real science and physics of light. This was one of the first subjects that got me interested in physics and astronomy. I remember it showing diagrams of lasers and how light bounced off various mirrors to create a 3D image, which was all the rage around that time. Complete with another article further into the magazine, which was the part that got me into astronomy, was the new theory of Black Holes and radiation - a big contrast to light! I remember reading about the fact that at that time, there was a theory that Black Holes emitted radiation and I read a small caption near the picture and thought this was great. I couldn’t put the magazine down and ended up taking it home. Jump forward another 30 or so years and I still have that same magazine, be it rolled up in my drawer..

At around the time of school age, I had still had an interest in astronomy and science and kept a notebook that I used to jot ideas down onto, which I still have. I also used to create a lot of art and loved space pictures. I didn't do great at school but I loved learning in my own time and caught up a bit at night school and further education later (I studied courses for my day job too). In around 1999 I studied physics O level at night school and a few interesting events occurred. If I found some of the equations hard to do I would find it easier to write and read them backwards. My thinking was, if an answer is converse (closes into one) a question is often diverse (opens up possibilities) so it was sometimes better for me to study and write certain equations in reverse, leaving other students thinking my method was amusing. At one point in the course I was watching the physics lecturer put equipment out for a physics experiment. As he placed a rheostat on the bench, I guessed correctly that the subject was going to be about, which was resistance and he was quite shocked! (Excuse the pun)

In about 1999 I decided to set up this website. The idea was to put all my passions rolled into one www.cthisspace.com This website was really a spin off from a free non-profit internet magazine called FTL at the time (FTL is on this website copied as a subsection) that a friend had started. It has done well since. This website has my ideas about science and some space art that I used to create with a simple art programme, so they are quite old now. Later some of my work was used in book covers and exhibitions. One of them was at Harvard and later one of my theories/ideas was included in a book. This website has generated lots of other things since, as I continue to build it now. When I first started it, which was over ten years ago now! I found it difficult to put my ideas in text because I am dyslexic so I typed most of it straight onto here without using a Word programme. It means some older text might be full of spelling errors but I have left them the way they were, just for the fact that the essence of the ideas and thinking, which include the errors, are all there to see and perhaps makes for a more interesting read. Today I use a Word programme that sorts the spelling and grammar out, then I copy them into Notepad (the Dream Weaver Software I use for my site doesn’t like text straight from Word) then I put them here. I also use Dragon Pad speech to text software for my text now. This means it is easier to get my ideas down. Having had a job in education, I decided to overlap some subjects from that to here, in my Quote of the month page http://www.cthisspace.com/quotes2.html Here is the archive http://www.cthisspace.com/quotesarchive.html I have noticed because I’m dyslexic I think sometimes it tends to be an advantage to put some self-made ideas into a personal website

Jump back to the early 90’s. At about this time I bought a small bright yellow telescope, called a short tube 3” Catadioptric. I already had a hand held captain cook type of telescope, but the Catadioptric was the next step up. I used to stack the normal eye pieces on, then put the lowest magnification one loosely onto the main one and got great Moon pictures, but I quickly learned they moved across the frame very fast. It also had a small bit of chromatic aberration by the time I had done all that, but it was worth seeing the Moon craters, even if that did move past very quickly. Since very young, I have collected about 80 to 90 books on astronomy, astrophysics and physics and science in general. These books are now on display along one of my walls in my house, all in a large bookcase behind glass doors and even though we have the internet, I still refer to them to this day.

Today in 2014, as well as having this genuine 14 year old website that I contribute space, astronomy, astrophysics, physics and art to, not forgetting a personal twitter account, I also successfully promote my local astronomy Society, BADAS, on twitter. Because I have hosted their twitter page over the years, the work I have done has now established a half full massive hall of new astronomy members, which is increasing! In 2013 I did an astronomy presentation for my society which was called excellent by a member. I think my experience as a tutor and working in education, as well as my long term interest in astronomy, made these real events happen.

Today it’s all about twitter and blogs and the internet is a vast place. Being a restless thinker, expect more ideas, which of course would only happen if you come back to c-this space…

This website linked to me being lucky enough to meet astronomer, Sir Patrick Moore at his house in 2008, which was at a party he held there. Due to being interested in astronomy on my website and having a friend who had his work regularly shown on the BBC programme The Sky at Night, anything to do with The Sky at Night was always a hit to link here. There is more about this fantastic event on my site here: http://www.cthisspace.com/anniversarytext2009.html

In about 2006 I went to my first Astronomy Society, which wasn’t in my hometown at that time, but near a place of work. At the time I thought there must be one nearer, so looked online and joined that too. I am now only a member of my local town astronomy club where I live. At about the same time I bought another telescope which was a 6” white Russian Tal 2 reflector. With this I got many images of the Moon and stars. It has a motor mount so it can get clearer pictures which have been good to capture since.

In November 2011, I thought about doing my local Astronomy Society’s twitter page https://twitter.com/badas_tweets and it’s taken off since then. It has attracted lots of followers because of our unique location - Blackpool!

The latest project I am doing is called 2008/13 Countdown To The Quote of The Month Page which has lots of ideas rolled into a monthly quote - you might notice some scientific themes in there too.

I will always be interested in astronomy because it combines so many subjects, mainly science, physics, art, photography etc (even music if I may add). Astronomy is very accessible and live because anybody can just go and look at the night sky and see, for free, at how amazing the stars and planets are and not only that, it makes you think how wonderful our universe really is.

Us Girls In Astronomy

I think women have a very important part to play in astronomy because; we can capture the imagination of the public using social clues that make the subject welcoming and interesting. For example, Carolyn C. Porco, an American planetary scientist, who is in the area of exploration of the outer solar system, has great reaching power that communicates the subject on more concrete levels. There is directness in her work that can reach beginners and professionals alike. I also think that, although I don;t have children, because women are closely tied with children, we have a unique capability to connect the two together, enabling us to get children’s interest in astronomy at an early age that uses astronomy as a vehicle as a way to make children see the relevance of science in general. Astronomy and space is an art and science that captures people’s imagination and we ladies have that unique talent in making that happen!

At my local astronomy society, I have noticed over the time that I have been a member, that there are more women attending the group, so something must be going right!

Beautifully majestic - the stars, planets and space, all involved in an interspersed cornucopia of forces, in the laws of scientific events...

Below this text are some links to events relating to my site then some VERY old random thoughts.

C-This Forum

--------------------------

http://www.cthisspace.com/cthisart/william.html. Edited (changed quote) April quote of the month and.... a new page on this site of copied Tweets from my external Twitter page See my Twitter copies. Jan/December just gone and this site will be just over ten years old - will add more to the second part of the 10 year anniversary text here10yearanniversarytext2009.htmlmy 10 year Anniversary text for this cthisspace website. 'Is it Just a Piece of Foil?' under construction on harvard page (link above). I am on Twitterhttp://twitter.com/ClaireCSmith

3rd edit of random thought/chunck of text on Harvard Pics yellow page link above. More edited text to the likes of another Sir and an OBE below. Feb 09 quote.

(2008 updates in this paragraph- a couple of edits Feb 09) . To tie in with the June quote, and April this year, as a member of my local Astronomy Society, I was recently privileged enough to be able to attend one of Sir Patrick Moore's recent celebrations of a special edition of The Sky at Night at his home in Selsey, which was one of the longest running programs on the BBC. Also attending the event were noted scientists, Colin Pillinger, other professional astronomers, professional amateur astronomers, one being John Fletcher who showed me Patrick's observatory, all of whom were very inspiring to talk to and author Sir Terry Pratchett, who said to me that he thought it was great to get lots of people interested in the same thing all in one place, also BBC presenter Heather Couper who showed me her new book. The day before, I stopped off at beautiful Oxford for a while, a place I always wanted to see and visited the Royal Oak pub in St Giles (it was because I needed to ring for a taxi in a quiet place to get back to my hotel, not because I needed a pint). I noticed the historic buildings were wonderful. With regards to the South coast of England (and considering I am a home buddy) although I've been to London and Cornwall on a few occasions, I had never been to Selsey either. The day after Patrick's I went to a private invite at the South Downs Planetarium in Chichester which was hosted by Dr John Mason OBE, who is an excellent Astronomer and speaker. I have added a link to the South Downs Planetarium, there is already a link to Patrick Moore. Chichester is wonderful place and I will no doubt love to visit West Sussex again just for the sheer beauty of the countryside and friendly people, and yes of course for the subject of Astronomy, I mean, you know, I couldn't forget that…(2008) (edited Feb 09, another Sir, OBE etc)

May quote of the month. I added a link to the BHF on links page on March 10th. Edited this bit of text here again. I have added a couple of links to Gresham College on the links page. One is about the brilliant, inspiring and enthusiastic Dr. Allan Chapman, Gresham Professor and who appears on ' The Sky at Night ' TV series which is hosted by Sir Patrick Moore. Dr. Chapman is from the University of Oxford and is a historian of science, with a special interest in astronomy and fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society, as well as a Gresham College speaker. Having met Dr. Allan Chapman for the first time in December 2007, after a grand meal I attended, consisting of 3 groups of Astronomy Societies, I was inspired to create a link or two to Gresham College. I ended up by random chance, sitting next to two of Allan's mates during the meal. Throughout they said Allan has a love for cups of tea and that Dr Chapman likes his regular cups of tea. This became apparent when Dr. Chapman covered his tea pot in a party hat to keep it warm during his speech (it was still warm after the speech). Second link to Professor Ian Morison, of the Jodrell Bank Observatory, who is also a Gresham College speaker. I also met Professor Ian Morison months before in 07 and asked him for an autograph. I gave him a pen to write it down with (who had a nasty cold at the time. The pen didn't have the cold, Ian did) after he gave a speech at my local Astronomy Society in mid 2007. About a week later I had a cold, on this occasion I blame the pen. (2008)

New thought added called Pokerverse. Working on others. Trinity: The Scientific Basis of Vitalism and Transcendentalism (Paperback) by Stephen P Smith (Author). Stephen P Smith PhD, co-wrote an idea with me a few years ago, (this idea is on my site already, link to it on the Harvard Page above and on my links page) so I have placed two links to this book he wrote on my links page. The book was just published this May (2007) and it is in greater expanse than the original idea or theory on this site.

In April 2007 the BBC Radio 4 presenter Mark Lythgoe asked why are scientists and artists so different? I send a comment to him. They publish it. They edited it, but that's ok. I add a link to this from my links page. My original comment is on my links page.

Quite a lot more added and a big edit on links page. April quote.

In March 2007 I became a member of 2 Astromony Societies and if you look on my links page I have added links to the official site of the most inspiring Sir Patrick Moore, his Wiki site and him on a BBC section.

Feb 2007 I will add the general theory behind latest text on Harvard page. I have edited the warning bit, the copyright notice and added more links to referals to this site, one being my blog (not that I need one). The site changes were to come but decided that the site layout will be tidied up rather than a completely new layout. More ideas will be added. I wanted to edit my old thoughts but left them as they are to see how they have evolved over time (in a hobby website kind of way).

Jan quote. HAPPY NEW YEAR! Circle and Line edited third time. A new link to Thinking Training taught by Dennis Perrin, who offers professional accredited Edward de Bono courses. In the next week I'll add some thoughts to the Harvard page about thinking training and creativity. See guestbook for his comments.

2006. Edited warning section and decided to remove the examples from it which is a better decision abd will include new thoughts when less busy! September quote and some new thoughts on the second page (link above) later this week beginning Sept 2005. August Quote. A warning for both intro and harvard pics pages were you can read this just above this text. July quote. I will do some comments comments about What We Still Don't Know in a while. Questions... soon after, comments on What We Still Don't Know. Quote and soon be commenting on What We Still Don't Know. Sid In The Way. Feb Quote (Please check out the yellow link above for the quote). I will mention something about the recent Channel 4 series called "What We Still Dont Know" in the New Year (when I have watched my recordings of it, although sadly I did miss one programme)(Dec 2004). All next years quotes will be on a new page. Thunks (Nov 6th). November Quote. Thought 1. 1Ltr Bottle Of Creativity. Oct quote(a bit of a late one due to being very busy then catching flu!) I will be back in full swing very soon. Me on Tooning (see cartoon section). I will put about 7 new thoughts in the second intro page in the next week or two that I wrote and drew on paper a few months ago. Text on site about a re-format. Late September Quote. I have posted on E De B's new site. It stays so far but I still cannot edit my mistakes. A link to my site about an answer to a mathematical camel conundrum from http://www.websiteoftheday.info/2004/07/camel_conundrum.htmlhttp://www.websiteoftheday.info/ hosted by Miles Mendoza from the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio2/shows/wright/wotd.shtmlwho says he is "the webby bloke on Steve Wright's show on Radio 2 and Website of The Day was launched in May 2004 as a companion to the Website of the Day pages on the official Radio 2 site...." A July Quote. Text and Mind/Hand paper By Yacov Levi. Add on and re-hash text. A sentence or two about IQ on my links page (see megalinks). Quote. The Three Laws Of Irony (can you find them on this site?). Something about The Ultranet (2003). I have put new thoughts on my Harvard page (see above for link) (2003). I have discovered that my posts over the years are still on the net at Edward De Bono's forum and the Superstring Theory forum after all but the site masters have taken the links out that are to them (October(ish) 2003). I have put a whole copy of the contents of the old FTL mag here (late 2003). I will put something in the second intro soon about Channnel 4's Programme about the Soul that also talked about creatvity and logic that starred Roger Penrose and Gregory Chaitin (mid 2003). So far, so what's going on? The site was down due to Easyspace server problems for a day(early 2003). I'll add something in the next week (can't remember 2003). New section in the "C- This Story" part will soon include music lists that I like (August 2003). Quote and Mega Foundation Invite and second FTL page and Unity Theory in the second intro (Mid 2003) (then see second intro link below in yellow) in the Add On Bit part 2,

Old Updates below

The Mega bit. The Megaboard hosts Gina LoSasso PhD (Psychologist) and Chris Langan (the guy with the highest IQ in America) have recently invited me to their Megaboard, TOE and Genius webpage forum (gulp!) Their website talks about high IQ and Creativity, everything about Intelligence! Have a look at the links to it on my links page.The art bit (mid 2003). Harvard page is now the second C-This Add On Bit but next moths (ish) I will be puttting the FTL Magazine that I contributed to many years ago (had changed hands many years ago but now is off line. It's a shame because it started up many pictures and ideas that I have here.) here (Ian will help me on it, the other Ian) as a copy (the whole mag) for now a link to one of its pages is here, it has Ian (that Ian), Ian and Ian on it--->Link to the Old FTL but Contributors page only The previous editor seemed to have lost interest. Here's the home page so far http://www.cthisspace.com/ftl/The mag includes old Space and Science Magazine news and my artwork. The FTL mag is (see last line)http://www.twbookmark.com/authors/30/2010/ Ian's favourite mag, which Ian? Yes that Ian (mid 2003). Now, look at the two pictures in this link that says Harvard ---> Harvard pics and second intro page , you will see my Earth With Sun on both (early 2003). The science bit, at one point someone who I knew (still know) with a PhD called Stephen P Smith on the internet, re-wrote a few of my ideas out in a paper, without asking me 1st but it was ok. I thought he could have gone into perhaps more depth in some of it but [erhaps he thought that kept if it was simple it was more readable so it turned out ok. I kindly asked him if he could ask me 1st, if he used my ideas to be re- written in a paper next time, and that if they were included in a paper that he also threw some of the copyright weight in my direction and add my name. He did do, so that's ok, so very large proportion of my ideas from the last few years have contributed to a paper (as well as a few other people) that has just been published. So the very clever Dr. Stephen P Smith PhD who is good with format helped them through to this stage. The references to the books are books he has read. I haven't read any of these books but alternitavely I thought and created some of the ideas that are used (early 2003). See the result of this athttp://www.emergentmind.org/smith.htm Also I've moved an old chunk of intro text from up here, to over/above the title "See This Add On Bit" quite far below this part because I felt like it. Link to my book cover (my art concept is the shooting meteor shower "The Day Of The Triffids" (see original image in c-thisspace) here#s the link>http://www.randomhouse.com/modernlibrary/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=0-8129-6712-7(Early 2003). The Kurzweil website moderators have recently ID'd their forum having asked me to launch it with them 1st! nd now I can post without the copycats (Late 2002). Ok, this page REALLY is getting too big isn't it? So now I have to get technical with HTML which I don't like, I might leave it abit longer...or you could go to the 2nd (C-This Add On Bit) page at...

The pictures of other Claire C Smith's and Claire Smith's on the net and in "Google Images" in particular are not me! There are no pictures of me on the net.

The Legal Bit

(With an archive of an old magazine copy thrown in) all original artwork and ideas written or otherwise on this cthisspace.com site are Copyright Claire C Smith © 1999-2012, except specific content on FTL Magazine archive (sub-section) that is Copyright of its ---> contributors, for example, if you are wanting to use work by the math and geometry Professor Ian Stewart, it is better to let him know first. Before using material from cthisspace.com it would be a preference that you ask for permission via e-mail. It would be good if a credit note was included and my name and this web address, if you do ask for permission, which you probably will get. The same applies for FTL Magazine and its contributors.

The How To Get Hold Of Me Bit

Mail to: claire"at"cthisspace.com. Unfortunately you will have to type all of my e-mail out with the correct "at" in it, which means replace the "at" with the correct @ sign in my e-mail address. This is above your "?" key. Now you are probably wondering why I have my e-mail shown like this here and ask why I haven't used the @ in it, in the first place, well if I do, it turns into an automatic link! and if you get too much spam you might know what Iam talking about.

The Warning Bit

As with the random art work, on a more light hearted note, this page may contain random thoughts that are very random and very thought like (there are more of these on the Harvard page). The thoughts may follow a change in direction quite often. Everyday causality thinking practices might not be so common place. Other than that... ( March 08)

Or

C-THIS HOME PAGE

C-THIS SPACE was set up at about middle to late August 1999 but it is now 2003.

Hello, here is a bit about what's happened and what's going to happen...but before that here is what's happening now

Hello! Here I bring you a variety of art projects (C-THIS SPACE Art, see the 1st link just below this paragraph)and other wacky ideas that are a result of this hobby or past time that I take relatively/moderately seriously, that will shine a little light on your web viewing. In this section I will type about what I am up to on the site (please check VERY VERY far down this page for recent information on C-This Add On Bit ) as the site itself evolves over time. The site also contains mostly space art with general art too. Most of the C-THIS SPACE pics are done on computer, using my imagination and visual memory and are added on a regular basis. Some pictures on this site are and have been for the old FTL. FTL Magazine was hosted by Wendy the editor. Link to the Old FTL but Contributors page only I will re copy ALL the mag soon onto my site . The mag includes old Space and Science Magazine news and my artwork. I have some real art (as in pictures I've drawn on paper). As you wonder around you will notice that this site is splashed with a spacey/science twist that, in time, will enable me to bring a few more wacky ideas together as time goes on. Back to the art... I also produce hand drawn cartoons and art work here, that along side other art work, where a result of being a college and university student once upon a time ago (left after a year at Uni because I am not a good classroom learner)... an example of this resulted in large pics and other works that are A1 size but they are on paper and not in cyber space yet (still). Also I am currently producing a separate section where I tackle science and related subjects (without jokes:-) from a different angle, that I may take more time and consideration over these next few years, so the contents might gravitate toward science too. Back to my large artwork pictures, if I do put more of them online as time goes on, I can assure you this will be resolved with the use of a digital camera or some other high tech gadget, well we are talking about the space age here....and I do have a day job. Claire

P.S Apart form the topics on this site my other recreational interests (that are not shown here) are Music, Animals and nature...

Think-Talk (The Get Together). 2003

" Claire C Smith is interested in art and science and related subjects in her spare time. She was inlvolved in art when very young when she was also interested in science at 6 years old. After studying art breifly at university and science at college, then shy Claire, left uni early for various reasons. Many years later she put together her own web site in her spare time and continues to do so when she is not working. Claire started doing art for FTL Magazine a few years ago, that was just before she created her own website. Claire also plays the guitar, doesn't have dots on her forehead nor has purple hair..."(FTL Magazine)

If you live in the UK like me or are prepared to travel to the UK I would like to create a get together called the "Think-Talk" meeting that involves as many people as possible that can be brought together, with no less than 3 people, to talk and think about all subjects that are related to this site (Art Creativity Science etc..), plus many more subjects if need be, we can invite be ANY person who is purely inerested even if they have no knowledge of these subject matters. The agenda (subject matter) then is unpredictable, apart from the fact that something out of this will be predicted by creative thinking. There has to be some room allocated for a portable dry maker white board or white paper pad board, or simliar, that can be part of the thinking process that can be viewed easily by all participants at that time. The participants can chose to use this more visual method of communication if words or wrote method are problematic and it has the advantage of being "saved" if any member wishes to refer to that work later, so this will be recorded or copied for that purpose. The talk and ideas will recored or copied then be given to any participant who wishes to keep the talk as a reminder of the day. The exposing of ideas proposed to others in the meeting by the participants are their individual choice. The positive side is that if the individual participants are prepared to "cross fertilize" their own subject matter/s with unkown ideas from other subjects, there is a higher tendancy to create the genesis of a completey newer idea, and this serves as the interesting reason to be there. I am prepared to travel to the Midlands (London under special curcumstances) to get this idea off the ground. I would also like to record this meeting in some way for future reference, that would include the talk and the notes or ideas by what ever method of communication is best arranged. All corresponence must go through e-mail and a location and time must be decided accordingly. It could be a day or a few hours on a day depending on the location, it could he held in a university, hotel lounge, a pub or an eating place. If you are interested or have ideas about this please contact me through e-mail. The Think-Talk get together will only hold if there are no less than 3 people willing to attend so comformation of attendance by the individual should be made available to me before hand. (2 nd March 2003)

This is the end of the INTRO so you can proceed on with the art pages!!! However, if you would like to read a few quotes, thoughts of the week, news and other little science and related oddities please check very far below to C-THIS ADD ON BIT. Have fun...!

you are at http://www.cthisspace.com

You will find pictures added to C-THIS SPACE to the third block down from the top of the page on a regular basis (see the homepage) other projects are taking longer than usuall but hang in there! Thankyou!

C-THIS SPACE for A Scroll Around The Universe at 469 KB (Feb 2000).. Click on link above and please keep the window small when scrolling around as it doesn't show all the picture at once, hence you "scroll" around!, but while downloading (4 mins aprox this is if your line is slow or domestic) just minimise it until it's done! Also when scrolling, follow the microdots, and your mission is to find earth. It's a big picture and my computer couldn't take the pace, so it decided to not crash, but doze off, mid art time, and probably demanded an answer as to why I had to draw so many stars and not be concerned with it's apparent nack of sulking every time I work without considering it's limited memory width, er oops! sorry puter... : )WARNING! Ahh nearly, you might have to wait 4 mins for download time, so get ready!

C-THIS "EGGSTRA TERRESTRIAL" cartoon. Eggstra changes every few seconds and was born on the 11th of March yr 2000. More pictures will be added over time. Cartoon link above ...

C-THIS HOME PAGE

and...

C-THIS NEW FORUM

C-THIS NOTE OF THE MONTH

C-THIS

"Note Of The Month "

December 1st 2004

"Art is born of the observation and investigation of nature. "

Cicero (106 BC - 43 BC)

C-THIS

"Note Of The Month "

November 1st 2004

"We talk far too much. We should talk less and draw more."

Goethe

C-THIS

"Note Of The Month "

October 1st 2004

"Buckminster Fuller.. was an inventor, engineer, architect, mathematician, poet and cosmologist; he once said "The only ones who don't get trained for specialization are artists, they want to be whole." He called himself a "Comprehensive Anticipatory Design Scientist" and many of his friends were artists. He said artists "keep the integrity of childhood alive until we reach the bridge between the arts and science... Artists frequently conceive of a pattern in their imagination before scientists find it in nature. "

From The Writer's Almanac

C-THIS

"Note Of The Month "

September 1st 2004

"What could be more repellent than to suffer the limitation of others as a desperate alternative to gazing singly at our own? "

Alain de Botton

C-THIS

"Note Of The Month "

August 1st 2004

"There is no reality except the one contained within us. That is why so many people live such an unreal life. They take the images outside them for reality and never allow the world within to assert itself."

Herman Hesse (1877-1962)

C-THIS

"Note Of The Month "

July 1st 2004

"The impossible is often the untried. "

Jim Goodwin

C-THIS

"Note Of The Month "

June 1st 2004

"the arts are the most powerful means of strengthening the perceptual component without which productive thinking is impossible in any field of endeavor."

In 1968 Rudolph Arnheim laid it on the line, stating (in Visual Thinking) that perception is intelligence. He wrote that the arts are the foundation for our capacity to think constructively. He believes not only that artistic activity is a form of reasoning, where perceiving and thinking are indivisibly intertwined, but that the unwholesome split between the senses and thought has crippled the training of reasoning power and has led to various deficiency diseases in modern man. He points out that our entire educational system continues to be based on the study of words, and numbers, having failed to understand that the arts contribute indispensably to the development of a reasoning and imaginative human being.

"Note Of The Month "

May 1st 2004

"If students grasped the principle involved and learned to apply it in other situation so something was achieved.. If students had the ability to depict what they saw and remember to use this ability later, they learned an important lesson. But, again, half of the students struggle with this technique of imaging properly action. So it is if they tried their skills in an advance stage to prepare a real joint. They had to imagine the lines of action, a not easy task. "

Yacov Levi -qualified instructor for woodworking taken from "Image manipulating capabilities by students of secondary schools " See link to his paper on my Harvard Page.

C-THIS

"Note Of The Month "

April 1st 2004

"From Michelangelo's portrayal of David and Goliath on the Vault of the Sistine Chapel to Einstein's thought experiments which lead to the formulation of the General and Special Theories of Relativity, from the ancient's models of the universe to the Neil Bohr's model of the hydrogen atom, mental imagery has played a central, if not the central, role in the development of art and science. Indeed, one can correlate the progress of art and science directly with the human's progress toward the formation of new mental images "

Professor Mohsen Janatpour, College of San Mateo. Janatpour is a math, physics and astronomy professor at CSM. An accomplished artist as well, he has been delivering special presentations at the College since 1995. The April 2 event will be his 16th. Each one has examined, in some way, the connection between art and science

C-THIS

"Note Of The Month "

March 1st 2004

" Penrose's and Escher's susceptability for aesthetics in general will be seen as a very important condition for the interdisciplinary relation between art and science."

Gustaaf C. CORNELIS

C-THIS

"Note Of The Month "

Feb 1st 2004

" Blaming your faults on your nature does not change the nature of your faults."

Inadian proverb

C-THIS

"Note Of The Month "

Jan 1st 2004

" Very little is needed to make a happy life."

Marcus Aurelius Antoninus

C-THIS

"Note Of The Month "

December 1st 2003

"Even if you are on the right track, you will get run over if you just stand there. "

Will Rogers

C-THIS

"Note Of The Month "

October 1st 2003

"The apparent obviousness of a conviction is no guarantee of its truth "

Robert H Thouless

C-THIS

"Note Of The Month "

September 1st 2003

"We have a brain and a physical body because we require actualization/localization to experience life, but this is not saying that the mind is contained in the brain. "

Stephen P Smith

C-THIS

"Note Of The Month "

October 1st 2003

"I'd like to write, act, teach, lecture ó anything creative. I must also service my curiosity. I want to continue to wonder about things, because there is a young man inside me, and he is energetic and mentally active. .. I can examine so many things. I would like to do independent thinking about everything."

From Sidney Poitier [age 73; from O Mag. interview, Oct.00] his new book: The Measure of a Man : A Spiritual Autobiography

C-THIS

"Note Of The Month "

August 1st 2003

"Any drawing poses questions and problems that you have to solve. I wanted to understand anatomy, largely because I wanted to improve my capacity to represent what I was seeing. Drawing was a way of exploring. Scientists have lots of techniques. They make histograms, graphs and tables. These techniques are no different to drawing. Drawing is just as scientific. For example, in Leonardo da Vinci's drawings, you see his struggle to understand how water flows in eddies and how a human fetus sits within the pelvic girdle; how it displaces the guts and the liver and so on"

How his art helps his science, and how living in Africa has profoundly influenced his work. Jonathan Kingdon's authoritative Field Guide to African Mammals, which he illustrated himself, has become an essential tool for any naturalist in Africa. Kingdon is a biologist and an artist, a rare combination that he says gives him a special insight into the ecology of the animals he studies. Taken from The New Scientist July 2003

C-THIS

"Note Of The Month "

July 1st 2003

"If we live today in the midst of worlds full of wonder, it is because men of science have taken for their own different hings to study. ( Section 1, The Magic Carpet Of Science)"

From "The Wonder Book Of Science" (One of my 1st books and was printed in about the 1930's or less! I'll try to get some pictures of it on my site soon)

C-THIS

"Note Of The Month "

June 1st 2003

"The human mind prefers to be spoon-fed with the thoughts of others, but deprived of such nourishment it will, reluctantly, begin to think for itself - and such thinking, remember, is original thinking and may have valuable results. "

Agatha Christie

C-THIS

"Note Of The Month "

May 1st 2003

"...It goes without saying that Mainstream Physics and Mathematics do not go along with citing popular science books or even journals - Scientific American is even frowned upon in a number of large university social science departments, in fact (much to their loss for many past papers which could have advanced their sciences). From the Stapp et al discussions, it is fairly clear that they and the schools of vN/W/Copenhagen adopt a pragmatic picture in which physicists asks each other and themselves questions and give answers (e.g., yes/no answers) based on their experiences and impressions from consciousness through observers to rather inert objects. By using that process, they have fallen into a much worse problem than either the classical or the Quantum Zeno effects or paradoxes - the problem of SEQUENCE. In my opinion, one cannot analyze Consciousness for example by sequences. Sequences are countable. Continuous random variables and continuity in general are uncountable. Consciousness is closer to continuity than to countable discreteness. Looking for a countable sequence inside a countable set SOMETIMES gives clues, but it can just as well mire one in a Monkeys-Type-Shakespeare scenario. Since RET is FUNDAMENTALLY CONTINUOUS AND UNCOUNTABLE, why should it follow sequential methods. Perhaps some people are confused by what Quantum Logic has allegedly discovered (if anything). There is a world of difference between Quantum Logic (QL for short) and Fuzzy Multivalued Logics (FML) of Godel, Lukaciewicz, Goguen, Post, etc. Kurt Godel of FML has produced incomparablly outstanding results not only in FML but in logic period and mathematics period - arguably the best of the 20th Century. QL via Constantin Piron and Jauch of Switzerland and their modern Neo- QL people Bob Coecke and Sonja Smets of Belgium and elswhere (Piron has himself returned too) produced "chaos" in physics. QL of the Piron-Jauch school was discredited in the early 1970s and began an attempted comeback around the mid to late 1990s with Coecke and Smets and Piron. All the old school could find was islands of disconnected and unrelated propositions, such was their haste to imitate Heisenberg's HUP. In their attempted return or revision, they decided to allow "implication" in by the back door, which I'll have to eventually explain in more detail later. Suffice to say that Max Jammer (1974) understood what was happening very well, and so did Peter Mittelstaedt of the University of Cologne (Koln) in the early 1970s, whom Jammer cites and applauds contrary to Jauch and Piron. Mittelstaedt found "implication", with an appropriate modification, to be quite important in Quantum Logic. The last time that I looked a year or two ago (maybe three), he was still a member of a group that included Piron and Coecke and I think Smets, but Coecke and Smets do not cite Mittelstaedt in the papers that I have read (quite a few). Jauch and Piron and Mackey were into "yes-no" quantum experiments, and they attempted to make the world in the image of their theory, even though the world is not binary but (in RET) uncountable. I will conclude this posting by mentioning that von Neumann does not "save himself" by being interested in consciousness. A conscious Bayesian is not worth very much in a Rare Event framework. RET is as conscious as it gets. RET does not accept paradoxes. If it can't define what it is talking about, it doesn't proceed in that direction. I am aware of the alleged dangers of "circular reasoning" and "circular definitions", in which theory is supposed to always use some "undefined" terms or ultimately risk defining words in terms of themselves. A far greater danger is the lack of TRANSLATING between quantitative and verbal languages and within each of these realms, and likewise the use of theoretical words without EXPLANATORY DEFINITION and INTUITIVELY EXPLICIT STATEMENT. The supposed danger of defining some words or symbols in terms of themselves seldom happens (in the hands of competent scholars) with either classical or newer physics or mathematics except for a subset of words like THE, A, AN, WHAT, THIS, etc., which people hardly ever disagree about and can always find both an intuitive and a pictorial and even an explanatory referent for. Perhaps it would be a good idea for readers to look at my ideas about John von Neumann over the last few years. Remember that expansion-contraction of Rare Event Theory appears to be dimensionally different from tangential linear/curvilinear motion. Most of the general properties of S and T duality seem to be expansion-contraction type rather than linear/curvilinear, at least in the scenario that I have been describing. I sometimes think of the movie "A Beautiful Mind" about John Nash who won the Nobel Prize in Economics for what was really mostly mathematics. His specialty was game theory, and yet many physicists and engineers are reluctant to play games with any real competitors except themselves. We admire the movie. How many of us would admire the man? The closest that I have come to game theory was one of my uncles who occasionally played chess with me when I was a child. He played like a chessmaster, though I doubt that he had such a title. It really is quite something to play with a master. I never recovered from it. I have never been able since then to sit down at a chess board and stay there without looking over my shoulder to see where the chessmaster was. But Claire has given a suggestion about the mind being the greatest lab, and it is interesting to ask what else Physics + Logic would need to beat the Mainstream. Strangely enough, Claire had an idea of the truth, I think. She mentioned the Jones Polynomial. I threw in some stuff about alternating series, finite or infinite, and presto: I think that Physics and Logic have the glimmerings of Chessmate. Some of you remember me expounding about determinants and scalars including scalar fields some time ago. I would like to propose a Chess Battle (late in the game?) between Determinants and Matrices (both for themselves and in the latter case as tensor representations). Let's look at the forces we have arrayed against the "sides" outside this battle. We have Category Theory and Algebra trying to cross all fields including physics - perhaps we should call them the ALGEBRA + PHYSICS faction. On our side we have LOGIC (falsely claimed to be a branch of algebra even by many logicians!) and PROBABIITY-STATISTICS-ANALYSIS and PROXIMITY-GEOMETRY-TOPOLOGY + PHYSICS. So outside the matrix-determinant battle let's call it for short the ALGEBRA + PHYSICS versus the LOGIC-PROBABILITY-PROXIMITY + PHYSICS war, a rather peaceful war insofar as it sticks to pure science (which it doesn't always do). I have to leave now for a brief while (hopefully), but I think that we can make DETERMINANTS and their GENERALIZATIONS into a fascinating way to interact with and then beat MATRICES AND TENSORS AND THEIR RELATIVES. Then we will a two-pronged attack, I think, close to CHECKMATE. But of course, competition never dies; it just retires gracefully for a while. So "temporary checkmate" would really be a better expression. After my The Creation of Matter by Englobement IV posting, I began to think that maybe the Ashtekar-Smolin-Sir Roger Penrose faction is not quite the ideal faction. The internet lists two major profiles and curriculum vitae for Abhay Ashtekar, and what strikes me as ASTOUNDING is that he obtained with Sir Roger and Smolin as co-Principal Investigators (except for Pullin of Penn State one time) approximately $3,500,000 from the NSF for theoretical physics research into classical and quantum gravity - $1,450,966 for the period 1996-2000, $904.472 for 2000-2003, and $606,775 for 1986-1990, and $1,187,800 for 1991-1995. I haven't bothered listing smaller NSF grants or grants in Austrian currency or Indian currency that I can't translate offhand. Since I spent $0.00 of governmental money and approximately the same of personal funds researching similar fields and the indications of convergence of results appears to be unquestionable, I would definitely suggest that consideration be given to abolishing the NSF in order to save money. Where did the money go? Well, computers eat up money. I have spent $0.00 on computers, so possibly the Ashtekar-Smolin-Penrose faction should consider Probability + Logic + Physics as an alternative school. Then there are thousands of graduate students and first year post-Ph.D.s - perhaps Clinton's "high employment" figures included them in Pennsylvania. Sir Roger, like the Beatles before him, was knighted during that period. Smolin left Penn State for Canada, where in a recent interview on the internet he lambasted Bush for the Iraq War which, as I understand his argument, relates to Bush's "strict childhood" upbringing. I'm not sure whether Smolin's childhood included financial strictness, but really! There is a limit to cognitive dissonance! The Probability + Logic + Physics school does seem to suggest that the NSF should be abolished, saving much more than $3.5 million dollars. And that without having to press a single computer key. ... April 2003

Copyright of Osher Doctorow a 64 year old college math teacher/researcher in Southern California specializing in fuzzy multivalued logics, probability-statistics, mathematical modeling, mathematical physics. Member AMS, 350+. (I don't agree with everything Osher says here but isn't it interesting?)

C-THIS

"Note Of The Month "

April 1st 2003

"A closed mind gathers no wisdom."

Ok, lets get on with some proper bits....some thoughts that aren't finished yet

This needs sorting out quite alot so I might do this in a few days time, as the lines are not expressed correctly. How many degrees of freedom are there of knowing and Is Reality This? Rreality by third person that goes: I'll call the whole thing Is Reality This On the AI thinking assumption that the left (Is) is by inductive inference and on the assumption that the right (This) is by deductive inference and that on the left is by direct experience and on the right is just "knowing" we then have these bored little lines hanging about below, (third person is longitudal to <----->) ^ I ___________<---I--->'''''''''' I V let's give'em hell those horizontal lines! __________________ <---------------> ''''''''''''' Now the proper words I chose (i would'nt try saying these words after 10 lagers, unless it's a few cans of Pilsner): Cro-(pro)botistics or (Is) <-------(Reality)--------> (Re-pro)botistics or (This) (forget ho w I got the words for now) so what the hell is happening here? Cro-(pro)boticistic reality or (Is) is related to direct understanding by experience that could be related to, but NOT directly the same as, Mary supposing to experience reality, (er, research Mary here) so we have (Re-pro)boticistic reality or (This) where Mary is now supposing to know reality but I might reckon otherwise on both counts, but only on another assumption that I made IF by intersection of non-suprareality or (Reality) (the bit that goes <---------->, is a result of your direct understanding by cro-proboticism of itself, where it later ends up interpreting a part of an importnat bit of indirect understanding whereby IF, we choose direct understanding but by the route of 1) that being, how do we escape the determinism of intersection and 2) then of our onw direct understanding, we/I now might rightly assume that that we be better off in the persuit of both understanding our own reality (Is) by our own experience (Reality) but to then understand experience of anothers reality by indirect understanding (This),i,e animals (like I said before) so animal reality is debatable by whcih ever person you choose to decide to debate it with(i don't mean your next door neighbour I mean third second third person perspective etc..) and to take that and to choose whatever relative method of understnading is appropriate with it. Just to make the whole thing even more annoying I will say that this concept I made up above is neither correct nor true but could be related (not directly)to the quantumn world if we choose to understand anothers reality (biological for now) by indirect Re-proboticistic un-determinism crossing directly along Cro-probotistic determinism by our own intervention. This might also expand the wave collapse function problem because of all the degrees of freedom between each understanding of reality and each reference towards it. But there's one problem, we would have to make animals, even ducks talk. Is reality this quack?( November 23rd 2002)

Expotential Contracticism Theory of Rayistic Thinking

in time (expotential time) Ray will be wipping the time (expotenially) out of the universe so much, that he will rip the space-time fabric so much that we will end up only with space and no time, according to the "Expotential Contracticism Theory of Rayistic Thinking", the universe "got together and had a party" not because of matter and anti matter and branes but because Ray wasn't around to nick time. Gee it was lucky. Does Ray spell the end of the physics of the universe as we know it? Give him a big hug. (Nov 23rd 2002)

But before that...here's my small clue as to why the thinking behind art might have some valuable deep relationship to simplicity science

Sometimes realism art isn't enough to create general reality, because general reality isn't actually as real as we think, so realistic artwork is more realistic than what reality tends to portray due to the trick of human perception, science has the same problems. This sentence will lead to the next connection to my simplicity idea that was inspired by complexity theory.( 21st October)

Next idea

© Simplicity Theory will take us far more forward than our present forward, so much so, that the present forward will become backwards. Clue:Information. At the moment in science there is a theory called "complexity theory" and lots of terminology is used in conjuction whith it, like specified and irreducable (toward biological sciences). These concepts work well for that idea. My idea is called "simplicity" and soon when I get time, I will explain it here. This will also be a simple follow up from below (and now above). I will explain why complexity theory might not really be that complex after all and how spatial thinking that has relationships to art that might too tie in with simplicity idea aswell. (5th October 2002)

Harvard Smithsonian Centre For Astro Physics exhibit my pic...

Harvard is at current using my picture of "Earth with Sun" (started on the 19th September 2002, see c-this space page link for pic) in an exhibition in their section of "Welcome Home ". Erika Reinfeld told me through e mail that image is part of a display about our place in the Milky Way and part of an interactive control panel that allows visitors to highlight designated locations in and around our galaxy (near the start). Just thought I'd say and I'll try to get a page of it sometime soon to put here. (23rd September 2002)

Kurzweil AI explained (back

wards and forwards), yet again

The two words I use here are not to be confused with others. The word "design" I use is not the word used in complexity theory, it is used for a precurser to creative thinking in the subject of thinking for moving 4ward and the word "information" is not used in terms of complexity either, it is what is used for the formation of perception by thinking. The word "thinking" is not the general descriptive type for I use the word to explain the the subject of "thinking". In this case I am going to devise that "information" and "thinking" are different whether back wards or 4 wards. AI "progression" (thought still undefined as yet by myself) is generally 4wards by my idea because it is lineaer in time 4wards. This is what I think: Human thinking deductively logically (General AI creators might think like this) might not work as well when emulating advances that actaully are a possible 4ward in time event like AI. Because the approach to AI thinking is linear (even if the brain isn't, that's for another time) and progressively 4ward anyway, when emulating the intelligence thinking (backward then 4ward) as apposed to creative thinking (4ward then backward), the analysis of AI information is still by backward deduction to 4 ward progression, so AI information dealt with by AI thinking is still 4ward or at least in the same direction towards progression, which is ironically again 4ward. It might be better then to less obviously progress backwards 1st, in order to move 4wards in time 2nd (which would be induction the wrong way round but then it wouldn't be induction but it will have to still be by what I am about to explain here), or alternatively it is the usual but effective illogical but creative way 4wards 1st in order to go backwards 2nd even though in time it is 4ward information we are dealing with by backwards thinking and appears to be like deduction but it isn't. I reckon when understanding AI "thinking" towards its own In (In is Information) there is massive progression 4ward by deduction by deduction, by deduction etc…this by the thinkers doing the deduction for the AI deducting, again . I'll class any "information" that isn't in this sense of deduction as backwards so don't confuse this with "thinking" at this point, here goes:

Usual Intelligence thinking (re-production) toward backwards information, (In is Information):

a) Analysis thinking - progression by deduction (backwards to 4wards)

<--------

-------->

with (<---------------------In)

or

b) Design thinking - progression by induction (4wards) to (backwards)

------->

<-------

with (<--------------------- In)

my take on creative thinking (production) with information now 4wards or AI:

------->

<-------

with (---------------------> In)

even

------->

<-------

with (<--------------------- In) (looks like the 1st backwards but works forwards in a dfferent way)

Because AI "thinking" towards its own AI "In" is 4ward progression deductively where design or creative "thinking" is opposite to the direction of this, then it seems likely that it could turn out better to work 4wards 1st when emulating a 4wards In function then backwards later (this emulates deduction) or alternately you could say that in order to work with design "In" that is backwards BY its own design, you go the other way when approaching the thinking. In this case you gets loads of arrows that look like they have been on a night out.

It would be of interest to see how computers think anyway, if they did. The idea also of backward working thinking (the human head and does it behave like a pc if it had no body or vice versa (would the computer or an AI brain behave more like a human brain if it had an AI body?) was my initial idea. Generally speaking I think that General AI behaves similar to one cognitive function of the brain, that is to be very efficient at computation and calculation. However we have got along way to go because I don't think AI can really capture "thought" or "consciousness" because it is not really very well understood in our own brains/minds as yet, unless what we know is enough. I also think that emotion, which in terms of thinking is also under researched and plays a part to contribute to intelligence in the human condition and its mind, certainly in creative thinking. What the current AI is doing, in my mind is, is proving to be specialised in one way, but without the consideration of many external biological events involved that biology is about so this path might be just as fruitful (that the brain very much relies upon). Backwards to AI, are we going to end up at a dead end? The singularity. At least we are trying (well they are). Even if the influence of the thinking behind Moores Law on AI really hasn't got much to do with the way our own mind works (by the way the brain makes use of its systems energy) at least we will be able to get a computer to do its adding up of 2+2 before it has even had its algorithm programmed into it. In the end, computation will happen so fast that the AI Computation Man That lives at Moore's Law Lane by the Law Of Accelerating Returns Inn, Opposite The Arti(Super)ficial Intelligent Mathematical Pub, will just see his s answers coming backwards towards him before he's even proposed his own questions and all his programmers will be out of business before they realise why. I can imagine what will happen to black holes. (Re-done and spell checked) August 10th 2002)

That new idea of mine is still hanging about in my head so I'll put it here when I am ready. My new idea is about how going forwards in a different way with AI might actaully be better.

(August 10th 2002)

Kurzweil AI Revisited (Part 2. Backwards)

About Copyright of My Site

I would like to point out again, all art works, cartoons AND written ideas combined on this site are still my copyright. If art work is used, please can you ask for my permission 1st then refer to ownership in my name. A link to my site would also be good. Thanks. Claire (2002)

Warning: Memes Ahead!

If you look at how a memes behave then you can see how the mind can be a catalyst to possible alternatives via perception changes that create many alternative directions that would otherwise lie dormant, like variable silent mutants playing a role in the enviroment, where here the enviroment is a collection of people who decide what function an idea may have whithin it, or its adaptation to the values of that enviroment at that particualr time and of course as systems evolve so should the mind. The mind plays a very important role that we miss and one is the powerfull perceptual path that is chosen as being a massive change of value toward progression. Memes are progressive concepts but mind is the catalyst. (July 28th 2002)

Kurzweil AI Revisited.

How Much Does The Brain Need The Body? Alot I Would Say. Alternatively, grab a person. Pull their head off. Plug them in. You'll only need their head, yes really, (according to Kerzweilism). Apparently humans can behave like computers with no body. Now you have oyur own arti(super)ficial intelligent head. Parallel thinking backwards (July 28th 2002)

The Odd Occasion.

The physical disintermediate integrated proactive networks of brain neural transitions and reintermediation in recontextualizing such incentivized thought concepts, are the fundamental functionalities of collaborative envisioneerism in incorporated noetic existential infrastructures, whereby physiological infomediaries are needed to orchestrate then to implement neural instantiation, however the metrics and extensive expotentiality, when hysteron-proteronically approached, synthesizes quantum-schopenhaueristic meta-ubiquitous transporal quailiacic-states, whereby deliverability by the nonintrospectible is by mentationism but phenomenality is nonmiraculous and thus such epiphenomenality is rendered along with connectionism and computationalism but only whithin the constraints of externalistic phenomenology when extricating conduplicated contextual intension, circumlocutionated by the luminous indisputability of marginal plausibility of fundamental hysteresisism. Claire, I spell checked it but it might still not be correctly spelt (July 8th 2002)

Thesis. Anti-thesis. Synthesis. Hypothesis. Cat-a-thesis.

Effectiveness (creativity) and/or efficiency (intelligence) (oops missed the important part)

A little theory of intelligence of mine goess something like this: You have about two different types of thinking mode that dominate the definiton of being clever (that are probably could be based on two different types of brain structure and physiology). The two modes I made are as follows, a) intelligence b) creativity. One is often used and made out as if it is more important than the other, this one is "intelligence" where as the other "creativity" although just as important, is not. I think there could be primative reasons for mode a to be accepted more and conditonal ones too that could be based on the fact that, the human race has to somtimes think quickly on its feet to survive attack. I call the 1st one an "efficient" mode (this being classical intelligence) then I call the 2nd one an "effective" mode this I call creativity. Standard timed IQ tests are very good at including your "efficiency" (what) of thinking but not very good at including your "effectiveness" (how) at thinking. The x axis. If you where to explain efficiency (intelligence) using the X and Y axis idea, the object of being efficient would be defined by number 1 to number 10 across the x axis that is bridged by a smooth a line as possible along across , whereby the more efficient the thought, the better the straight line across is produced. The y axis. The Y axis now explaines the "effectiveness" of thought, the line would start from the top of the y to the right of the x axis (top vertical to right horizontal) or the greater the efficiency the less the effectiveness but before I explain my theory of effectivness by using the y axis, I want to tell you how effectiveness campares with efficiency (in my way I may be wrong, but what the hell) regarding brain areas used and modes of thought within them. Effectivness I think, is how we use modes that are produced in specific areas of the brain compared to using modes that are efficient. Efficient thinking modes (physiology and structure) are maybe concentrated in smaller areas. This is not the same as quantum coherence it is how the physical structure make thinking systems work, if they ever did. Efficiency is compacted thought that is structured to glu together tomake whole e,g linear sequencial or logical pathways or order to get from A to B smoothly and fast (this could be left brained oriented). I have often thought in my mind that if then in order to be efficient, we utilise less distance (in terms of system functions) throughuout the brain (in terms of area used) to produce efficient thinking as a result, and if efficient thinking is defined by the theretrieving of information quickly "because" of the short distances used insuch areas, there then could be a category for certain thoughts produced that are structured by a larger area than the "efficiency" area that are in opposition to efficiency, that may inturn, slow efficiency down but are to bring about a different powerfull tool, that being called "effectivness". I then devised the y axis from 1 to 10 to explain a definiton for the depth of "effectivness" and compared it to the width of "efficiency" and came up with something like efficiency is generally inversley proportional to effectivness so might there be a happy medium fro cleverness in the graph?. But before I go on about it again (huh! Huh!), I typed this last year in a forum at :http://forum.asiaco.com/cgi-bin/forum/forum.cgi?c=msg&fid=im-im&mid=128 "If I where to picture a graph that showed the two different types of cognition for these types of thinking, I would see more troughs and peaks on a line for the creative/holistic processes but a smoother line for the linear sequential/reductionist procceses. So although horizontally the linear thinker gets from A to B quicker (a bit like the speed and comprehension idea) because of a smoother sequence and less vertical terratory covered, there is less of an inclination to pick up any depth along the way. So therefore in my opinion, time is not that an important issue for good creative or general thinking and intelligence when combining depth and quality with flatter sequential quanitity." This is where my idea came from. So then I thought maybe it is possible that being efficient or having good IQ intelligence, is not that clever because creativity (that isn't included in IQ intelligence) uses many more modes of thought hence more system time, in uses of synergy of cognition, so even though creativite thinking takes longer to synthesise it could later turn thoughts into more important or effective uses and so on and so forth because of the synergetic system appraoch that occurs in thinking... So from this I think IQ tests are only a "part" of the cleverness story and it needs to be siad that creativity or "effectivness" is an important part of cleverness (my general term for intelligence) even if it requres you to "think" harder and slower in order to cover more modalities of thought, and besides if you do think creatively you HAVE to use more areas of the brain that include, visual spatial and even inuative modes etc... these modes of thought when used in conjuction with the areas used for "efficiency" make for a better mind over all. I hereby now define all this together as "cleverness". (2002 Re done 3Rd June Not spell checked yet, gulp.)

Edge Magazine at http://www.edge.org/(also repeated below) and my essay about it to be called:

The Irony Of Edge By CCS (To be put here soon May 5th 2002)

I have read this reasonably well justified Edge Magazine with interest for over a year now and I decided I couldn't keep my opinion a secret any longer just recently. Wwhat I thought about it? well soon I will reply with an opinion. I was going to put a link to Edge many times so that you can get the kind of idea of repetition that (some not all, some are genuine) of the guys use in Edge Magazine to justify what they think the third culture is (even though it might not be) and who they think they are (even though they might not be too). My text will be about the section on "The New Humanists" essay by John Brockman(4.24.o2) and its replies to it and by the contributors, that I find just as interesting (see heading near red word "new") and also about some earlier replies that where placed there this year to Brockmans other questions. (Claire May 5th 2002)

I have recently created a simple (in it's 1st stages) thinking tool called The 30.98 Dynamical Solution on Edward de Bono's site. A person called Jason, who I met in the disscusions forum there, has had a small part to play in it, regarding the numbers used and the word "Dynamic" (if your reading this Jason!). It is better to see how it was developed by reading the last 3 or 4 posts there up to the address given. I'd like to copyright this idea (unless its been done before). The address is at:http://www.edwarddebono.com/newedb1.nsf/News/FD7717BAB8755E1CC1256BA400598F20?OpenDocumentand I forgot again that my Word programme (for spelling) turned all my posh quotes into question marks when posting into this forum, sorry about that. (May 1st 2002)

So Far We Have...

X-Man

X-Box

K-Pak

i-one.at

t-ipconnect.de

x-echo.com

I'll let you know when there's more. (May 1st 2002)

The Power Of Contradiction and Why I contradict my own mind

If you have been a regular reeader of this part of the site you may have realised by now that I often contradict my own thinking and style. There are many reasons and one reason for this is, in order to satisfy more than one type of reader/mind, I have often included refernces to knowledge in a more classical sense, like "i have studied this at college...etc" this says that in order to be correct (in the achademia classical contex) I have to say how i might have gained "some" of my knowlegde, like " I went to college to study science and art at a simple level" (which I did and it's important to them but not allways to me) but within the overall context of the site I also report to say that thinking on it's own is just as important ( I often find it easier to study and think in my own way/dyslexia, streetwise context). Also when I say that thinking(cognitive style or thinking as a subject, leading to creativity, not general mind thinking) is an important as information analysis (subject intake and re-production, see De Bono) I don't mean that information is less nor not needed, but I have to emphasize what it is because is not given as much credit or emphasis in a classical sense, but it should in every sense. otherwise I wouldnt be here with this sate also regarding my book it looks like this part of it is probably going to be one of my hardest challenges! to convince and convey... Getting back to creativity again, an example would be, creativity thinking (not Creationist science, I do NOT in anway, support creationism but have the greatest respect for such topics) I mean innovation creativity that I will try to give value to and other things of course. I often say that I am taking on one subject now then may contradict that later by saying I am now "into" another. This is because the website, much like my thinking, is allways evolving and moving ans I might go back to the previous subject where and when it pleases me (timing as an important part of judgement, see de Bono). I tend to see in my own mind, where I need movement and where to keep stagnant, but it does seem like a contradictory path. I often like to move away from my own patterns of thought just because it is a challenge to create "antagonism" because this can be seen as a conflict method in creative thinking (Provocation thinking, De Bono) with many hidden meanings (Stephen P Smith, 2001) that may inturn be a valuble "contribution" (E.de Bono),(Uncle Dave) to thinking, the world and other subjects anyway. At 1st it can seem like creativity is all about conflict between two or more different subjects but this is not wrong because within time the conflict results in synergy, which again is like creativity. This is an important part of my thinking because I need to "push" for the difference as much as the similarity but also NOT be complacent with similarity nor the difference too. Also the art and science is another basis for conflict (as well as being imensly interested), but only when placed in a certain context and this I personally find a challenge. There are a few other reasons why I contradict my onw mind but for now they stay with me! The book I am writing is still in it's infancy and as yet I have not quite decided how to or what part of it to place here and it's structure (writing/ grammar text strcuture) is still being re-worked on, but somthing from it will be placed here very soon. In the meantime keep that mind open! Oh and, I have now decided that I "have" to make the odd reference :-) just to keep the peace! (9th April 2002)

Straight to The Lateral Into The Science.

Time To Get Real

Claire C Smith on Pro- Active Book Notes.

Although thinking and art still will play an important part of my next journey into science, the time has come again for me to read up on topics to the best of my ability and time available (for words) that I had mentioned many months back here because I have recently, from the beginning of this year, just thought straight out for myself and worked on that and did it work very well by the way. I have also decided to combine a particular study about "The Hard Question" or one of the hardest questions (consciousness) as a challenge that will relate with new input on a more subjective course, on my behalf too, that might help contribute to this issue. This subjective issue is at two levels though, one is at a thinking level that tackles mental functions and the other is at a more reductive level that involves physical structures and their interplay that have two specific directions or to put it bluntly to tackle and later produce general and particular ideas. At this stage I am willing to have a go by myself at this. The work I refer to will play an important part in mine mainly for the explanation of concepts (vocabulary) and re arrangement of ideas to my own too. Some sections of knowledge by these people I will mention and give due references to accordingly. Although I am not restricted to all knowledge available I will use what I can in order to make a point as clear as possible if I have to. Small sections of this I will be placed in this intro. But for now…. Also … A have obtained a digital camera that I will use to download large art works I did many years ago. This may take a few weeks to sort but stay tuned for it if you can. (March 26th 2002)

Do you want to know a secret?

Without making it all sound like " I" "I" "I" .....the secret is I havent actually got round to reading for words much yet since last year (see topics below) because this part of the site is more like a reminder of "i will do"and that I may not actually get round to it (like of recent), but "I will do". Maybe i should have put "I am interested in these subjects etc....". I find that books are heavy to handle (somtimes) where'as thoughts are quite light and books are space consuming but thoughts are not and thoughts are good when doing something like, washing dishes, but books and dishes don't mix.. I have been told that certain spontaneous thoughts of mine, of recent, that I planted in a forum that was created by a certain person called Damir (see links page), that by another certain very well read person called Dr. Stephen P Smith, are in some ways, inline with the uncertianty principle and Godels incomplete theorum, this is remarkable to them and something I wasn't aware of in a indirect way. Well there you go!!!!...That's what good thinking does to your brain, especially when you know the computational basics (Iv'e studied basic physics, biology at A level and a bit of philospohy years ago like Ihave said) and I know how perception works with patterns etc, having read small parts of De Bono's work.... Iam keeping a book next to my pc and other things to draw, write, describe ideas in, that are to make part of my book. But like I said, (cause I said it :-) I really do need to read abit more now the time has come again to do so, oh and, it looks better when you prattle off a list of references at the end of a piece of text...... not that it really matters to me, I, sorry did I mention me? Nahh , get away... (Mondegg 4th march 2002)

and why the add on bit?

The add on bit that I put here, just after the website was born, was supposed to be a mixture of a news thing and a diary (see FTL's), with silly added bits. It then became a refuge for my prelimnary thinking that got more serious over time, to the piont of "iam now going to write a book" and like I said many months ago, I would allow myself to think rather than read. I did. This HAS proved worthy of my ideas that I now seem to running parrallel with some of the most fundamental ones (see above paragraph again), the question now is, Is this good? it isn't. I am now in the process of making headway towards "divergence", but I think you may have got that message anyway. (Mondegg 3rd March 2002)

Wecome Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics !

Erika L. Reinfeld, Education Specialist from the Science Education Department of Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory has asked permission to use one of my pictures called "Earth with Sun" (see my c-this space section) from this website for a traveling cosmology exhibition, scheduled to open in Boston this coming September, of which I gladly said yes. I may put more information about this event here soon. (Saturatedeggday 23rd February 2002)

Opening statement

There is so much that we do not know, not because it isn't knowable, but because we haven't thought about how to think about knowing it yet.

This above statement is the opening of my book.(Sundip 17th feb 2002)

Straight to the Lateral¬ Into the Science...

Clear one mess up. Linear to me is horizonatal and lateral vertical downwards. Now turn the linear side longays with the rightside upward, this is the top (deductive), left is the bottom (inductive) and lateral now is horizontal thinking (sideways in). That's why it's so confusing. (below) march (2002)

I am still reading new Scientist. ¬ It looks like I havent done anything for this site just recently, but this is wrong¬ quite the opposite because I have, and very enrgossed in study for tools or "words" not ideas ( and work) that being string theory, M -theory, maths, brain physiology and concioussnes, branes, the 5th dimension, mind, meta physics and some newer "stuff" I have made myself.....still catching up and art is a definate inspirational and fundamental area for this by the way. Still haven't made my self clear about the Skeptical text I did a while ago (below) it is very blurred in its content (top down sideways in). I re typed it a but I will re do it untill it communicates it self better and with itself (it needs to commnicate with it self, it needs its own theory of mind too)¬ think "tools". The concept may be important but it needs to be understood better when read, it only skims over the top laterally, it needs the depth explained linearley (across, top down ¬ bottom up across top down type etc...very middle) so shall try to retype it again in the next few days. So, where do I start and what is finite all about??¬ I never start and finite could be laterally infinite, think of think¬ and the rest is mystery...

Feb 15th 2002

4 new links have been added to my links page (of which 4 links have been put to my site from theirs) see new links

one being being a site about space hobbies at hobbyspace.com and another being space at cygo.com then sci-fi.org.uk

and the very good Embry-Riddle's University of Arts and Sciences wereby a link to my site was added by a person called Paul Bellamy and

Visual Spatial Learner webpage. (2002 14th January)

There are some interesting developments going on in my forum. Please check it out to see if your interested. Parts of some of my ideas for my book will be placed into the forum aswell. (January 3rd)

The Other Day (The Scientific Way)

The other day I went down the high street to get my jacket sewn at Godels. Today i went back to pick it up. I said,

"How much will it cost?"

They said "Nothing. It'll never be complete" ...

....so i went along to buy a can of lager or two at the Heisenbergs Pub, got my change out to pay, when they said,

"Probably you can pay us, only if we have enough to sell that is"

I said "I am uncertain about what you mean"

So I left.

I went to visit a relative, but no matter how fast I tried to explain my recent upheavals to them, their bemusement remained constant. I went home.

When I got there, I decided to dance around in my livng room with my fairy lights around my neck, the only problem was, when I went along with them (the direction of the lights) I could never rest, nor could the lights, i got tired, so I went to sleep. (ccs december 30th 2001)

Beards, Long Hair and Bare Feet....or Novacom sci-fi/SF Convention 2001

Ok, I went. I think the convention for me was a look into the sci-fi/SF readers life and times, although I didn't get round to meeting many artists or scientists per se, which is different thing, I did meet a designer who asked me if I had some "bussiness" card for my website, of which I replied I hadn't but wrote the address on his note pad anyway, very interesting chap...also met the great but deeply quiet artist David A Hardy and had a chat with him, got him to sign his book I bought then we with some other wonderers and watched the CD rom art show. I walked along to the shop to look at the stuff on sale then looked at the gallery but whilst in my tracks to and fro the rooms I noticed a bare footed woman wonder the hotel.... and the odd beard or two pop up from many men with long hair, the big question now was, did I fit it and should I have worn a T shirt and jeans to match? Well, I am not a man, I do have long hair but wore white pants. I think next year I'll resort to clothes with a planet/star print or something...

(12th November 2001)

Sci-Fi /SF Convention sale

I will be selling some art work at the convention if your interested. Also next year I will be selling some space art pictures that are on this site at the current moment. If interested please e-mail me for details. I am also thinking about writing a book within the next few years, it isn't a biography but rather a mix of two or more subjects that I will be dealing with from a different angle. Small sections of the book will be put here on the site. (2nd November 2001)

SF/Sci-Fi Convention NOVACON This Year! (UK Birmingham , November2001)

I'll be there!!!! Probably on the Saturday and doing some space art too for the CD rom show again. The same pictures like last year will be on my site here (new and different pictures not last years pics). Time-out from this website will be time-in pretty soon as I have been busy...please keep c-ing this space...(2001 September 19th)

I have gathered a few more ideas for my site over these last few weeks and months but been busy because my new job had to come 1st for a while and given priority over many things including this site, but the good news is I will be resuming to normal input here as from today, so... C u here? *grin* (18th October 2001)

Condolences to America

Tuesday 11th September 2001

Claire

Skeptical skeptisicsm

"In a crude dichotomy, the difference between science and art is discovery versus creation."

But?...

Discovery is a result of creative endevour. Creating is the seed to discovery. Discovery is the top end of creativity. Any mind in "real" science will go through the same reasonable motions as an artist to achieve discovery, wether it's a painting or a new nanocryonic event. They stem from the same thinking, art and science are inextricably linked at some point, but considering this statement seems blured or out of touch to who ever is reading it, then it might be well to say that they have not yet fully understood the real process of the mind and how it works within science and how thinking can create it. It is the scientist who discovers, it is also the artist who discovers, and we also believe and have evidence of (in a subjective and objective way) that the human collective mind is an infallable mind (objectivity) . So far so good, that if we base so much of our understanding of reality on this objectivity concept (top down) before falsyfying any evidence of it subjectivity (bottom up, mines allways backwards by the way, deductive inductive etc...) and that this is the correct thinking way into informtion (side-ways in) we obviously must not forget also that the mind is the most misunderstood mechanism in science. The misunderstood objective method of defining the universe only by objectivity leaves us with plenty of gaps to assume that we have room for brigding such ideas like "The reason for this, is that science, with progress as one of its primary goals, seeks understanding through objective methods " with subjectivity and from this to say it is now NOT (always) true that the scientific method is the only important thing in science. Much like we need lungs to breath (the objective method) we also need the air to breath in (subjective method). The objective method of thinking is not allways the 1st step that leads to hypodeductive/methodology in science because the subjective deals with a non collective mind, whereby the non collective is similar to a non theory of mind in perception therefore difference of management of information about the universe is brought into play by abboration of thought from the collective objective or even counter sense/logic, which could unltimately lead to counter information! Here is the gap ... If science ought to get real, well before thinking, it should be capable of doing anything with the information about the universe that puports at this stage to make us understand it and that that particular information is supposed to be reasonable in the first place, well it may be sound or understandable now but if the truth where circular like how"un real" science likes it, then this sideways in truth would not be an arc even, to hell with falsification! This is because it does not conclude the gap that bridges how the mind deals with information about reality subjectively, or better still, how the scientist deals with observation on a personal thinking level etc... This IS a cross section of reality to say that from the very bottom end of science, we are NOT understanding scientific explanation on a big scale that would otherwise allow us to go deeper into the model we blindly use as method later, the mind, that is, if we ought to get science more real again. Science may then close this problem by logic but it also must also open up and be greater because, to me, this is what science is all about if it wants to falsify the mind, and understanding the mind be closed accordingly. It beats me if we think we can survive if we ignore such vital things as the mind and thinking because it is the mind 1stly that studies the universe, 2nd is the studied , but even at this mysterious level, they the objective and the subjective falsification, may have definate relationships, for this reason Ia m saying there is much to be studied from the bottom up (CREATIVEly) way about this gigantic hole. How much do we know about the mind <<before>> it deals with its counter cousin, the universe, and why are we making fast assumptions about life, the universe and everything in it when it is a less than understood tool in it self which is the tool we use to study the universe and that we still havent found many answers for yet, much like consciousness... what if art where nearer to the explaination of consciousness than science? Now that could be a pain in the ass. (24th August 2001)

The Story Of Cillycybercid, www.sillycybercid.com By Me (2001 August 21st)

www.once upon a time//long long ago.org//there was a prince called Cillycybercid who lived@acyberaddress.com (lived@acillycybercidaddress.com) He loved surfing so much//that he was told to get rid of his key *board*. But ignored this and he went out to surf//and ended up with a gob full of fish.net So he decided to chat@acybercafe.org and found that he *clicked* with all the cybergeeks that where there.com

www.he loved it so much//that he put his hand in his monitor to say hi 2 all his m8's only to discover that he///his hands and found that he could never surf the net again.net

If something is 1st then there must be a point of finiteness (at the start, the edge), but if there is no 1st there must be infinity. But infinity is something, so something (whatever that is, consciousness, matter) is 1st or have an edge. So I'll leave you with: Is this statement about anything? LOL! Claire (August 8th 2001)

A Few Ideas Summed Up (Very!)

We can't assume science knowledge comes from know were but it seems like many people behave as if it does. It actually comes from some point that stems from understanding of perception that is then used to make sense of our world around us.

Creativity is our way of using information/knowledge in science enabling us to see, understand and use new ideas. Perception is a result of what our mind does with that incoming information, so before anything at all, it is perception that needs the overhaul. Then the creativity takes place.

A bit about the role of perception. It is by the use of perception that we seek to reproduce an idea in science before the scientific method is used, 1st to our listener for them to understand the origin of the idea or theory, 2nd to re-establish the connection between what method of communication that was used before and what can be used later.

Thought is not the same as expression of thought and all though one may be good at only one, the other (being the expression) may contain as much about the perception, in order to arrive at the conclusive communicable state, by which the 1st thought was brought about. There is evidence of this, whereby the use of expression of perception may change the previously methodical approach that was once a solid method of Communication/application, i.e. physics, biology...etc, to another different level of thinking (perception awareness) that now enables us to express something from what was once an un-communicable perception, to a communicable one. How we understand our perceptions branches off into epistemology because this subject shows how the human mind derives such representation of the evidence of perception that is needed in order to use and be utilised in science and knowledge in general.

Before perception, much of the time it is the use of divergent thinking derived from a differing previous perception from the conclusive evidence from a body of knowledge that starts a creative or counter logic conceptual response to the problems/ideas at hand before starting hypothetical thinking later. This may be narrow because the opportunity to communicate new perception 1st, as apposed to perceiving old ones, is less than expected, probably because it is a hard to make any reasonable clarification of "thinking communication" with words, when the use of wording from defining perceptions before, are only definable/usable by the 1st set of evidences or truths in a body of knowledge we have already created. Each time a new perception is communicated; the shift takes us away from our old perception of our body of knowledge, to a new one, you can say this is a paradigm shift too. Only now, can we understand/define the previous wording to describe new perceptions that are now able to build our new ideas that where brought about by hypothetical thinking formed from what was our old perception from the body of knowledge we had before.

Creativity forwards. Creativity need not break all the rules, but what creativity does is re-establish the patterns of perception from the information that we already use. Creativity changes our perception on knowledge which enables us to see new patterns emerge from what was already there and that where not apparent or obvious from our old perceptions.

There are many things that can benefit from creativity, one is science.

If science needs to evolve, the perception of one (be it the "research" scientist) may need to change on order to seek new truths, so the knowledge that a scientist already knows is good up to a point. Knowledge is the information we use to make the creative steps, if we didn't have information there would be nothing to create, but without creativity there would be no new knowledge. We need a balance, but before this point, even existing knowledge or information on its own can remain un workable, until we bring in new ideas that, although may not seem to fit into our old perception about our information now, later work as a way of re-shuffling information as a start of making new knowledge.

It is, at this point also, that creativity changes our knowledge (nudges it a bit) but enough to start a fresh approach to thinking about new ideas and theories. This is where a new idea is given birth because our old perception has been thrown to one side in order to make headway for a new perception that makes us see new possibility. Another way to put it is, making a new hypothesis as a way out from our new information. Hypothesis is possibility, which is the step after changing our old perceptions to new ones.

Possibility is used in hypothetical thinking. This is what hypothesis is all about! It's more about "why not try this possible idea?" etc... This is rooted from the illogic! It's about changing our perspective on already existing self organising systems in order to see something new (never solve different problems in the same way), this is where we will deviate from the norm (the system used) in order to "create" a new pathway of understanding/reasoning, also as I have mentioned, open ended ideas come along with it which enables us to dig further if we choose. We need to know how to put possibility into perspective because this is where our information now changes.

Creativity backwards. At this point, the new perception may also make us aware of how many holes or unanswered questions there are in our old information or knowledge. This is like finding a new path or a question that establishes a new set of circumstances that make even more new openings possible in science. Science has to use this to generate possibility or hypothesis as I have just mentioned, so not only is creativity working forwards it's affecting the 1st too.

Now, when we look inside the box with our new pattern of knowledge, we have established a new set of patterns or systems that are workable and ready for the next step. This next step is the engine that makes creativity possible, the way forward again to bring in logic (which is not creativity) but in order to make sense of our new knowledge we need it to find its place and fit in like the application of maths into physics. This is where reasoning and methodical testing takes place.

Logic. Logic is good for tidying up all the edges in "self organising" systems (including other fields) so we use to organise our worldview almost automatically. This is used when we know that "logic" makes every step that precedes the last the best to take us to the next. (Remember just because we go one way a lot doesn't mean it's the right way, see next paragraph). The one type is mathematical reasoning, this takes us along tracks that we are secure about at the time.

There is a balance whereby thinking about all of these themes has to work as a whole. What is important is when to think about them, when to use creativity (possibility) and when to use logic (maths) etc…

It's just good to know where what science actually comes from and how we "create" it as apposed to repeat it. (SCF 2001 August 8th)

C-This Forum

Changes to the site will include, a forum (See above) a suprise that I am not going to say yet. I might add some more art that I did years ago, I'll be doing some more space art too, the cartoon section and a few other things but you'll have to wait and see because I have been busy but that doesn't stop me from making a dream reality. ( I suppose htis typing helps to remind me to add such stuff when I open the web program to up load, so if Iam going on and on a bit you know why......(2001 July 28th)

Changes to site

You think I've abandoned you, don't you :-) I haven't, infact the site will undergo a few changes in the next couple of weeks and there is a suprise in store too. I am allways talking about change so I better do as I say. I am still studying (left part-time college a while back) and thinking :-)... all takes time you know, all takes time....(2001 July 16th)

Creativity Is Politically Incorrect. What A Shame.

These last few months I have been reading a few articles and passages about creativity, from all different angles. Not in a sense of what creativity is, but how people handle it. It appears to me that in society it is misunderstood. Meaning, that the very people who would benefit from it most don't really get the very meaning of what it is nor its use and value. Politics makes most things impure so we never see what the raw appeal of anything is and this is one of them. Unfortunately politics is very powerful, more powerful than creativity, but that does not mean that politics is right. In fact it mostly is not right because anything un perturbed by creativity is stale and inefficient when the world about it is always changing, at least technologically anyway. I don't think there was ever a time when the world stood still and politics thought that life would succeed. Politics makes a good job of complicating matters because it looks like its doing a good job, whereas creativity makes things simpler and does do a good job. One way to get started by this is to implement the teaching of creative skills in schools, another is too say to parents that your child will perform better in life if he/she uses good creative ability to utilise his/her education. Creativity is about H O W you do, with what you have, NOT what you have. A child may have all the academia in the world, like the politics that have all the power, but without the ability to use all this efficiently, there is no step ahead in any direction of improvement whether its politics, education or the world.

I Am Not Happy

Actually I don't mean in that sense! I am happy in life :-) ... What I am not happy about is some physicists saying things like: "Can people think without language?" and " When such and such a very top physicists read Einteins Theory of Relativity paper they had no concept nor could understand the theory in terms of visual imagery or spatial pictures". This makes me very worried! lol! and I intend within the next few months to find the relationship between perception and how we create knowledge and whether we have the right kind of minds dealing with some of the weirdest questions and statements! Like, breaking one of Newtons laws where a magnet can accelerate without force, that is assuming we are talking about kinetic energy, and why can't there be a possible change in space-time when a centripetal force, when in a powerful enough spin, can create anti-gravitational repulsion and not attraction, or maybe, why do subatomic particles have to be only abstractly mathematically possibly anywhere, instead of actually concretely somewhere? I am also still wondering about truth and science! But I haven't got there yet. I find typing so difficult sometimes that I wonder why I actually even bother, but I do because I enjoy it for the thinking, meaniing and adveture, but for now in terms of ideas, I've got a way to go yet… the journey has just begun and so before I put anything else about it, here's a clue:

The Journey

" The journey is made, its joys remain, forever in our hearts"

On a journey we take an adventurous route if we want an interesting ride. Although we might know the destination, going on a ride for the actual journey would be pointless if we knew the destination, especially if it was just around the corner. Ok we might only want to find the destination in and some cases we know the journey and the result, but a journey without the result of the destination is just as important. When we take an IQ test, we have to arrive at one point in which we make a correct answer. That's ok but only up to a point whereby the tester may not find how you got to your answer (which can mean many ways by different people), so therefore much of your journey to your answer is lost. I think this part of any journey is lost, whether it is a bike ride, an IQ test or a walk around the corner to the sweet shop! This is how we start our journey, to think, shall we go on an adventure? So the adventure is sparked by questioning what is to find what could be. This IS the very heart of journey making whether or not the destination fits, we might end up on a car park (parking lot)! But at least we enjoyed our journey. When we seek truth we often think that the destination is more important than the journey but the journey is just as good if not better. It is here that I am starting my journey that may or may not lead me to the right destination or truth, but at least I have the adventure of thinking to enjoy, or maybe that's where the truth lies, within the journey. SPC (8th July 2001)

New Scientist . com

Please check out the very good new format for New Scientist Mag before you wonder what happened to the last one for about 2 weeks (like I did) (4th July 2001)

I will be carrying on with the perception stuff, the art space stuff, the cartoon stuff and making use of all this perception in science/phyiscs one day soon. Creating a better world view.... (15th June 2001)

Thinking Of Nothing

I've added new stuff to Thaleck's cartoon and couple of pics in Space... (C-This Cartoon)( 28th may 2001)

Thanks to Johnny B

Johnny B has redone my guestbook and very well indeed. (Please check it out) I haven't met Johnny B (ian's mate) yet but I can tell you one thing, he's very clever with computers, you see, Ian is clever, but when Johnny B came along, everything that had been set up by Ian, was even more cleverly set up by Johnny B (they should work for IBM or something :-). thanks...

Also folks, got some new space pictures to put on my site within the next few days and Thaleck ones too so keep C-ing This Space (May 22nd 2001)

Why Can't REAL People Ever Think Of More Than?

I've got a few aces up my sleeve but I won't be playing them just yet, but when I do they are for the real poeple who want to change thier lives for the better. I had to put this here because it's been whizzing around my head for more than a month now and over these last few weeks I have conducted an experiment and will be carrying it on (online/at home with family/friends and such the like) in order to understand why people can't think more than what they have and making them do so regardless! It's bugging me and bugging me so much that it almost makes me emotionally angry when people can't even perceive that there is more to their thinking than how they think already, and at this stage it doesn't matter what the subject is! But we need to interpret their perceptions to improve how others understand thinking. This need not be hard, but the start here is harder than trying to make powdered water, impossible! Not because it is but because others "think" it is. We need an interpretaion of out perceptions to convince them of our value creation. Another obvious thing too is that when I used words that seemed unfamiliar they became disinterested and changed subjects; I suppose to suggest their disapproval and un interest in such matters.

First of all I have discovered that if you approach someone and tell him or her that thinking outwards (what if thinking) is going to improve their life (it does) they make it out as an intellectual pursuit that they reckon they are not worthy of (they are). They also say that, because they think or their perception of it is not concrete or practical, (when it is) they do away with it. (Well' see that it won't happen again). I reckon that when someone takes on a task of influencing the minds of others for instance, like writing books about such matters, the only market readily interested are those already familiar with such matters, so only they will pick up on this topic, so narrows down the parameters of such a subject that it gets lost in its own world. What needs to be done is a clever bit of strategy with "normal people" or a "new way in" kind of method. This is what came to mind every time these topics stuck in my head! The Six Thinking Hats About The Six Thinking Hats!!! No seriously!

The Game BEFORE Value Thinking

Value is to give what was already, more. Giving worth and importance, to become better, greater appreciation and quality that hopefully multiplies so on and so forth.

Start At The End, But First, Lets Get To The End

OR

What if the colour you see as blue (perception) IS the same colour as I see as blue but we HAVE NOT both been calling it blue (interpretation) all our lives? (See my start of "The Truth" below on this page)

Before we need to do anything we need to think. Before we think about anything we need to know how to think about it (know our perceptions at least). Before we need to know how to think about it we need "perception interpretation" of that thinking so that others can understand (if we want them to, we do), so if my value creation is about an interpretation of thinking of perception it's a lesson in perception interpretation that we need before anything is given value, even thinking. This is abit of a task! Because we all have different perceptions that might be interpreted the same or the same perceptions that might be interpreted different. (You might want to read Edward de Bono if this last sentence doesn't make sense now (in my case), but I can guarantee one thing, who ever you are, it will do one day)

The Circle Gets Bigger

Even if we start at the beginning we need (value backwards) and start before the beginning almost to the point that we meet the end before the start has begun, but we can't meet the end if we haven't begun to get there, or can we??? If something ends then the ending sets a barrier or a stop, so does a start, but this start has no barriers and because of this we can start almost anywhere before, so we can achieve the value in the beginning (circle cracked open) which is carried right through and can be squared at the end. The value game starts here (before the start). The bit before the start is the hardest one of all so interpretation of the "hook" needs to be subtle, in fact so subtle that it can't be detected by the players. At this stage we need persuasion in interpretation, then the perceptions and models of the mind follow suit. This though is in our game, of another kind (I'll get back to interpretation) but lets start the BEFORE value game, the game before "value" thinking thats about persuasion in perception.

1stly we need a hook and a hook that will catch those very REAL people and that will entangle their interest and "value" creation ABOUT thinking. This is the hardest but most important part of creating value. It's about how do we target who, not only whom do we target and how and we dont want to jump too far ahead yet so we need to slow down. Can we get our people interested? Can we use hysteria as a hook in value? We know how powerfull many is too one but we need to spread the one to many in order to get our power. Interpretation makes all the difference (more on that later)

2nd we need to start simple because simple is easy and every one likes easy, VERY simple to the point that even children will be besotted. Children need to have an immediate attachment to value but we must get their interest in order to do so, so this needs another interpretation in persuasion.

4thly we need to keep them sweet at just the right times in case any fluctuations catch us out. We need to know those times when it gets sour in order to do so with rends and such like. This is a bit like the company market place changing and becoming disinterested once the initial novelty has worn off. This takes us to the next part.

5thly we need the mass, the power and the momentum to make the revolutionary vision or the "there's power in numbers" saying work. Once established we have a one start of many that will proceed. Here we have whipped up the cream now wee need to make the cake.

Which then takes us the last but not the very least (the very beginning) the 6th. To see how and what we have done or too show results. The results now, in our interpretation too, make sense to the real people who are starting the game again or new people beginning, so the results should be interpreted back to simple so they make the beginning work again. A beginning that sets of another cycle that is easily entered and cracked and in turn the circle gets bigger. This I see as a circle that once was impossible to start and break inot but now we are part of it, that kind of methodology is REAL and works for the people, the real people, so now and only now do we need to begin.

(When I get a few more ideas about "interpretation" and I'll be putting them here... along with the other artworks projects and typed ones like the truth, etc…:-) (SCF 11th May 2001)

Why Fashion Might Be More Important Than You Think. (Flower Power)

The other day I was in the back garden sweeping up when I noticed a hover fly swooning around our plastic flower with petals as rotor blades (windmill flower ornament about the size of a medium sun flower head). The windmill flower is bright yellow and quite eye catching so I presumed the fly had an obvious interest in the colour that dazzled in the bright sunlight. At first it looked like the fly was stopping, and at every opportunity to land on one of the plastic petals, it would, until a gust of wind blew the fly around the flower petals swiping it off into the air again. This fly was fascinated (as was I by the fly) and it must have been hovering for a good part of 20 minutes or so until I saw what happened next.

But 1st what came to mind was an immediate relationship to clothes (even personal belongings like a car) and how we sometimes wear bright colours to attract attention. This has been going on for millions of years with birds and animals. Magpies' have a soft spot for collecting shiny bright objects that they then store away in their nests (proving to a mate that they are attractive). Miner birds do the same with collections of natural materials then prance around them allowing the 1st part of the mating process to begin. I would say then that this collecting and showing off is important. The difference with our prowess and theirs is not much if you consider how we take a persons clothing identity for granted. Even plants have their own fashion parade with flowers that attract bees (and you know how important bees are)

The main thing here is that clothes can be an extension of our personality so therefore amplifies our view of the body language of the wearer. In terms of body language, we almost clock others subconsciously by these methods without knowing. It's interesting to see that when someone deliberately dresses "down" or as an outcast then others in society feels threatened. This I think has two opposite reasons. One, is because we see the "down" as lesser in status, like tramps dressing down, so therefore lower in order so we have HIGHER power and status, in the other sense we are now threatened by the "down" dress sense which could mean the outcast dresser is suggesting that we are not worthy or important, meaning that instead of seeing the "down" dresser as less because of clues in social class, we are now seeing them as "higher" status because the "downer" dresser is not making out that his or her clothing is an important issue, so therefore WE the onlooker are now less important and become threatened and become lower in status. (You should try this yourself in a formal situation and vice versa) That's body language for you! That's my theory anyway…

Anyhow, the hover fly wondered off then came back with a mate. Did this fly congregate around the flower so that it could be picked up for the date? Was this plastic flower the equivalent of nightclub? Or a dating meeting place? If it was it certainly didn't get stood up. (SCF May 10th 2001)

I C THE IMPERIAL CONFLICT PLAYERS ARE UP TO THIER TRICKS AGAIN!

Hello family IC players can you tell me before using my pictures so that I can put the appropriate signatures on them and create another file1st! Thanks (7th May 2001)

The Universal Sun Expedition (Re-wired by Me. C)

I might place this new section somewhere and call it "C-This Re-Wired Bit"

The Sun (Worshiper) The solar ultraviolent spectrum has been caged, pinned down and studied, first with sounding rockets that make no noise, in 1946 and later with the Or-a-biting So-(what)-lar Observe-lavatories (OSO or satellite dishes that need putting in the dishwasher). With radio telescopes, it was found that radio bursts into energy and dances around and that of many kinds are emitted by the Sun not the Daughter. Ground-biased telescopes discovered the floor with "44 supergranulation," the existence on the Sun of a b**** convection cells with typical sizes of 30,000 kilometers (19,000 miles). (10000000000,000000000,00000000,0000000,000000,00000 a google split kayton particle)

Sounding rocket instruments discovered that they are "solar ye-soft-git" (lower energy) X-rays that are produced primarily by active regions even in Area 51. OSO (Oh-So-Oh?) instruments revealed that bursts of hard (higher energy dance music) X-rays accompany solar flares and tank tops with hip-hop tunes very well.

Sounding rocket observations unexpectedly detected neutral hydrogen emissions from the solar corona, allowing astronomers to measure the temperature of the coronal hydrogen flares and T-shirts so they fit them properly and to infer the speed of the solar wind moving out through the corona. (Groovy-Baby) Ground-based telescopes (not floor mounted) show that the five-minute oscillations of the Sun, The Star and The Daily Mirror newspapers are composed of superimposed oscillation modes and tabloids. An OHh-SOo-GOoD instrument discovered gamma ray emission lines, indicating that nuclear reactions sometimes occur in solar flares that don't match well with blue cord cardigans and bright green mules. (20th March 2001)

The Honesty Policy (Re-wired by me.C)

The Honesty Policy. This course is designed as an overview to the field of buses and paper planes and politics. It examines the role that lemonade making machines play in politics aound the world. Two questions will continue to arise throughout the semester:

1) To what extent do bus drivers think, believe, and act differently from lemonade making corporations in politics and what are the reasons for the existing differences in bus routes and lemon juicers?

2) What is lemonodic politics? and to what extent are the activities of paper throwing in politics? We will begin by examining how politicians are socialized differently from lamposts and how that socialization affects bus routes when they swerve into/over political attitudes and participations of road curbs and pavements. Advocacy Paper (worth 300 points or 30% of your grade). This is a research paper no longer than 14 lightyears in length that advocates a specific government policy on an issue affecting students ability to have a laugh. Papers will be due on April 24th. At the end of the syllabus is a description of what is entailed in the advocacy paper. This must be used for a paper aeroplane.

Late assignments and final papers will be graded down one letter grade for each day they are late for the bus (e.g. from A to A ;-), and will not be accepted if they are more than a week late unless they are accompanied by a valid medical or university excuse because bus drivers have these. Please see the "departmentally inadequate policy" on academic "Is dis an honesty plant?" attached to this syllabus and the other bus you just missed paper. You should know that I take academic dishonesty very seriously most of the time but not all. All students caught committing acts of academic dishonesty will be referred to Judicial Affairs and will receive an F in the course for Flippin Fabulous.

The largest confusion about academic honesty occurs on the question of plastacine subjects (students made of plastacine.) Failure to provide adequate acknowledgment of the source of ideas which are not your own constitutes to plastacism. Plastacism occurs even when you "paraphrase ideas that are not your own" as long as you do not credit the original "mustard" source. Therefore, even when you paraphrase, you must provide adequate citrus lemon juice. """""quotation marks"""""" Even if you take as few as """3""" consecutive words from a "lemonade and mustard" source, you need to use "quotation marks" and provide a citrus lemon. If you paraphrase/plastacinenamise a work, be sure that it is completely different from the original in structure and form and language, and that you provide a citrus lemonade maker to the original mustard source, with a squeeze of lemon. If you are unsure when and how to use "quotation marks" or how to adequately cite materials for paper planes, use a lemonade bottle for writing English (I will be happy to recommend one :-), visit the Plastacine Center, or see me drive down the street. (March 10th 2001)

8/6 the De Bono Code. 3/1. The Debono Code revolution starts here 8/10? As far as current thinking is concerned 3/4. 1/10 for an idea that I will put on my site. 12/3 if you are unaware of the code.

http://www.debonocode.com/mall/debonocode/sitemap.htm

I will be returning to the "truth" soon (C below), just been very busy...

(14th March 2001)

The Bad Brain???? More like the bad article from Discover magazine!

I read LOADS of science magazines from the internet and in real life often, for general news (as well as studying science at different levels and in many areas, epecially physics by my own methods for my own reasons) and one I often read along with the others, which I will name further down this page is, Discover magazine. The article is called "The Bad Brain" that is placed in the Neuro Quest Column. Ok 1st of all I am not a neuro brain surgeon but that isn't the problem I sussed out when reading the article. It said that "most people are aware of the the two hemispheres of the brain that are different", fair enough, but states that "there's the popular (though largely meaningless) distinction between so called left brained (anal/analytical) and right brained (creative) individuals". This says to me, the right brain is different from the left but only when we talk about spatial reasoning and speech but not in the creative and the (what I would choose as wrong word) "analytical" powers? Also if the "ananlytical" has been given a bad wrap, like they say, why couldn't they tell us what that bad rap was and why? It might help us make the different distinguishing traits that these lobes make in reference to the face and it's ability to show emotions. I know that the pun is on "the expression of negative emotions such as anger, fear and disgust from the right brain" this being the articles note to Bad Brainedness! but is this the only way the face might cunjur up these emotions? Also my aunt once said that I was "analytical" in my apraoch to life! Does this suggest that "creativity" and "analytical" thinking are NOT a result of a different brain pysiology? Also on another note to Disvover magazine regarding that particular section "Neuro Quest" can they (maybe) expand on each subject more instead of leaving the reader to wonder, why? what? eh??...

The magazines I read are, New Scientist for its evolving news and humour, Scientific American for its depth of cover and proffesionalism, Science News for it's clarity in articles and well thought about ideas (I like the "maths treck" article too, Iv'e never come across an article willing to tackle maths with as many words as this one) <grin>, Discover for its variety and news, Nature for its attention to detail, UniSci for its emediate news articles and STN2 or Science Technology News Network, for its current updates. (11th march 2201)

Why I Believe In Edward de Bono

Ever wondered why you could never easily find those pair of well-made scissors that you lost around the house? Simple, you didn't think properly for a start.

There are a lot of people in the world who think about the same thing, over and over, not giving a thought as to whether what they are thinking about is right. They think that because other think about it, they should think it too. Not only that, they also think that the way they think is the only thing that can be thought about and therefore it is right and anything other type of thinking is obsolete. Edward de Bono thinks not, and by eck! do I agree with him.

Creativity in thinking is a misused, underrated, ignored, undervalued, seen as outrageous, laughed at, and strangely enough an oddly out of place idea. Well things are going to change, because according to creativity, that's the only way for things to improve. Art is not the only word that is used in relation to creativity, science could leap miles ahead if scientists were prepared to read this next bit of text Iam about to put here.

Edward de Bono emphasises that in business, ideas and problems should be looked at from as many different perspectives as possible. (The Six Hats Method) and that the people in those fields should also think about employing people who are good thinkers (Not allways formally educated), this although it may seem counterproductive, is another way of saying, employ those individuals who may be LESS inclined to do something a lot, over and over, (think about the same thing) because these very people (as it has been proven) are as Edward De Bono said are what if" thinkers rather than "what is" thinkers. The "what is" thinkers are people, who although might do well in the "Regurgitation of knowledge" from formal education from current education methods or "what is thinking", they more often than not, do not posses an ability to use good lateral thinking tools or "what if thinking" for creativity. We can now separate out the "what ifs" and "what is" thinkers quite well and get ahead in our business, and in our life, if only we 1stly understand it and then actually do it. People are afraid of "change" that creativity brings about from the standard "what is" route thinking to "what if" thinking, but if theses very people are afraid of change, why do they go on holiday? What could possibly be different from that and changing the layout of the director's office?

Dippy, Froggy, Boppy and Zippy

Dippy the director has an office (An office isn't a holiday) but it could be a change and a change for the better because in last Mondays meeting a new client called Froggy suggested to the Dippy that to increase his business relations the layout of his office should be re arranged better, otherwise it was subliminally projecting a dreary performance. The office should be decorated (painted trendy purple) and Dipppy the director's chair should be placed near a plant and at an offset angle. Froggy suggested this to Dippy because it increased "another creative director's" profits. This other creative director was called Zippy. Froggy said a guy called Boppy had negotiated with Zippy because Zippy wanted to buy half of Boppy's business and because Boppy liked the Yucca plant that was placed next to Zippy's chair, it went better than ever, and because the new angle of Zippy's chair hadn't lowered Boppy's status when they negotiated, Zippy won the deal.

Did creativity win? I think it did.

The scissors problem could be made simple. You could put them in a place where they are associated with cutting, and place a big tag (piece of card on some string) around the handle (like a hotel key) saying" put in cutting place" so you can't lose them. (Hang them up on a bare wall is my idea). The bulk will always remind you to never misplace them first and if that doesn't sink in you can read the tag.

His sites, http://www.edwdebono.com/index.html And http://www.edwarddebono.com/edb1.nsf I will put a link to them soon.

I posted a few words in one of the Edward de Bono's sites (spent about 2 hours typing it in Word) only to find that when it was up on the board all of the double quotes and quotes came out as question marks?! This was due to Microsoft Word in "a posh double quote is a question mark" rule! (Now turned off) and sorted. Very silly of me….

(2nd March 2001) (Spell checker friendly:-)

I Just Had An Idea...

4thinkingkids.com

? ...What do you think of that title for a site dedicated to educating young kids on how to think properly? Minimise or simplyfy the 6 Thinking Hats method to 4 and each one is a character that has a speperate task in the proccess of thinking about a problem. If we need to change the way the human races thinks we need to start with children.

...and talking of ideas..

...ZEON Crazy????!!!

Where is all this Zeon ness coming from?? Iv'e just recently looked at the Google search engine and typed Zeon Girl ( A spontanious character that I made up, like ALL of the others, on this site when the site was started in 1999). Is this just pure coincidence?? or has there been a following of my Zeon Girl Power? One title says Zeon Girl Of The 21st Century by an american TV company who used an actress to portray Zeon Girl in what looks like a spacey themed TV show, who was picked from the famous TV soap Days Of Our Lives! Huh! Remember my copyright folks...

I Know Nothing About American Law Or Religion, And That's The Truth, The Whole Truth And Nothing But The Truth, So Help Me God.

They asked "Is he up to it?" and I say maybe. They say "Bush is the antidote to Clinton-quiet, shy of the limelight". I say this guy is misinterpreted. They said "Is this our budget?". He said "It must be a budget, it's got lots of numbers in it". I thought for a while. They all thought for a while. So I then said "Has this guy got something in common whith me?" Why did I say that? I said it because later I actually read it. It said "Bush today is also a relatively quiet man. This has something to do with his famous difficulties with the English language, a form of mild dyslexia that should not be confused with stupidity. But it is also a matter of style." So I said...

...I'll not Dubya on that one.

(17th Feb 2001)

The Quest For Truth Part1. I will put here. (Next sections will now be added whenever, with link from here (otherwise this page, if it gets any bigger, will fall off your monitor)

What Is Truth? Using (What is colour)? For an example.

Here I dare to start my short (ish) quest for the truth however untamed and amateurish it seems. (Spell checker friendly!!) First of all I must convey that in my process of a mini research project, I have more or less chosen to read up on what was appropriate to my area of understanding, meaning simply, that I have read short extracts of material from sources I had easily available and with useful aspects without allowing myself to get "fuzzy headed" (overwhelmed/can't see the wood for the trees) kind of strategy, then from this method used my grand arena of lateral creative thinking to add or summarise the knowledge retained rather than repeat (what I have read) as a means to an end. Overall, I must admit to a large involvement in deep thinking that has been the main advantage (sitting in the living room closely resembling a catatonic state!!) that has more or less moulded my (sort of) conclusive quest. I hope the simplicity of the language or vocabulary used doesn't undermine the understanding I am trying to employ to get around the ideas. I hope you have got the patience to see through this if it occurs! Also this quest may take many forms and I might redo/revise some of the paragraphs/sentences many times over, I suppose you could liken my explanations of trying to explain what's going on in my head as "trying to catch a bubble," very difficult! Good luck…

Colour Me Crazy

I could start by typing about the first analogy-using colour that inspired me to seek the quest for the truth. At first I asked myself "What Is Truth"? It was a toss up between a kind of "science truth" and a more general truth that would probably have had many philosophers banging their heads against the wall to answer, if I had started talking to them in a room about it! The best I could ask myself was the 1stly "What Is Truth" and hope to grapple it from as many different perspectives as possible (this being a desperate attempt to understand higher knowledgeable areas within a Epistemological/Philosophical/Science status that was hard act to follow!) but didn't put me off from what I already knew and needed to expand upon, so general truth it was.

So then I came about with the question "If I where to find a specific colour in a colour spectrum, what criteria would I use to get my true colour?" (This could be seen as a very manipulative technique in persuasion at another level of understanding, using an analogy for arguments sake, but for this more general purpose I think it's best if I leave that particular argument alone!). I could go to the printers and ask for a colour chart with a theme of colours that have similarities to the one I asked for, for a start (in a case of choose one that's the best match!) For now let me say briefly, this would not lead me to my internal quest for the trueness of "my colour" this would only lead me to a trueness of another's perception of my true colour. So I asked again " Is this really good enough?" Not by a long shot! I needed to go to the printers and see the colours or (chart) judge for myself what would satisfy my intention as the best possible match for my living room wall. At this point the printer would again suggest a few similar colours that where of an even better match to my sample of crumbled plaster covered in old paint. However if I where to scan across the chart I would eventually realise that there would be something wrong. The colours would be too different. There would be a large discrepancy in hue and intensity from the warmer yellows to the cooler yellows. I would want something more in between, maybe a neutral intensity of the ones shown. I'd noticed that when I put the colour chart up to the light that there was a definite distinction from the left hand yellows (cooler) to the right hand yellows (warmer). In fact, I could almost say that one end of the chart was (right/orange) and the other was (left/green). The yellows would almost resemble those primer colours when placed next to each other! On their own it would have needed a trained eye to see whether the yellow was a warm or cool yellow, as there would be nothing to compare them to!

Now at this early point I am going to butt in here and type something that will not seem to make any sense at all in relation to what I have typed in the paragraph above, but hopefully will in time. I ask myself (again!), "If I where to get the whole spectrum of yellow colours from a newer better chart (hue ness/warm cool aspects) would I eventually find the EXACT colour that I wanted to match?" I THINK that I actually would, and in doing so I really all most definitely "truly" would not at the same time. In fact I will never get the "true" colour. This is not because I will never get it to match my colour, nor will my eyes alone not make the best match that I see possible, but because in my mind, I THINK that from the spectrum that I was shown, I have no more infinite possibilities of colour charts to consider (this is not forgetting that even exact replicas of colour charts differ very slightly if I were to compare them for accuracy), that will stop me from seeking the best possible replicas of the yellow that I want to match up with my piece of plaster (gunk-ed up with yellow paint!) Is this my answer to my colour spectrum yellow search? No. You now ask " So where is my yellow then, I thought you chose it?" Shall I start again? I could but I think am not going to, not in the way you think. Did you get the difference? The situation at the 1st stage of the problem was not because I didn't want to get a better yellow, but because at first I THOUGHT I didn't need to, like I thought didn't need to look any further a field for my "absolute truth quest" and more to the point like the scientist who thinks he doesn't either. I realised there was more to it than that and as a consequence decided not to stay put (hopefully now in the way that you think I am). Is this attitude going to get me very far in my quest for the truth, you know, keep giving up, at the drop of a hat (got the yellow) then going full steam ahead (but some things not right)? Nope, absolutely and almost definitely not you might say!!! You have to stop somewhere! So I've got you thinking at least about what it's like to be in "twigh-light truth land". Stopping and starting. You have to know when to stop and start and with which boundaries in which to do it. The tip of the iceberg is the truth. It's a very big iceberg. (Remember at this point the general shape of an iceberg)

First of all can you spot the two problems? Can you distinguish between them and separate them? The stop start was easy but the "where to" stop start was a bit harder, I think, don't you? Remember I said I was "Ok with the colour result" I As far as I was concerned I got a very similar match to my yellow and I was eventually happy. In the criteria of the spectrum it was the truest colour in my opinion. This all explains that within a body of fact(chart colours) that is produced to the best of our ability, any defined subjective fact within it (the nearest yellow in the chart) is right, ok or truth full shall we say, to the best possible match (yellow accepted). So we make a decision based on our assumption that our "finality" is our best outcome. By doing this we have closed one small gate on many of our "subjective evidence" material options. It's as if, if something fits into its surroundings, it MUST be right. There is no alternative but to see it in any other light. The yellow on my plaster is the yellow that I see in the chart, so the yellow was the best, it was the nearest and it's going to have to do, I declare this chart case now closed! But wait there's more…

Over to Blue

"What if you see the colour blue is different to what I see as the colour blue but we've been calling it blue all our lives?"

I need something to match my yellow walls. I think I'll get myself a blue chair. It's back to the printer shop. They did have some chairs for sale, didn't they? The guy who works in the printer shop thinks that the blue chairs are fading in the sunlight, so he moves them into the shade. I notice that they look more purple than usual so I ask if I can take a closer look. He thinks they look greener. In fact he thinks most things that are blue look greener! "What a nitwit! It's me that's wrong!" He says. "Your blue is not my blue, it never will be!" The guy is right not wrong, as in he's right that he's wrong! We can never see the same blue in the same way. His colour spectrum of blue is cooler (going towards green) in mine it's warmer (going towards red) so our blues are different. But this is really daft, how can the same blue be different?

The next day I go round to the shop again and he's telling me he's doing a survey on peoples perception of blue, using the blue from the chairs! This is very thrilling (I must say) So I ask, "What significance will this have on our blue perception in society? " So in response he goes on to tell me about how if he got a general idea about what a lot of people thought was that was the best blue (purple or green biased) then he would get a wider perspective of the whole idea of "blueness" as it where. I thought this was ace! And went along with his new project. The next day I went back and asked him whether any customers had participated in his survey, he said " Yes but there was one problem, they all had completely different ideas of the blue they saw in the chairs" he told me they saw "yellow blues"?? "Pink blues" (yuk!) in fact the whole spectrum was mentioned and he thought he had no definite answer of the blueness of his chairs so he went off sulk. (I'm Blue Daba Dee Daba Die)…

This was the end of our blue quest as far as he was concerned, but not to me. It was only the start.

Don't Judge A Book By Its Colour.

Imagine the court room (me and chair guy) and all the evidence or all the different blues (bluenesses) have been witnessed by our Jury (chair guys customers) and the time has come to make a decision about the final proceedings (the blueness). Most Judges weigh up both sides of the argument (or all sides, of all blues that are now stirred up in a pot) to come to a final decision so therefore they weigh up all the mostly used (bluenesses) in their final act of blueness. Then they decide on a final decision on the blue we want. We now stop at our blue. We have our blue. It's blue! Hey!!! Hang on a minute? This sounds familiar don't you think? We've stopped. Again. Haven't we gone full circle? Is the blueness in the outcome like the yellowness in the chart? If it is then circular reasoning isn't the word for it! Were trapped, the truth seems to running around on our circuit in front and we can't seem to catch up. ( Feb 6th 2001)

You still want the "Truth" ? Not there yet...

I will be puting it here in sections (probably)..(Feb 3rd 2001)

Still wondering...

Aim. I am still finding my aim. (the truth, my way of course...) So the the quest might take longer. How on earth Iam going to translate a few ideas that I can think about in a split second, then spend another 2 weeks finding the wider vocabulary to explain it, I have no idea... I'll get there (I think) You have to rememeber, I do things completely the wrong way round... (Jan 25th 2001)

2000 Acres Of Sky

This has got nothing to do with art or science (in a direct sense) but I must mention what a great mini series hat has just been on TV here in Britain, 2000 Acres Of Sky. Excellent writing and location (Sky). Why oh why don't they make more programmes like this??? I am not Scottish as such but the lasting effect of a simply depicted remote community is enough to inspire any artist, writer, actor, dreamer....

To know, Purdue Education, polymers of the (Reichhold) kind? and the truth.

It's happening again. The endless pursuit of the retreivel of knowledge, where by people think that, is to be the only way one can be defined as clever. Shall I explain? Ok. I was reading a bulletin board under the topic of Education a few hours ago. The tone of some of the comments were about students at a university in (I think America) called Perdue University. These comments were that, according to some narrow thinker, athletes that didn't have the ability to recall a fact or two were redeemed as usless and dumb! I will at this point defend Purdue in the case that not all "cleverness" is down to knowing facts parrot fashion. Cleverness also involves the pursuit of enquiry and, as I've explained before, a certain "add on" thinking/knowledge, which I will be typing about shortly within the next few days and placing here... Polymers. Does the MAN IN THE WHITE SUITE ring a bell? It's one of the great Ealing Studios classics, with super sound effects! Remember it? I was thinking about how good the film was the otherday. The guy with the long chain molecule idea? Infact so long it was, a suit long! But all was to end as the polymer broke down, it's a good job he didn't buy the other factories isn't it, well wouldn't it be good if we could produce ideas like that in real science? Why not? I'll be expalaining in the "add on" bit..... The truth hurts, or does it? can science REALLY explain truth? Can anyone? :-) I'll have a go... so C-This Add On Bit Soon..(7th January 2001)

P.S. Rabbits that glow? Never mind is it art, is it a rabbit? :-) N.S ...

I did type this wrong...

Regarding the content of this website I said that I was putting "15% into my ideas". What I meant was, I have put about 15% from most of my larger ideas, onto this site, of whcih I have yet to improve and maybe one day reveal! However, the percentage of effort in putting them on the site is more like 85%! Do you see the difference...? (Jan 2nd 2001)

HAPPY NEW YEAR! (and the students)

Got pcs fixed now. Also for all you students out there, I hope you do well in your studies at uni/college. Remember, you learn all the time from ordinary life, not just at tech. (I loved the experience at Uni but the course let me down) If your dyslexic you have a learning difference, not a learning difficulty. Go learn! Not telling why I mentioned this. :-) (Dec 25th 2000)

IMPORTANT!!!

As I didn't make it to Novacon, I tried to get a copy of a leaflet because they where handed out to all who went. They breifly explained the artists work that was later put on the projecter, but I had no success in getting any. Also sent an e-line to Wendy from FTL who went, Martin Tudor, and a few others but had no success as the panthlets where thrown out and it was too late. If you went to NOVACON this year and are reading this could you PLEASE ! help me by sending an attatchement through an E mail or something, like a photocopy or a print of the Novacon leaflet mentioning the artists work and text included??? I will be absolutely gratefull if you can, who ever you are.......I don't know about the fifty quid this time though :-) (15th december 2000)

Logic, Logic, yeah yeah yeah.....

I'll be explaining more logic stuff in relation to what I just recently read somewhere, need I say which magazine? (15th December)

C-My New domain name!

( Y THE DELAY? C-BELOW ) REMEMBER, PLEASE PUT MY NEW WEB NAME INPLACE OF THE OLD ONE AT>

http://www.cthisspace.com

I think you've noticed that :-) The new name was an Xmas present! No change yet on the fan front, but hang in there, just don't let your arms get too tired. (15th December 2000)

C-THIS MAJOR DELAY !

Hiya, long time no C?

There's been a massive delay for both C-THIS and FTL viewers. Here's why. Ian (my other half) decided to update his computer a few days ago, infact about over a week ago. This was ok until it affected my pc too. It meant that I had to update mine in the proccess so that they all became compatable, at least that was the plan. All was well when Ian got some of the pc's to work, then suddenly for some reason some decided not to network and fell out again (the computers, not us). However, when Ian had thought of a way to net work (remember Ian's done this about a million times) he forgot his admin password. The password changed and gave us both something to think about! So Ian had a brill idea, that was to set up the pc's and start afresh. This proved to work because he had ordered some parts via the post and the two ideas took shape. Everything was set, the days in which to put the pc's back to normal, the right parts where ordered including cooling fans. The parts came, the time came, but one of the fans didn't. It was the wrong type. Another major setback. But then suddenly as if from knowere Ian decided to re order the correct fan! Wahh! yep, then mum came round, and I said "Do yah want a cup of tea?" Then she said "Yes" Then I said "Ok" Then she said "There's a postal strike". Then there was a postal strike. Nothing could be done unless this fan was in one of our pcs cooling the system down. So thats where we are at! still waiting for part. I fortunately can upload this section only, until all is sorted on pc front. Just thought I'd tell you.

P.S. Don't give up yet, still TONS!!! more goodies to come...:-) (12th December 2000)

[-o-] ... Anakin beware...

A Site For Sore Eyes, Part 2

Where's part one? huh! Anyway, I am going to be using a new spell/grammar checker package for all my typings soon (you mean you'll have nothing to laugh at?) well, at least the silly errors will be less obvious, there's no excuse this time. Also, I've seen better looking sites but I think for now I am just bothered about the content, as long as it's reasonably layed out that's all right for me...But then again I might improve it abit. And to put another thing straight, sorry about the delays, I've had have a re-think about re-thinking, and its cost me time and maybe another up grade. This means I am/Ian's going to reboot or re do all computers (again) because he wants to uprgade his (again) so that means I've got to have his seconds and he gets the newest (again)....I just can't cope, I'm tellin yah, I just can't cope...(25th November 2000)

C-THIS SPACE and encounter dimensions beyond the universe (well nearly, I'll get there eventually)

I don't know whether anybody actually reads this section but if you do then I just want to put that Ididn't make it to Novacon because of a nasty flu bug. Also not been on the pc because it crashed twice and had to be redone, so it's been a while! Anyhow, so far, although I haven't seen Wendy yet since she has been back from trip, I've had good reviews according to Dave A Hardy resident artist, who has sent me a couple of E mails since to tell me that the show went down well and was a sucsess, (I have better plans next year when I will attend preferably without flu virus attatched) Iam NOT used to all this attention! it's very strange and spooky. Also, I've been advised, by the same Dave that I should split the sections up because they are too long and down load time is too much. I will be doing this reshuffling in the next couple of weeks, but I can assure you nothing will be lost on the site but moved around accordingly. I might call this section from the top of "Note of the Month" to the bottom of this page, C-THIS WAFFLE? I will only move a couple of the sections if I do. The space pictures, that I never talk about, will be of a higher resolution and a new input will be added, I'll leave that for a suprise. AS far as this section is concerned, I will still put my ditties here, even if it does take me all night to type! and will be a joy to keep on doing. And on another note, a while back a guy called Geoff Schofield had sent me a couple of E mails (see-view guest book), of which one included a refrence he used to spirituality and thought transference. In relation to art I might type something about these subjects at a later date. I've added abit on the "Tri-cycle Knowledge/Physics/Dyslexia" section aswell. (14th November 2000)

Where's the "C" in Novacon?

Just to say that my art might be on display at NOVACON in Birmingham this November 10th-12th, via projector!! wooo.. weee! this November but whether I can get there to talk about it iam not sure about at this moment in time. I've never been! but Wendy who hosts FTL does tech ops for it every year and loves it loads! Good for her...Sounds good fun actually so might have to think about that one. Apparently they have Cling -On lessons, something to do with Star Treck language? and walk around dressed up as Aliens that resemble, well, Aliens? and art work, all for there to C...(31st October 2000)

R2 D2 Star Wars Giga Pod-itis

Er right. Yeah. ok, fine. My R2 D2 Star Wars Giga Pod (Robot pet/clock keyring) of about 3 years nearly died the other day. Had not "tinkered", had not "oiled" had not "memoried", did not fill "power pack", had no "time displayed", was not "programmed", nor even "Artooing". Eww? Mmm. The solution was to check the real battery connections and clean the contacts, screw the cross head nails tighter, clean the case and screen and paint in bits of paint that had come off from wear and tear back onto Artoo's head. All this made the whole thing work! that's before, ahem, B4, sorting software. (will put pic of him here this week) Ok, talking of Star Wars can I breifly tell you what I thought about the Star Wars film , The Phantom Menace?

The bit about what I tell you when I think about the Star Wars film, The Phantom Menace

Ok, George. Don't get mad. First of all, how's the valley? The film was watched by me for the 1st time a few weeks ago. Did I say I was a Star Wars fan? Iam, it's just that Iam the fan of the 1st three films so much, and like any movie goer, thinks that one's original creations can never be repeated in the same way, even if you do have a bigger bugdet. Where's the hunger gone? There was no hunger in that film. I dont mean people starving, I mean the creative hunger that we see in deprived of everything good like money, direction, writing, except film genious, kind of hunger. Ok, this is how I watch films. Is 4 times ok ? Once for the story. Twice for the story. Three times for the story. Four times for the lighting, special effects, compositon, wardrobe,...I remembered some "things" that looked like Red hotpokers. There was a fly (that couldnt possibly fly with wings flappin at that rate) telling little lad (Anakin) to watch out for the shop. There was loads of battles, and zappy guns, and strange shields. I couldnt tell what anyone was saying, like Jar jar Binks, so when the sub titles came on it was easier to follow, but then it wasnt easier to follow because I had to read the subtitles. This made me miss the film visuals. Did Jar Jar Binks make more sense when he got his tongue zapped? Yes. Did I try to remember what was my favorite character but couldnt get the name even after 5 attempts? Yes. It was the Driodikers. Was I amused by the fact that the Queen of Naboo couldnt have spent abit more time applying lipstick to outer regions of her lips to complete " Iam an extremely happy and healthy looking and mature look"? Yes. Have I said enough because if a say some more I might sound like I am being extremely obnoxious about what was a reasonably enetertaining film? Yes. George, pass me the Yoda puppet....(31st October 2000)

Good hobby this...

I'm here again, typing my little ditties! However small this website was in the beggining and however big it is now, Iam still in a tiz about what's missing on it, because something is! I could talk about art and its history, or repeat some science/astrononmy, but seems pointless because I would only be repeating facts. I might just just carry on with what Iam dong untill another idea for a section is added. I'll tell you, Iam only putting about 15% into my pictures :-) (slaps own rist) and other sections, and have been told recently that I should guard against people nicking my ideas, and I have been reluctant to show them. You might think that reading some of the text sections that I am anti- scientist! I am not really, and Iapreciate all the work that they do, what I was stating was that not all science is formal but can be fun, by even braking a few rules now and then! As far as that is concerened I've still got along way to go (Iv'e only just got into the nitty gritty) The section about dyslexia/physics and science knowledge is very muddled up (maybe because Iam talking about more than one thing at the same time, like three?) and has no sense of getting anywere at the moment, but it will! Getting back to the potential of ideas pinching, has that put a stopper on it? subtle intergration...mmm... actually, no it hasn't, I've just had a another thought. Here we go again...(26th October 2000)

-ters? was that the end of the word? Check out Guest Book! (Geoff)

Computers 'R' hard for Us.

(Ideas abundant N.S. :-)

Most people have MORE than one car, we have one car, but when it comes to computers I'll have to let on, I (we) have complicated computer situation (need I say that the amount of pc's we have goes into the pleural?) Ian tells me I can't say how many we have, put it this way, if the other two pc's where as good as mine then I wouldnt have to ;-))). At home the pc files go into the hundreds, the names for them? they go into the thousands, the programming? that goes into my one ear and out the other. I only do a few things on mine, thanks muchly, Ian on the other hand lives on his. Apparently they all talk to one another (the computers/networking) but sometimes they argue (yes the same thing/lost connections). Now as it is, and as it was, and as it allways will be, when Iam in full "ideas mode" I am usually away from home, in the car driving, sat watching TV, or flying the jet, but really just anywere but near the PC. Then, as if suddenly from knowhere when I get infront of the the PC monitor to relay those ideas, my mind goes blank. (like it is now)...*¬"..%^ and all strange things start to occur. I have no sense of order, nor able to capture the passion I had about an hour back and be able to repeat it in text form or picture form, not just like that anywa. Us artists find the PC a hard act to follow. It's too technical and doesnt have any "depth" as it were. If you read a book you know that the last page is "behind" the first, in physical space, so this sound, but this doesn't happen with information on the monitor and I would think that information proccessing is different because of this. I have finally relised why I ( we?) have problems preserving information in a flat 2 dimensional world when it could be thought about alot more in a technalogically three dimensional state. With reference to a magazine of the "New" and "Scientist" kind (N.S.) a while back about the 3 D printing thing where they can relay 3 dimensional objects to be moulded eslewere back to 3D, it makes me wonder wether really, is it a good idea flattening everything out on the PC monitor, as we might aswell get the iron out and flatten all the Encyclopedia Brittanica into one sheet and spend our lives avoiding turning on to our sides incase some one can't see us. (23rd October 2000)

The science of fires, and a little bit of rice pudding mixed in.

Carbon combines with oxygen to produce carbon dioxide, which also produces heat and light< That was the science bit. Something so beautiful yet so destructive. Fire. I lit a candle the other night and was transfixed by the wonder of the light from the candle, or should I say the flame and it's characeristics. I held my hand over the top part of the flame (not above the flame I mean ajacent to it, don't try this at home) to study the burning wick section and found the whole idea very spiritual if not eerie. One reason for this, my mum had just recently had a house fire that had left the hole of the family in major shock for many weeks after, so much so that when a friend of my mums came round to visit her on the morning of the fire, she had to go home, sit down and have a Brandy to calm herself down. No one was hurt in the family but the psychological effect of a real house fire is very disturbing if not downright harrowing. The fire was started in my brothers bedroom (via ciggerette in bin) and the only item undamaged was a vynl record album by John Lennon (Lennon certainly does live on!) Anyway, fires are real and powerfull and we all have a natural instinct to run away from them when they occur, note the effect a fire has on animals in a forest fire even down to the smallest insects so much so that will instictly run for cover, and usually go underground. However is this the only science of fires? No! A programme about fires and firefighters many years ago briefly showed the effects of a fire in a makeshift building which would shock anyone who hadn't previously had a simple undertsanding of how fires actually work. First of all most people know that when there is a fire in a room where the door is closed, the last thing you should do is open the door to check the room as this fuels the fire (you can check if there is a fire by touching the door handle if it's warm or listeneing to the rumble, alternatively you should be out of the building altogether). You could call this a back draft, if you where to effectively open the door, but a backdraft is more to do with the mixture of fresh oxygen introduced to a flammable smoke (which is made up of complex chemicals and bits of carbon suspended in the air mixed with fumes) produced by the fire itself, this is when it becomes very lethal dangerous and can combust high up in the room where the smoke is more likely to be. Amongst all this you have the threat of spontanious combustion where for example, if you have a plastic ashtray placed not directly in the fire but near enough to be melted by the heat, it produces yet more flamable gases that can also burst into flames, as that is just one item amongst many in a house full of rooms. If you think about every possible comination of room layout and how many different fire changes that can occur as a result of that then it almost becomes an art in prevention techniques and if not a complete science. It is well advised to have a smoke alarm fitted and to be able to plan your route incase of a fire, children should learn the basics of a fire drill at school and at home, as we all know these simple rules can save your life. Also, the rice pudding bit > (I had to get this in) Ian made some home made rice pudding a few days ago. It was pretty bland stuff (sorry Ian, try again next time, this time with a little sugar to taste) The next day I had a rather bizzare dream about being in a catering block at a college being rescued by the Rice Pudding Brigade because all the kitchens and lecture rooms where gradully being filled up with Rice Pudding (it was seaping out of the windows into the street) and was a life and death situation to get out of the building fast before the pudding could suffocate the lot of us. (Sept 24th 2000)

THALECK CARTOON OPEN! GO TO "C-THIS CARTOON" SECTION !...

...EGGSTRA PICTURES ADDED TO "C-THIS EGGSTRA TERRESTRIAL" TOO.

(September 24th 2000)

C-this petrol pump, or just a case of bad timing?

I started the first rendered installment of Thalecks cartoon about a month or two ago and I will be putting the first bit in the site this week! however....... at the time I somehow managed to incorporate a petrol pump (don't ask) in the plot, so for politically correct reasons (thats is if you live in the UK like me, or even Europe) I decided a few days ago to wait untill the end of the petrol crisis to put the first few cartoons on my website because I thought it would be less sensitive. Ahem, you get what I mean. Did I have a premenition? Allways happens to me, huh! This is sure going to be fun...(18th sept 2000)

Try not read Yodesque. Do. Or do not even bother doing. There is no Cry-ogenics.

Trying hard enough you are not. When 5000 thousand years old you reach, not as good you will look. Dust not make one great. Crumbly you will be. You must have not the most senile mind, or so they say, wether they are doing what I think, or not, they do. That is. This is because. Scientists. Some. Making Cryogenics. The ones that are, then this not good! They must make do. Crumble or not. Or if do not make do, then crumble they will. They, or not, say will they? No. Say won't they? Yes. Whether they will or not, but If they do, or not, look as good, not that they will, then Cryogen themselves they could. Teach them will that. If they do themselves, a long wait we have. Cryogenics not make one great. So I think not I will. Excitement Hey! Adventure Hey! Scientists will crave not these things if they have not the most serious minds. Pause not make one great. Imagine 5000 years in the future I am. Will one know where they are? will they if. Packed with fish fingers am I. Where Iam? ask I. I crickey, am here would I say. Bath I need. (Sept. 2000. 4th.)

Gazzaniga's brains on the menu? (well half).

Left of the table: Proffessor Michael Gazzaniga ...............and(or) ...............Right of the table: Proffessor Susan Greenfield

Left AND right?.... (correct!)> 1 point for Greenfield.

Left and right brained. We have two. One for doing one thing. The other for doing the other (with fantastic connected bits in between). However, if you want your right brain removed, Gazzaniga will be very happy to do it for you, just don't expect to go out on a date with him and tell him about yourself afterwards, as he will only see half the story.

Gazzaniga "waiter!"

Waiter "Sir?"

"Can I order steak and kidney pie?"

"Yes Sir."

"Also"

"Yes Sir?

"I'd like only the left hand kidneys."

Error!!!!!

I must aplogise for the picture error in FTL magazine. I read the article about the neptunian comet too quickly and wrong! It doesn't have a tail like I put in the picture, but Ian left it in anyway.

Decisions! decisions! Thaleck's cartoon approaching soon...

I have recently been working on my Thaleck cartoon (please don't take any of the science too seriously it is only a bit of a laugh) as I don't see Daz often I decided to do it all myself, and have finally also decided that I am going to break all the laws of science completely. My recent research into more Biology, Physics, Chemistry, (now on very general terms here!!! most of it will just be made up from my presumtions rather than learning a few facts, (as it's more fun) and a bit of Psychology and a few other things have left me with one idea, to contradict all that I know or can expain about science, that is I've sometimes looked up theories, to make sure I break the rule accordingly (not allways). If you do look at the cartoon it really has no beginning, middle and end, a bit UNlike what the theory of the universe has been accused of having, hence the "big bang" beginning. The cartoon doesn't likewise "bang" out from "knowhere" (begin appropriatley), even if it did the "nowhere" bit would be just as "anywhere" as anything that existed "somewhere" This then could "bang" into "something" and would only exist because it had mass "banging" about, then "bang" into everything but itself, making a total and complete utter mess that would then make it self be suddenly "banged " back into a cube or a ball baring wondering why it ever started to "bang" in the first place. Does it go "to" anywhere? infact there is no "anywhere" perspective (forget The Twin Paradox) at all apart from Thaleck himself, he is "wherever" he wants to be, well that's what "he thinks" (forget Schrodinger's cat)... The cartoon will not be composed like the average cartoonist with the drawing of pre-pictures or sketches, it is done by my intuition only when I am actually rendering the actual characters, via my computer art package. It will have no "direction" or follow any particular rules (story rules) and if it "thinks" that it may stray off on to an unfamiliar " predicted trajectory" <(try sayng that after a few), then I will pull it back into a suitable position within the frame of the idea that I started out with. It might take on a life of its own, alternatively it might take on my life, and forget its own, at which this point I will take a break and leave it for a while, where I can recharge my thinking batteries, and then I can return with it "in its sporadic entirety" to start ready again and inject new ideas with a fresh burst. The reason why I call it sporadic is because creativity is not to be taken lightly and has no rules, boundries or set times. The cartoon is totally free and just roams to do what it wants when it wants. I can not produce ideas in my head if I am not using a certain frame of mind in which to explore them. These two things are rare but precious, a bit like finding gold in a river bed. Also I would advise using the music that is suggested to listen to, while reading the cartoon. It gives it an edge and makes it more interesting. I have tried to use familiar tunes so that they can be easily accessible. Ill try to use The Beatles themes if possible but I also chose a few from The Electric Light Orchestra or E.L.O. because they give a very cinematic feel to to pictures and the music is visuallly imaginative, and maybe other tunes will be suggested on occasions, so it might be good investing in a couple of albums of E.L.O for the future of this cartoon. On some occasions I may accompany a part of the story with a big picture, that is less cartoon rendered, but more realistic, there will be an option button placed accordingly to view these pictures, which maybe added to C-This Space a swell. I will place in a new section every few weeks (if I can muster up the courage) on my site, but I can't guarantee any regularity with this<<(now I am beginning to sound like a bowel doctor), as inspiration in art and science, is not uniform!!! here goes, and I hope you enjoy the journey...(July 19th 2000)

...and on the subject of thinking...

Cat thinks it's a rabbit. Hamster thinks it's a Budgie. Budgie thinks it's a deodorant bottle.

First case. I've had a pet cat for many years (part persian, I can not give out her name for her security reasons! >(^^)< she's a rabbit? or at least she thinks she is. One of the strange things about animals is that they can change according to thier enviroment, and blend in as camouflage so they are not seen. My cat changes "in order to be seen" This happened more often a few days ago when I picked up a stray rabbit (of which there are many animals in this predicament and should be taken to a secure home as quickly as possible) that I kept temporarily over night to take to the R.S.P.C.A the next day to get rehomed if it wasn't claimed by the previous owner. However, what struck me as odd was that when studying this rabbits body language (and cat was at it to) it occured to me that this was what my cat was acting out all along, since she was a kitten. Did she see a rabbit on the run while roaming the back ally when she was a young kitten? She once ate all the left overs on my plate, that is, left the meat but ate the vegetables including carrots. I asked myself, and why has she allways "bucked" her back legs when not being very pleased about being removed from her favorite spot in the living room when I am about to embark upon a few hous out of the house. I put her in the hall way when I leave the house, that way she can go cat flappin in and out at will, and have the warmth of the house, pemium snooze areas, and the stair case, where she runs up and down it "jumping with hind legs in perfect symmetry to each other" and from which she sits (or bucks), and probably thinks when seeing another cat pop in> "cat wot r you doing in my owners house Iam higher than you are, so don't treat it as Hotel De Cat and eat my food via the back kitchen, cause I can fight you, so look- meeeeoooww- out and anyway I might be a rabbit.).

Second case. I have a hamster (aswell as a cat) that used to live in my budgie cage. When I first got him (he's called Damascus Ganymede Hambugster) it was a last minute decision and at the time I didn't have a cage for him so I used my old Budgie cage. As time went on I bought a proper hamster cage which he resides in now, complete with two floors, an extra wheel and other luxuries. Now, when I clean him out I either put him in his hamster ball, or if he's abit tired I place him in his old haunt, the budgie cage. This is where things get interesting as you see him crawling up on the sides of the cage then hangs on to the perches swinging helplessly wondering, just at the right time "am I suppose to be here in this position?", then lands on soft bedding the right way up as if nothing had happened. I also have an outdoor ball for him that he goes around in, in the garden. Perhaps he saw a bird?

Third case. The old Budgie cage was home to my two great Budgies of which one was quite upsettingly amusing. it occured to me that like any healthy animal, it has to have a form of stimulation, or play to keep it psychologically happy. In this case it was not good enough to provide, the odd mirror, ball, and the little treats that one gives a budgie. Oh no this was no ordinary bird allright, so required no ordinary toys! I gave him a deodorant bottle top, from a roll-on, once aswell because I thought it looked colourfull and had a good shape to play around with. This was perhaps not so much a good idea when I went to say hello one time, when the Bugdie was waddling around the bottom of the cage happily chirping with this top on his head, and to make matters more interesting when it fell off, he picked it up and only to start all over again!! Ian and I found this very amusing but Iam "SURE" the budgie found it more so...

I would also like to say here that ALL animals should be treated with respect , no matter what type of animal or creature. Iam a vegetarian myself and have and will allways treat them with respect. Animals where around long before humans, and if it wasn't for them, we would not be here. (July 19th 2000)

"Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledum,

"if it was so, it might be;

and, if it were so, it would be;

but as it isn't, it ain't.

That's logic."

By Lewis Carroll

My study of Physics and (The Boomerang Effect)* (Jan 2000)...

...and August 2nd 2000, onwardley modified respectively.

All you dyslexics* out there, take heart!

I know this site is about art, space art and such but it's also about me who produces it, directs it and writes it, so Iam going to type this, in it. I am going to put it here for anyone out there like myself who can be helped by it then that's a bonus on my behalf (and theirs!) It's worth a read and has been slightly altered and will be more so over time.

Iam actually studying physics and science in general at a low level the moment because I didn't get the chance to at school, or should I say I did in the 1st 3 years at senior school but didn't take any exams or classes in science after this time. I must admit, I left school with just passing one subject in art. As it is, the school system was so bad, that I had no oppurtunity to take exams and because it was not known that I was also Dyslexic* at the time, it compounded the situation and it failed "me". However after leaving school I picked up a few subjects at tech, which at the time was not to go faward and study what I really wanted to, because I wasn't very sure of my potential, so I decided at school that art was the subject Iintendned to take. A few years later after after school, and a few dead-end jobs later, my inpsiration was getting harder to find, untill having found out about a year a go that I was dyslexic, I've been almost drawn to tapping into my inner most core (which is probably what I left behind when I was young ) to do what I always wanted i.e to study science and be inspired by it also for my art. So this site is a start, (of a part) of my new predicament, now!!! a hobby that I enjoy doing..

... most people would say that it is a bit of a toughy studying Physics, (it is VERY hard typing in this intro for me! it takes me absolutley ages!!!!) but Physics isn't really, but it is for me particularly, because of the amount of symbols, number memory and sequences* that you have to learn for the formulas involved. To put it simply, the wrote memory side if it is alot harder. This wasn't too bad when I passed Human Physiology (biology) at O/A level because it reqired less maths (at that level) and was more spatial/visual based. I haven't studied Chemistry properly but it's a good subject to skim over to yet find even more relationships that all these science subjects seem to have. In Physics, although I understand the ideas at the time, I forget the logical linear steps required to make them work and my mind cuts out because I have to work harder to decode to written material and my mind and I can't cope with the two at once. It's a bit like a boomerang thrower where the main idea is the man, and the boomerang is the thought taking time out to picture what is happening, only to come back again to bang the guy on the head because he is facing the other direction! or looking the other way, or even worse still he's moved so much so that he misses it completely on its way back! (WHAT A TWIT!) I'am glad we don't all think like that infact I am glad the people who invented computers didn't make them think like that! (If you don't know what dyslexia is I suggest you take 2 hours out of your life reading about dyslexia*, who knows you might know someone who is, or maybe you are yourself)

Dyslexia not a disease, to put it very simply, it's a different way of thinking, that's it!!! One good example of a dyslexic* stunt (mind you anyone could do this is putting oven gloves on to get the washing out of the washing machine, I know, I did it the other day). When I was a kid of about 7 or 8 I had alot of time by myself because my mum worked nights as a nurse in a psychiatric ward, and with parents split at about age 6 and a younger sister to look after!! (I brought her up) and elder brother in the background, it left me with only one option, to escape into my own little world!!! (artist trait). One was to draw things from my imagination, that is draw them! and people!! Infact my friend once thought that I would never put my pencil down (I used to doodle all over my papers in the lectures at Uni when I studied design, because I was bored and then wonder off into the library afterwards to read books. Science books).

Also science as I have just mentioned has been a secret hobby of mine. Playing with magnets and mirrors? and light (I think this was when most kids where reading fairy stories) these were things that allways fascinated me at about the age of 7. One of my past times used to be to waIk around the living room with a mirror placed upwards under my eyes so as to walk on the ceiling!! And magnets in my opinon where better then toys. At about this time I also picked up and started reading a Scientific American magazine, and what got me started interested were some articles (this copy was printed in about 1977 -78, I haven't got it now I lost it a few years later) that where about black holes and radiation, holograms, lasers, sleep pattterns and some wierd tropical disease where the picture that accompanied it used to scare me because it showed a guy with diseased eyes!! Although i didn't understand all the lingo I was totally curious and took most of it in. I also had a book called The Wonder Of Science that was printed in the 40s which made me look into science. I think this was about the same time I picked up The Scientific mag so I was hooked! But unfortunately as I got older I got more into art which decided my path to technical college, after I left school. (I didn't think I was good enough to study science and certainly didn't know I was dyslexic) It is only just recently I tapped into science again, having found I was dyslexic, which made me study Physics because this was my new inspiration for my art!!!

So, like they say, the butterfly effect did work in my case! I now feel like Iam a go between, in the middle of the two subjects!! and one feeds of the other... I now also read The New Scientist magazine and still have the same childlike enthusiasm! Anyway, I will some how wangle my way around the word/number problem (again) just to show that understanding and creativity in science, (yes!! creativity in science), like many other apects of intelligence or learning a subject, i.e being able to analyse and other numerous ways of knowing ,are just as important as remembering a collection facts for a certain time period, that are then to be recalled in that time (an exam). This exam idea can be a shallow indication of the complexity of some ones intelligence, especially I think of that persons know how in a subject (especially science).It's a shame many dyslexic people can not see that they are capable, given the chance, of learning and understanding.

In relation to the dyslexic mindset and the subject of knowing, I think that any knowIedege gained can sometimes be useless, unless it is used creatively. Most people only go through the "knowledge gained " period. One good example would be someone studying for a B A Honours, whereby, they are proving they have staying power within their field (and that's a good thing don't get me wrong!) but although for a long period of time they may go through a period of deeper understanding of that subject, it is of no use if this deeper knowlwedge is not being reshuffled into a more abstract frame of mind, and is only used as a pass to gain employment, unless or course you train to be a doctor whereby your knowledge will help others live better lives. If this is the case that we are to show our potential only through exam passes, it's (sometimes and more often than not) only proof that someone has repeated information given to them and doesnt justify how well they can also understand, analyse, summerise, create, solve puzzles, think wisely, use inution (that is not the supernatural kind, of which I greatly belive in, but your intuative thinking), and use common sense. One exapmle is if you have a child of about age 6 (the little proffessor stage) instead of giving him science facts from a text book, ask him to think ahead and devise ideas of his own and then get him to compare them to what is in the book. This way your child is learning from his own evaluations rahter than just copying and retaining text from a page and I bet he remembers it better( if he is dyslexic) and it's much more fun! Now getting bakc to education, Iam not saying that every case is like this, but when you see people who are no better off when they "have" a few more qualifications under their belt, it proves my point.

In terms of education and it's lack of awarness for such like minded poeple like myself I have often thought that when we are at school we are not asked or taught how we think or learn yet to me this is what we should grasp as soon as we study. We should know at least the basics of how are minds works, how we remember things. In some ways Iam sure we don't actually really know how we retain information and any investivation into this ( be it probabaly a difficult one in this day and age), would still not predetermine any vague answers about how all the human brain works, so thinking we know how to use the mind when don't know the answers is trouble, let alone how to use the mind when we eventually do.

Now my real problem is with numbers and calculations and Physics involves all these!:-( I was once asked by my uncle, at about a very young age of about age 8, what numbers where on his calculator. I got them wrong!) As an example of a subject that can be looked at, in my opinion, from two distictive vantage pionts, I'll use physics. But first of all let me just quickly tell you about the Maths homework that was a constant crying and frustrating time, I got by miserably!! I use my so called "B route" in maths, which is not allways very logic. You do need logic to study science, most of it requires it in the first instance, science is almost maths up to a point, but not all (thank god)< and that's a bit complicated to explain untill a later time, but without the logic the "B route" is interesting non the less but makes you work ten times harder. I understand the concepts well but have the problem of writing them down coherently in exams! There are ways of remembering mathamatical problems, but not very many as I relised when I went to college recently to study Physics hoping that I might be taught some of them to help me study, otherwise it would be a case of, "I'll do this on my own in my own time" . The area of Dycalculus is very complex and needs more research and when the problem of memory and its interctions in this subect are sorted, it will be a great help to such poeple who want to over come what seems like a confidence bashing element in the life of a dyslexic learning science.

Dyscalulia or maths dyslexia is my achilles heel and because of this it was one of the reasons I left Uni in the first year. Also due to dyslexia*, I am not so good at counting money very well. When I was a kid I coudn't tell the time to save my life!! Any simple maths is just a joke to me so the learning of Physics is a real pain apart from the brilliance of the concepts when they do sink in! However being dyslexic I think there is an upside, and that is, I can figure the concepts out pretty well and see more on a lateral plane. If you can picture a piece of paper that is horizontally placed in front of you, then this in my opinon is linear thinking, then picture a pencil placed vertically to it, or make a hole in the paper with the pencil, and leave it stuck in! this is lateral thinking. Although horizontal thinking is smoother and connects ideas, it does so very cleverly, lateral thinking is deeper and does not connect so well in itself, i.e pencils sticking out here and there, but takes on a different shift and is related to linear thinking, likewise when the pencil is supported by the paper via the holes they make in it. Linear thinking involves the use of words, numbers, symbols or the rearangement of them so that the " lateral ideas" they carry are connected in some way. Ian my other half as an example is a linear thinker, who once went to uni himself to study calculus and electronics. These days he looks at me bizarrely when we talk about "science" and says (like all the others)"oh no your looking far too deeply " and thinks he's not going to get another 20 000 questions from me, prrrhh such luck.. :-)!!

Again using physics as an example of duality thinking, I might be wrong here, but one thing I have found rather strange is that, when learning at a very basic fundamental level, especially in physics, you are left to believe that this is the final answer, unless you seek further into the subject. I think it's good to be intuitvely focused in the making up of theories and understsanding ideas. Try to think about them on your own and not be influenced at an early stage about what is fact, or even more daring still, don't make your original ideas impure by some other fact saying it's right because its printed in a textbook, is a possible way of seeing the subject in a different light again. Science explains alot, but not everything, it's the "not everything bit" that is interesting and open ended (add on bit) to me, and along with this, science should be looked at in more than one way. Maybe I'll have ago here!

Getting back to the example of the dyslexic mindset about the study of science, I think there are about 4 stages of Physics understanding. 1, To understand ideas and theories. 2, To unlearn those theories because of the many exceptions to their rules (it has been suggested that I do not use the "term execption to the rules" but rather "theories only work in certain perameters (General Relativity and Special Relativity maybe?)" and unlearn!<? but I can't think of any other terminology at this point, maybe I will later... 3, To learn some more rules along with many more theories, that are not directly related to the end product, that is, they are a derivative of the previous theory from (rule 1) but arrive in a different and probably more complicated way! but arrive at the same stage to (rule 4), of which 4 is, (this is getting very silly!) to understand or produce more ideas beyond known theory. This is the creative bit, or the add on bit. (the add on bit I'll explain later in another section).

I think to understand alot of the theories does require you to "obvserve" and use mathematical concepts, (I say observe because some, like me, can never learn those concepts easily, but just aswell end up getting a general idea, or enough just to get through) but alsoI think this is not always important, and I'll tell you why. Most of my life I have often thought of reality in more absract/sureal ways. Maybe firstly because I am a 3 dimensional visual thinker and that, that made a better impression on my mind about how things work without having to read them from a book. In other words I have come to the same general conclusion (usually over washing up pots and pans, < I think this is a very constructive way of going over ideas in your head!!) about ideas that I later found in a text book!!! Now, this is what I call a good bit of lateral thinking and moulding. (I'll put an examople here soon) So if I am able to get to the same answer (although I might not be able at that time to express that idea at the time in words, symbols, numbers etc..) I am also finding a suitable route in which to answer it. You can be good at Physics if you think mentally and visually in a 3 dimensional plane, even better in a fourth, after all, matter and space IS in three dimensions, so is energy. As an example, to think of multiple time flow rates simultaneously, is to have GOOD ability to think in terms of Physics, and is almost primitve and directly related to all Physical laws. Also a consideration is the abaility to think in more than 4 dimensions, maybe 16 or more! is good. The creativity in my opinion are how all the ground breaking ideas are thought of, especially in Physics, because you need an inventive mind model in which to work on, and what better than the model in the mind (male models for me :-))). As far as the the rigidity of the maths is concerned, I don't think it should be fought against if all it's going to do is make understanding harder, it helps with its clever syntax of manipulation, (like money) but its not as valuable as the 3 dimensional free thinking mind (like fresh air)<< er, I have got a brain in there..lol !(August 2nd 2000)

Inside out, upside down and back to front.

Its not allways what you know but more often than nothow you know it!!! it is to know, how to do alot with not alot, not, how to do a little with alot. In terms of how people perceive, try asking a friend how they think of the days of the week. I think of the days of the week backwards from right>(red) to left>(yellow) and not in a straight line, they are in a spiral going down through space. Monday isnt a word, its a red coloured box, that is split into three seperate boxes, morning, afternoon and night boxes. Everyday has a different colour and texture as have all my "words/letters symbols and numbers" since I was young. Ok your asking what am I getting at here, Well, in relation to what we all know and how much of it is aquired and used, do we see anything different if we change our perspective, or way of thinking about the same subject matterif we were to place an unusual stand piont on the same subject matter ? Can we change our point of view about a subject and see something that wasn't there before. and can we have the scientist who thinks in scientist mode and can we have the artist who thinks in artist mode, swap around each from each discipline so that all that was aquired before in one mode could be structured and aquired yet again into anotherin order to answer a problem? With a child learning to read for the fist time or learn a new skill is contioned. Can we condition the artist to think scientifically and the scientist to think artistically? If so the use of all areas of the brain is paramount! I can not say here how much of only one specific brain area is used in ones life time, but to refresh another side of the think tank would in my opinion make the subconcious connections between the two more pliable, but for now... (this paragraph added Sept 1st 2000)

I have two cat's, Rosy, Molly and Leo. That's four isn't it?

That saying isn't mine, but it's almost me! It's actually Geof Schofield having a joke! If you read just above I typed bit about the scientist and artists modes of thought, well, it has often been suggested that in science, especially in Physics, you have to interpret a lot or most of the ideas only mathematically for them to make sense, but in my mind, something doesn't always ring true here. Does a scientific logic, like a formula, make the problem less understandable and/or therefore harder to produce newer ideas from, to the non-mathematically minded? Here's a very basic example of understanding. If you work out the potential energy for instance, of a ball, you might already have in mind how many elements are involved, in making that assumption, the combination of these elements produces a singular outcome, but in what way! In my mind, it's a bit like biology, in a sense that an immediate vision of the experiment involves form then function (where function is Physiology not Biology) where there are three elements, the ball has, 1) mass, 2) height, and 3) the ball is affected by gravity. Combine these three and the logic goes, mass x height x gravity=the potential energy of the ball. (You can replace these with the appropriate symbols) The function is the formula but the elements are the form. Artists use form, sculptors always use form to produce great works of art, hence new ideas, and like the human body they create with three-dimensional shapes where the form can be changed to produce a different function. If the sculptor where to take a piece of clay and roll it into a ball shape (form), the ball would have the same mass if it where reshaped into a cube, but it would react a differently if it was dropped to the floor (function) by air resistance and by the areas affected differently by pressure. Can an artist interpret in a conceptual sense, a mathematically scientific idea? And if so, with the benefit of seeing in front of them (if they were a sculptor) an observable idea, can they also understand a scientific problem and maybe reproduce it in an abstract form? Maybe not, but it's worth a try... (November 14th 2000)

I Swear C-THIS

Is Zeon Girl swearing or not? Please place your votes here...

(19th April 2000) Look in C-THIS SPACE 15th picture down from the top. Look at the hand and it looks like she could be swearing (two finger job), what do you think? Email me if you agree...

E- Mail votes will be placed below

Swearing..........2 so far.

Not swearing.........0 so far.

C-THIS

computer vs mobile

or

learn the hard way

This site has changed its address as you might have noticed, and I don't like complex computer problems, as you also might have noticed too in the intro, especially when they involve something like 6 or 7 addresses that come from or go to something like 6 or 7 places at once. Now, all this is a very well if you are a brill brained Yettie, but if not, the results of changing website addresses and links to and from particulaly disturbing cyberlinks of cyborville is not good for ones reality. Now if you ask me, taking in a complex problem from 1 computer is hard enough and that's cyber-trouble but it's not just computers I am talking about here, it's mobile phones.

I am not very good at telling stories, but I'll do my best. I've just recently visited my mum this week (my brother lives at home still (that's no suprise) with my sister and mum) and quite amusingly came accross what seemed like a sketch from a Monty Python series right in our own living room. You see my mums not very good with complex gadgets (any similarities here?) and has just embarked on a life threatening decision as to wether she should own a mobile phone or not. Now, if you can imagine the Maureen Lipman character from the British Telecom ads (that's saved another million pound in advertising) from a few years ago, then you can very much suss out what she is like when engaging in serious chat about the whether Dizzy Di fell into last nights, night club stereo system (Diane, her friend). As you might know if you have a phone yourself, and you make a call (e-mail me if you don't, I'd be glad to know what century you still think your living in) this involves 1) Being able to pick up the phone 2) To dial a number, then 3) To talk non stop about the price of butter. As it is this sequence of events didn't seem to correspond to the mobile version in her view, it just couldn't be possible. Enter scene:-

Scene:-Mum and me sat in the living room with a mobile.

Mum says things like " What? do use it like a telly remote?" and "Will it not give me head ache in my mouth?" and "Why is it a pin number? can I get my money out of it?"

Ok so we've got this mobile phone for mum, that was once my sisters (my sister has just bought a new mobile by Voda Phone (another million) you see, you know, the one where Hamish (Ducan, in Monarch of the Glen) says, "you took the words straight out of my mouth...." What are you like Hamish? (god bless him, I know the feeling)<< what was that all about? anyway, so now, one of mums siblings is about to enter scene.

(1) mobile

Scene:- Brother enters, sits, talks on mobile.

" Oh my mobile's up stairs!!!!" says brother.

" So what on earth is that one you are fiddling with there then?" says me.

" Oh this is an new one I got yesterday. I might sell my old one." says brother.

(2) mobiles

Scene:- Sister enters room pacing axiously up and down.

"Who is this???" sister says on her new mobile.

"It's me" brother says on his new moblie, slouching on the couch laughing.

(3) mobiles

Scene:- Mum and me sitting side by side near the house phone still.

Now, while all this is happening, I am teaching mum the fundemental rules of owning a mobile, comparing my mobile... (Pay and Go) as an example and placing it next to the one that she is about to own, in my other hand. She still doesn't get it.

(4) mobiles

So I grab the normal phone (you know, the one that has a string on it that you can't go out with, except this is a "mobile that's just around the house mobile") and try again, "you press this for this......"

(5) mobiles

Scene:-Brother vanishes for a minute... comes back in the room holding his other mobile in his other hand.

Says " Mum, do you know anyone interested in bying a second hand mobile phone?.....you will have to tell them how to work it you know..."

(6) mobiles.

My dad taught me to drive in a very nice Citreon (upturned pram). But when I had real lessons, it was in a Nova. Even to this day, I can't understand why my instructor thought it was odd my reaching out with my left hand into the dash board, I mean I allways thought then that, that was where the gears came out of??....didn't you? This took me about 3 hours to type.(17th April 2000)

SERIOUS WARNING. In relation to the above (mobiles), they don't make you look important, you're not wanted while driving, and they could be a health hazzard. Think twice before buying a mobile if you haven't allready got one. They are really not that important. Added (after a long thought about the above on the 26th June 2000)

I am not a Sci-"Fli" buff (yet)

Don't be a "Sci-Fli-ing Di-Fi-ning Giko-domster"

I just want to say I am an artist whose sole interest, on this site, is in mainly Art with Spacey/Science themes, not Science Ficton as such. Now, as I am studying on a part-time basis ((I do have a "life") and don't think that I walk around in a brown cardigan (yellow cardigan) talking about whether gravity exists or not (it does, I can asssure you) and spend all my time in study (no I spend half my time in study and wear hipster flares and listen to rock/pop/dance music.. :-)). I may try to mix the the two, art and spacey/science, (not hipster flares and rock/dance music, although that might be a good idea aswell) and create something that has allready been done (convergent evolution maybe?). If however I do "create" something new then that's a good outcome and a bonus also. This may be " infiltrated" in a cartoon or an idea in a short write up. I am not a scientist! but I do read, in cyber or real life, the odd science magazine aswell (even a few normal ones). I mean, it's all about perspectives, and I'd like to make a few waves, or particles depending on your point of view. Did they ever think of sending an artist up into space?. Also I don't want to be a "Sci- Fli-er" (which is my equivalent of making an idiot of yourself in the Science Fiction world because you haven't "zipped" up your ideas properly) and know that am not inclined to take on good at English Sci-Fi writers/crits or any Sci-Fi based ideas, that I don't know enough about, and repeat them, (likewise some, "Sci-Fli di-Fi-ning "Giko " who might criticise good art, but doesn't know enough about that either) unless they take a serious quest to do so and show something for it. Have a look at The Science Fiction Foundation Collection Information page website administered by Any Sawyer (who writes very good crits for books in FTL), they have proper Sci-Fi stuff !!! I know what I can do and, or in this case a"Sci-Fli-ing Di-Fi-ning Giko-domster" what I can't do. I will yet delve into Sci-Fi as a side track. Like I said, I am not a Sci-"Fli" buff (yet)...(march2000)

Houston, we have a problem...

(...well, a slightly less bigger problem than last time.)

It has occured to me that my site would benefit from input activity apart from my own. Although keeping to one theme is a good idea, I also think having a spread of ideas is just as workable, if not better, to get a wider audience. If you have a short story on offer for me to illustrate, then please E Mail me accordingly (address on home page) or alternatively any other weird or totally alien idea would be good also, portrait commissions are also a possibility and I am looking for more link exchanges with a veiw to keepng up the visiting momentum, can you help me out? Also, sorry for the delay in input but I have been rather busy in real life, Thalecks Theorum ( some dis-jointed notes below) is being re- assesed by Darren and myself and we have decided to include Zeon Girl as an extra character to this unpredictable storyline, I must stress, the theorum is just a name as apposed to a real theory but will work along the lines as much as possible, amatuers permitting! and will be a total laugh (on our behalf) if it goes completly haywire...! It also might contain hilarious ideas that are nonsensical to equiped scientists or otherwise, and as Darren and myself are getting preparatory work ready for this weekly cartoon that will be on the site soon (let me do some more research!) hopefully other ideas mentioned in the above are to evolve alongside also. Please be patient because I think the best things are worth waiting for, but once they are in cyber space, they will be on your screen faster than the speed of light, C-light...

...and!

...and! have you have ever wondered why everything looks better when music is playing? if you do, then you will C -THIS SPACE for a list of " Not Particularly Space Music, But Is Spacey Enough To Be, When In The Context Of Weiwing This Site, Or Other Space Themed Things" . These last few weeks I have been listening to all kinds of music (that isn't space music) but catching glimpses of what could be used as a back ground for space art, animation, film or whatever. I will put the list here and maybe you could try it out when veiwing this site? Remember, it has to be loud!!! The last was placed acidently in the bin by my other half will do another.

...not forgetting

...not forgetting, that I am rather enjoying this part of the website, you know, adding silly little snippets here and there and being a rather quiet person myself, it is a total change to express ones self in a form that doesn't shake ones acute shyness like it would in a social siuation. (All above Sept 99)

You don't really have to read this, not really

Warning! this is not for English majors, science professors (and maths ones), story writers, (good ones) science fiction or otherwise, excellent teachers, maths lecturers, artists, physicsts, law graduates, critical minded persons, dyslexic detectors, aliens... or any body wishing to take their bungee jumping lessons afterwards.

Thaleck's Thinking Theorem pre- notes (put here at about Sep99) and a total jumbled up mess about what could be an idea for a cartoon, about it. By CCS

If you look at the C-This Alien pics you will find a picture called Thaleck's Thinking Theorem. It is an illustration for an idea I had, which involves a story, where Thaleck is the main character who sits at a bar at the end of the universe or the beggining ? (or in the nebulea cloud of Sagittarius B2 (me scorpio) maybe, and if not, that's where the booze suply for the space- brewery comes from) <<<this bit in the brackets was added in march YOU GUESS WHY? and Thaleck thinks about the universe and all its wierd possibilities. He is multi dimensional (hence the starry tie and glasses representing other universal dimensions where the tie is a folded dimension, I'll go into that another time…). The second character (which also props up the bar) is an Alien with three heads, all of which have three eyes, ears, mouths, and noses each, and so on. The Alien is called a Tripesian (hence again three of everything!) It has three heads all serving different purposes with different brain functions. The first being a creative head, the second logic, the third subconscious or unconscious, I suppose all three brains are a representation of biological consciousness in relation to their environment and the evolution of thought comes into play, however the third character is the guy behind the bar (I haven't got round to illustrating him yet!) and he travels in a time dimension (you did ask for a Vodka and lime?), and goes back and forth to other times, to the past (for a Bloody Mary) and the present (for a Gin And Tonic). The bar goes into infinity (and so it should the amount of money they charge for a drink these days) and should the story ever evolve, then all these ideas should be mixed (shaken not stirred) together to make Thaleck's Thinking Theorem. Now, I shall need the help required to carry out a suitable story line and/or ideas, for this long project, so Daz is going to help me accordingly to conbime some of the above things to make a cartoon, and I can assure you that any ideas I have put down here, are not copied! nor recycled, and would I want to prove any theory again that science has all ready proven? of course not, as this is a purely created thesis on my behalf. Your round next. Oh bye the way, I don't actually drink (apart from Peach Schnapps), or certainly smoke, so I'll have to research the pub habit bits! which I am very pleased about... I do have another good idea again. The Theorem story can be interactive. I mean, does a plot have to go according to a plan? Maybe we can make up our own interactive unplanned plan? Or is that being really silly, what do you think? This next bit is if you ever wanted to take part in this cartoon, as Wendy Graham is editor of FTL magazine (see on my links page), the science on it might help, but don't expect to get a reply from her if you have a beard ;-##

OK...so

" We started singing,
My my, this here Anakin guy,
Maybe Vader someday later,
Now he's just a small fry,
And he left his home,
And kissed his momy good bye,
Singin soon I'm gonna be a Jedi,
Soon I'm gonna be a Jedi. "

By Weird Al Yanokic-The Saga Begins, "Amercan Pie" "Star Wars"

Looks like Daz and myself are finally on a roll with the Therorum cartoon (above). The cartoon is going through its ideas stage and I don't see Daz for ideas that often so it's slow going! However, I have been told to do a pilot series first so the real thing should be a good laugh whatever the weather! and you are probably thinking, why does she put her idea up first for everyone to see? Ahh well, it's just a pre plot and it might not go that way of course, but it might dip into it on some occasions...who knows....? One character is not so mysterious now because before he was almost invisble, Hemsleeves. May I just say, I don't read fiction/science fiction books, ever. I look at the covers. I think science fact are much more fun and I don't watch sf films that much apart from STAR WARS (which I love!!) and the odd one maybe, but I like other types instead (but love films imensly, usually drama, comedy, music vids) a lot more, but absolutley love Star Wars (a younger Mark Hamill or Luke Skywalker then. I fancied him when I was about 7 years old!) and just for the whole idea of it! I am relatively new to the sci-fi field so please bare with me anyway, I'll show them what I'm made of, without standing in it.

Claire

And now for something a bit more serious

C-THIS link: Dispelling Some Common Myths about Science by Dr. Terry Halwes

(On the links page) I have made a link to a very interesting article which I read a while ago, which is about dispelling some common myths about science by Dr. Terry Halwes. This is the sort of thing that I like to get my head round, and in relation to many other ideas that wouldn't normally be included in the world of science. He talks about the way we are taught to believe our understanding of science and that is not just science itself but the applications of traditional methods that have allways been used that sometimes stunts our veiw of it, and what could have shed a different light on this had we changed our way of thinking about it in the past. We have a long way to go about our way of thinking about the world around us and the methods in doing so should change with our new perception of our "new world". I think newer science needs newer thinking, wouldn't you agree?. This is an excerpt:-

"One cluster of largely mistaken views is now commonly believed to be the simple truth about how science develops new knowledge. (1) Scientific Knowledge is a new type of knowledge, superior to common sense and all other types of non-scientific beliefs. (2) Scientific Knowledge can only be discovered by highly trained professional scientists. (3) Scientists obtain Scientific Knowledge by following The Scientific Method, a uniquely powerful tool for understanding Reality....

...science is not a new kind of knowledge; it is not created only by a professional elite; and "The Scientific Method" is really many methods, including aspects of basic intelligence found in infants and animals. Think about it: We don't even really understand how babies learn to walk, much less how they learn to talk and to solve problems. We are just beginning to really understand how anybody learns anything, communicates with anyone else about anything, or accomplishes any sort of accurate reasoning. Since the particular instances of learning, communicating, and reasoning that we call "science" are at least as complex as any other intelligent activity, it's no wonder we don't understand them yet, either....

...even if special methods of learning and thinking that are unique to science do exist, they are certainly not what most scientists use, most of the time. What is required for scientific progress is mainly ordinary curiosity, ordinary awareness, ordinary learning, ordinary reasoning, and fairly ordinary communication. Of course scientists work hard to develop and use precise technical terms for many of the things they talk about, but so do lawyers and golfers and cooks. It would be quite surprising to our scientist of science if she discovered that scientists regularly use an entirely unique type of technicality in their professional jargon. " by Dr Terry Halwes (April 12th 2000)

When is Art Really Art? C-THIS Short Quest for Realism, Sept 99

So you're looking at a picture and the characters in this picture are detailed enough to make you think that you've just tried your Aunt's new glasses on and wondered why you haven't had your eyes tested for years. Do we really need realism? Do you think that some artwork looks too clinical, and that the sky isn't that smooth, nor the ground that clean? Have all computer generated art works gone beyond "the real" and entered the "well it's what I imagined it would be, and it is what it looks like to me" stage?

We need to go further than what it looks like. Have you ever wondered where the lights are coming from when you look at your book illustration? Of course they are in your room, but what about in the picture, and are the people really lit from the top and side? Is it ambient? Or do they glow in the dark of their own accord? Why didn't the artist check out the lighting facilities at the time, I mean, did they have Halogen in the tenth century and look that clean? If they have top lighting, outside at night, in the middle of a field, did they have candles sticking out of the sky? Is this why subconsciously we can't explain why, but there is something not quite right in that picture? It isn't quite "real" enough. The human mind "just knows" intuitively, without having to reason why.

This brings us back to realism. Look at most digitally created art either in film, on computer, or on paper, and you'll see camera flares. They are supposed to be there, but not visually obvious to the viewer as this is a psychological attempt to make your mind think that you are either in a capsule observing through glass, or taking a photo. I mean, you don't float around in space now, that's not real, is it? So considering this, you have foreground, and where you are is foreground, so does this mean that you ARE in the picture, or an observer? Do your eyes focus on everything in your field of view? Some artist get this right, and what about 3D imigary. In terms of 3D, your visual perception changes with only one eye, this explains why we can't judge distance with one eye, so anything viewed otherwise must be 2D not 3D. If you where to use a hologram, then digitally produced art work would be more convincing in this medium as you deal with two perspectives at once, unless you're Cyclops!!!! Also, why do artists who produce computer-generated art not put their work into context? Ok, if it is fantasy it is not real, but if it is supposed to be real then put your alien (be what ever it is) in a real place, like the street outside your home, now that would be scary, and you also have a REAL light source.

Movement in animation has to be very accurate where you don't expect large living creatures to move very fast nor small ones to move too slowly. In a recent tv programme there is a good example of a rather awkward portrayal of how animals (big or small) would walk or move! Apart from the obvious texture and lighting differences, the large dinosaurs are poorly portrayed becsause of ignorance of how gravity acts on such a creature. The awkwardly computer animated legs are laughable because the guy constructing it on computer had forgot that such a massive animal would weigh tonnes, and exert a a lot of pressure, thus creating a strained effect. In relationship to animation, figure drawing and portraiture, art is also a real treat to work on, as far as anatomy is concerned. When studying fine art, figure painting, life drawing and portraiture, most students study how the limbs move (I've studied biology and it helps) in a certain way and how they affect movement (in terms of art) and form. Maybe these artists should also study non-living matter, for example how a material flows, or the underlying dynamics of fluids, engineering or physics, which I am currently studying myself. So when is art really art? Are we attempting to only "top up" science in our quest to answer the question "what do we really know about what we are looking at before we can recreate it?"

Claire. P. S Who ever said art and science don't mix!

The Music here and on the cartoon section is taken from the film "The Matrix".

(With an archive of an old magazine copy thrown in) all original artwork and ideas written or otherwise on this cthisspace.com site are Copyright Claire C Smith © 1999-2015 (updated December 2021), except specific content on FTL Magazine archive (sub-section) that is Copyright of its ---> contributors, for example, if you are wanting to use work by the math and geometry Professor Ian Stewart, it is better to let him know first. Before using material from cthisspace.com it would be a preference that you ask for permission via e-mail. It would be good if a credit note was included and my name and this web address, if you do ask for permission, which you probably will get. The same applies for FTL Magazine and its contributors.