Do 'we' see the world as we assume it exists?

[pelastration]

Originally posted by THANOS
But the fact is the matter that makes our body still exist.

... and these particles of matter will also oscillate with the TV-waves IFF they are resonant.

 

[THANOS]

Sure the T.V. can be put off eh. much like our sleep or whe we close our eyes. But when the T.V. Burns out neither sound or images will be able to exist within that T.V.

Enough T.V.?

 

[pelastration]

Originally posted by THANOS
Sure the T.V. can be put off eh. much like our sleep or whe we close our eyes. But when the T.V. Burns out neither sound or images will be able to exist within that T.V.

Enough T.V.?

Sure.

My conclusion (similar to other already expressed on PF but in other words):
1. We (humans) are a complex system containing a number of inter-resonant out-put sub-systems. (TV-set)
2. We gather (by a number of oscillation-sensing sub-systems) a number of intrinsic different oscillations (text, sound, still images, moving images in TV) from our (providing) surrounding which are re-distributed via a priority-focusing feedback mechanism (TV-set with preferences options like image OFF, sound ON).
3. Our surrounding is not just that what we observe with 'common senses' but includes non-local information. (cfr. TV-waves sent by TV-station).
4. We observe our surrounding in an indirect way. (depending from the available TV-waves offered by different TV-stations).
5. We can focus or have priority (choose a TV or sound or image or text channel).
6. When we decay as a total (TV-set doesn't work anymore) some of our sub-sets may still be functioning correctly (not-affected sub-parts of the TV-set, such as antenna, some condensers, chips, etc.).

 

[onycho]

"And much like the T.V. when we die the T.V. is still there and can not play the images. Conscience is gone, but the body remains. Only thing is the T.V. may rust and take much much longer to decompose then our physical bodies. But the fact is the matter that makes our body still exist."

Is our consciousness gone when our bodies die? Did our awareness of self just go on like a light bulb at birth and then when we die our cognizance just burn out?

Where do you think our awareness came from and where does it go after death? Before you relate such things to TV sets and signals, you have to understand exactly what you are talking about.

NO ONE KNOWS FOR SURE...

 

[pelastration]

Originally posted by onycho
what you are talking about.

About ... what's on my website.

 

[onycho]

Mystery Mass Pelastration

I have carefully examined your website and ideas of matter creation. You apparently have made something so simple into a very complex system for the creation of matter through tubules.

Copied from your site:

This pelastration approach is not contradictory to most basics of the Superstring theory and M-Brane theory. (To us the Kaluza-Klein approach contains anti-unification elements since it creates discrete 'traps' which boundary/brane origin is mystic again. In stead of simplifying KK makes it even more complex).

The Paradox of the Quantum Leap can also be explained.

Michio Kaku: "The original 10 dimensional space-time finally "cracked" into two pieces, a four and a six dimensional universe. The universe made the "quantum leap" to another universe in which six of the 10 dimensions collapsed and curled up into a tiny ball, allowing the remaining four dimensional universe to explode outward at an enormous rate. The four dimensional universe (our world) expanded rapidly, creating the Big Bang, while the six dimensional universe wrapped itself into a tiny ball and shrunk down to infinitesimal size."

You find many mystic dimensions that can neither be validated nor measured except in your complex theory of tubes and pelastrations.

I find that the creation of any perceived existence and our own reality so much more simple. Your theory does not allow for that 1 trillionth of a second before the so-called Big Bang. You find other involuted universes creating the Big Bang. (The beginning of energy/mass where nothing or other previous universes existed before. What pelastration or tubule was there when nothing existed at all? The answer is so simple that it begs for some unified theory of the creation of everything from nothing whatsoever.

The Origin From Timelessness with no space, time or energy.

 

[pelastration]

Originally posted by onycho
I have carefully examined your website and ideas of matter creation.

I appreciate that.

Originally posted by onycho
You apparently have made something so simple into a very complex system for the creation of matter through tubules.

So simple : You explain me then how matter was created. Show me ... in a way I really can do it. Straight logic.

Originally posted by onycho
You find many mystic dimensions that can neither be validated nor measured except in your complex theory of tubes and pelastrations.

Please rephrase.

Originally posted by onycho
I find that the creation of any perceived existence and our own reality so much more simple.

Please explain the principles.

Originally posted by onycho
Your theory does not allow for that 1 trillionth of a second before the so-called Big Bang. You find other involuted universes creating the Big Bang. (The beginning of energy/mass where nothing or other previous universes existed before.

Big Bang is one of the theories. There are other contradicting BB. BTW ... do you think BB was an explosion?

Originally posted by onycho
The beginning of energy/mass where nothing or other previous universes existed before.

What makes you say that. Arguments please ... no statements.

Originally posted by onycho
What pelastration or tubule was there when nothing existed at all?

You carefully examined my website? The key is Einstein's Prior-Geometry. On my thread on Theory development you can find more about that.
You

Originally posted by onycho
The answer is so simple that it begs for some unified theory of the creation of everything from nothing whatsoever.

Looking forward for the 'so' simple answer (with arguments please) and to your theory.

Originally posted by onycho
The Origin From Timelessness with no space, time or energy.

And all in Lifegazer's Mind ... yes?

 

[THANOS]

Do you have proof that conscience stays? If not i'd advise you to let me go my way and i'll let you go yours. I simply state that because i believe that our thoughts and mind is gone after death. There is a chance that it remains but if there is no food or water for our bodies to convert to the energy we need to keep our body going it can not survive. I also believe that the belief of conscience still existing is just a direct or indirect hope for immortality or an afterlife. A belief created by religion. But as i said. This is what i believe.

 

[pelastration]

Originally posted by THANOS
Do you have proof that conscience stays? If not i'd advise you to let me go my way and i'll let you go yours. I simply state that because i believe that our thoughts and mind is gone after death. There is a chance that it remains but if there is no food or water for our bodies to convert to the energy we need to keep our body going it can not survive. I also believe that the belief of conscience still existing is just a direct or indirect hope for immortality or an afterlife. A belief created by religion. But as i said. This is what i believe.

Although the ideas I gave are based on my ideas of gravity (not religion) we will stop here. No problem Thanos
The best and thanks.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by olde drunk
let's stay with the human experience.

why? does the physics apply only to humans?

please remember that the measurements etc. are the result of the scientist's beliefs about what should be measured. it has been postulated that his beliefs even affect the results of the measurements.

actually the measurements are the result of mesuring, not of someone's beliefs. Please take a voltmeter and a 1.5 battery, and believe that you will measure 400V. Then measure the voltage of the battery. tell us the result...

what if there are GREATER LAWS yet to be uncovered? laws that include conciousness and allows us to exceed the speed of light. Quantum theory is getting close to this information.

If someone will discover them, it will by work and not by believing that he can run faster than light...

so, is it possible that the energy of a thought, idea, belief goes out and creates a reality (for me) that complies.

not until you come to me, wish for a good dinner and make it apper on my desk

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by onycho
Can you back up anything that shows you are actually conscious right now?

only if you define consciusness

 

[THANOS]

May i ask your explanation how gravity is a part of it? sorry if my last post seemed a bit nieve. I was up for 48 hours and didn't even realized i typed that. hehe.

 

[olde drunk]

LET'S DEFINE TERMS

I hate to say it, but it may be time for the thread originator to define "REALITY" that was in the original question. i get the feeling that there may be cross talk about what we see/witness and what we experience.

Is it what i percieve or is it the sum total of what i experience?

to me, reality is what i experience. i also believe that we are energy gestalts. our conciousness is greater than the sum of our parts.

i like the TV analogy! now, who is sending us our waves? our greater self or a higher power?

what if we get our original 'power' from our higher power and then create waves ourselves for our human incarnation?

wish i was still drinking, i'd swear i had the answer!

the only answer there is is that "there ain't no answer". we all construct an answer based on our beliefs and that answer creates the reality that each of us experience.

martini please,
chet

 

[onycho]

Origninally posted by Palastration


---You apparently have made something so simple into a very complex system for the creation of matter through tubules.


"So simple: You explain me then how matter was created. Show me ... in a way I really can do it. Straight logic."

If I actually new how matter was created from nothing, then I would be the only human being in this galaxy that did. The logic of ‘ex nihilo’ must necessarily mean that matter ‘always existed and without being formed by a Creator.’ For theories and formulas to prove logically that things created themselves in a chaos remains within statistical probability off -0> (200) power. For if there was an alteration of less than 1 degree of heat in the nano second following a Big Bang would have resulted in a universe with nothing but diminishing energy with no matter or life as we know it? What are the statistical probabilities for this very accurate event to happen within that infinitesimal factor?

"Nothing" is the absence of anything. "Nothing" is relative, because in this universe, there is no absolute nothing. There is everywhere space and time, and stuff even if only radiation.
One of the fundamental principles of the universe is the Law of Nothing, that "nothing comes from nothing." If there is something, it must have come from something else. Therefore, stuff cannot be created out of nothing. Matter and energy can be transformed, but as a whole, they are conserved, neither created nor destroyed.
Since something always comes from something else, this implies the fundamental law of science: everything happens for a reason. The most basic law of science is the law of cause and effect. Too often students, journalists, and even scholars write as though something can come from nothing. They make unwarranted assertions, with no reason or justification, no warrants from logic and evidence. They think they say something, but their empty statements lack meaning and substance, so really they say nothing.

---You find many mystic dimensions that can neither be validated nor measured except in your complex theory of tubes and palastrations.

“Please rephrase.”

Sorry but your site spoke of ‘mystic’ dimensions in the context of your theory of matter creation.

----I find that the creation of any perceived existence and our own reality so much simpler.


”Please explain the principles.”

Actually Albert Einstein said it best.

"People say I am one of the great minds of all times," Einstein said, "but all I did was look for simplicity. I believe that the grand aim of all science is to cover the greatest number of empirical facts by logical deduction from the smallest number of hypotheses or axioms. You see, G-d always takes the simplest way."
"I couldn't have said it better, Albert," said Bailey, "But I'll reframe it a little differently. Simplicity is Nature's first step, and the last of Art. Oh, if we all could only realize this truth, the world would be a much better place."

----Your theory does not allow for that 1 trillionth of a second before the so-called Big Bang. You find other involutes universes creating the Big Bang. (The beginning of energy/mass where nothing or other previous universes had existed before.)


”Big Bang is one of the theories. There are other contradicting BB. BTW ... do you think BB was an explosion?”

Actually all theories of matter, space and time creation are nothing more than speculations. I do not believe or believe that there was a giant explosion at the beginning of things. Empirical evidence leads current thinkers to speculate about this possibility. Your site speculates on previous universes involuting causing the Big Bang but then you must ask where the previous universes originate.



----The beginning of energy/mass where nothing or other previous universes existed before.


”What makes you say that. Arguments please ... no statements.”

The argument is answered by the statement itself. Argument: Any verifiable evidence of the origin of energy/mass, universes or dimensions is pure speculation. If you can prove matter creation with anything more than theories, please enlighten us.

---What pelastration or tubule was there when nothing existed at all?

”You carefully examined my website? The key is Einstein's Prior-Geometry. On my thread on Theory development you can find more about that. “

Yes I did examine your website and also found the following paragraph on Einstein’s Prior-Geometry theory. So much for prior-geometry.

Prior-geometry theory sees "g-mu-nu" as being actually a compound object in disguise; one part being the gravitational field, the other part representing a pre-existing and immutable arena of spacetime. To make such a decomposition work, the part of "g-mu-nu" that is prior-geometry cannot be affected by matter or energy; that was the exclusive role to be played by the second component of "g-mu-nu" representing the gravitational field. Prior geometry would have to play the role of the absolute bedrock of spacetime that both special relativity and Newtonian physics are built-up from. Can such a decomposition really work? No observation by the time Einstein proposed general relativity, or since, has ever uncovered any physical evidence for some 'universal geometric object' or plenum which stands aloof from physics in the manner that prior geometry would have to. Prior-geometry theory would also require that some preferred universal frame of rest exist against which, like the ether or Newton's absolute space and time, we could gauge our motion. Also, no phenomenon had ever been discovered which did not obey the principle of reciprocity; the property of acting upon matter and in turn being acted upon by matter. If this argument for the existence of prior-geometry sounds like the old argument Maxwell used for believing in the Ether, you are right. It is, after all, rather hard not to consider something like a prior-geometry at work in nature for much the same reason that the ether was such a seductive idea in electrodynamics for supporting light waves.

----The answer is so simple that it begs for some unified theory of the creation of everything from nothing whatsoever.

”Looking forward for the 'so' simple answer (with arguments please) and to your theory.”

I have no complex or other theory but for the answer refer to Einstein’s own quote which I will repeat for you here.

"People say I am one of the great minds of all times," Einstein said, "but all I did was look for simplicity. I believe that the grand aim of all science is to cover the greatest number of empirical facts by logical deduction from the smallest number of hypotheses or axioms. You see, G-d always takes the simplest way."
"I couldn't have said it better, Albert," said Bailey, "But I'll reframe it a little differently. Simplicity is Nature's first step, and the last of Art. Oh, if we all could only realize this truth, the world would be a much better place."

----The Origin From Timelessness with no space, time or energy.

"And all in Lifegazer's Mind ... yes?"

If you say so for you are the one with the palastration theory of matter creation……

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by Guybrush Threewood

"only if you define consciusness"

Consciousness, we shall find, is reducible to relations between objects, and objects we shall find to be reducible to relations between different states of consciousness; and neither point of view is more nearly ultimate than the other.

ATTRIBUTION: T.S. (Thomas Stearns) Eliot

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by onycho
Consciousness, we shall find, is reducible to relations between objects, and objects we shall find to be reducible to relations between different states of consciousness; and neither point of view is more nearly ultimate than the other.

in other words you have no ideea, but you thought the quote would look cool.
All I can understand from your "definition" is that now consciousness is something reducilble with different states... although it looks very much like a circular definition to me.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by Guybrush Threewood

"in other words you have no ideea, but you thought the quote would look cool. All I can understand from your "definition" is that now consciousness is something reducilble with different states... although it looks very much like a circular definition to me."

Actually your question of consciousnss is ridiculous on its face. My consicousness definition is not really relevant but I will give you my impression.

In psychology, that aspect of mental life that is separate from immediate consciousness and is not subject to recall at will. Sigmund Freud regarded the unconscious as a submerged but vast portion of the mind. In his view, the unconscious was composed of the id, which accounts for instinctual drives, acts as the motivating force in human behavior, and contains desires and wishes that the individual hides—or represses—from conscious recognition; and part of the superego, the system that acts to restrain and control id impulses. Conscious cognitive processes, such as thinking, are performed by the ego and part of the superego.
Conflict between conscious and unconscious impulses are said to give rise to anxiety, then to defense mechanisms, which counteract this anxiety. To tap the unconscious, Freud used a variety of techniques, including hypnosis, free association, and dream interpretation. C. G. Jung expanded on the Freudian concept, adding the idea of an inherited unconscious, known as the collective unconscious. The idea of the unconscious has been rejected by some psychological schools, although it is still used by many psychoanalysts. The term unconscious is also used to describe latent, or unretrieved, memories, or to describe stimuli too weak to enter an individual’s conscious awareness.

The fact that consciousness can exist in any combination of particles that also make up everything perceived as we assume it exits is beyond imagination. Ergo, the essence of existence and a unverise that cannot exist by any formulation known to date is truly circular reasoning.

For you to describe the formation of matter with your cognitive consciousness is an oxymoron.

 

[pelastration]

Originally posted by THANOS
May i ask your explanation how gravity is a part of it? sorry if my last post seemed a bit nieve. I was up for 48 hours and didn't even realized i typed that. hehe.

48 hours: nice he. My record was 80 hours while writing a patent.

Gravity: Yes.
Einstein said that 'everything' is gravitational 'field'. The gravitational field had no structure: it is the Prior-Geometry.

In my opinion this is correct, but the gravitational 'field will restructure, because it is a 'real' membrane, not an abstract idea. The mechanism to restructuring is by doubling certain parts of that gravitational membrane.

When you couple two little parts of the gravitational membrane you will have new zone (unit) WITH STRUCTURE.
Before we had NO structure, now we HAVE a local zone WITH structure.
That new local zone is called a holon (but you can call that also a Quantum box)
The holon is made of two gravitational layers which are joined (almost locked together): so that like a unity.

So the new 'unity' is still empty! The holon is empty because It is just multi-layered (empty) gravitational membrane.

But that new zone (a holon) can couple with other units (also empty holons) , etc.
So these holons can couple and make very complex combinations (like building up towers of matter). This happens in hierarchic tree/branch systems. Every new combination CONTAINS automatically also the previous gravitational layers. All is just gravitational membrane. Everything is still empty.

For example: May be a quark can contain 6 or 14 gravitational layers. The quark is multi-layered with gravitational membrane but is still empty! In the quark those many layers of gravitational membrane are all the time tearing, pushing, combining, fighting, ... etc.

So the more layers there are ... the more density we see. Think about transparent plastic. One sheet: transparent. But 100 layers: a silver deep color, no transparency.

Humans have billions of such 'empty' holons, so in fact a human is a complex system of (empty) gravitational membrane.
Our surrounding is also a complex system of (empty) gravitational membrane.

So when we "see" and "feel" and "measure" our surrounding we LOOK to other (empty) holons. But all those empty holons are like building blocks. (cfr. empty cardboard boxes). ... and with empty cardboard boxes you can BUILD houses.

Since all those empty building blocs are made only made of the SAME gravitational membrane they can COMMUNICATE (by vibrations).

When we observe our reality (surrounding us) we do that with sensors which are able to communicate with the similar or the same vibrations.(that is resonance).

In humans there are many specialized networks of communication. This is like the different TV waves from many TV stations that your TV-set receives ALL THE TIME. We humans have embedded in our body a number of priorities triggers, identical like the TV-remote box that gives you the possibility to ZAP from TV-station to TV-station, lower sound, change colors, etc.

So our view of reality is related to such internal zap-system in each human. Once this is important (food), next second another thing (sex) is important ... then: pain in finger, then telephone, then ...

But everything is made of vibrations of the gravitational membrane.

For your information: I updated my website. Important new webpages : http://www.mu6.com/holon_creation.html and http://www.mu6.com/spacetime3.html (with animated image of pelastrating spacetime)

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by onycho
Actually your question of consciousnss is ridiculous on its face. My consicousness definition is not really relevant but I will give you my impression.

Actually you brought the subject in discussion.
And again I cannot find any definition in your quote.
If you're really interested maybe you should take a look at this thread...

For you to describe the formation of matter with your cognitive consciousness is an oxymoron.

I didn't say anything like that.

 

[onycho]

So In Your View of Reality

Originally posted by Greenwood Threepwood

"So our view of reality is related to such internal zap-system in each human. Once this is important (food), next second another thing (sex) is important ... then: pain in finger, then telephone, then ..."

The limits of the human mind in constructing our view of reality theories are finite. Flexible membranes with infinite streching abilities marking the borders of our universe are much like a mist which disppears with the coming of daylight.

Reality imagination could hardly do without metaphor, for imagination is, literally, the moving around in one’s mind of images, and such images tend commonly to be metaphoric. Creative minds, as we know, are rich in images and metaphors, and this is true in science and art alike. The difference between scientist and artist has little to do with the ways of the creative imagination; everything to do with the manner of demonstration and verification of what has been seen or imagined.

ATTRIBUTION: Robert A. Nisbet

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by Guybrush Threepwood

"Actually you brought the subject in discussion."

Actually you asked my definition of consciousness

"And again I cannot find any definition in your quote."

For a definition of consciousness one must be conscious.

"If you're really interested maybe you should take a look at this thread..."

I looked but found nothin of interest

---For you to describe the formation of matter with your cognitive consciousness is an oxymoron.

"I didn't say anything like that."

Really? From your own website on palastration theory.

The separation of "matter" and "spiritual" is only the description of two other layers of interconnectedness...

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by pelastration

So our view of reality is related to such internal zap-system in each human. Once this is important (food), next second another thing (sex) is important ... then: pain in finger, then telephone, then ...

But everything is made of vibrations of the gravitational membrane.

bottom of page 4

you know onycho just writing originally posted by [whatever name here] doesn't make that person say what you want...

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by onycho
"If you're really interested maybe you should take a look at this thread..."

I looked but found nothin of interest

maybe you're interested just in your ideeas and don't really care if they fit the world you live in or not.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by Guybruth Threepwood

"bottom of page 4 you know onycho just writing originally posted by [whatever name here] doesn't make that person say what you want..."

"Nor does it make the person (whtever name here) who originlly posted mean what was stated says what I didn't want it to mean.[/b]

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by Greenwood Threepwood

"maybe you're interested just in your ideeas and don't really care if they the world you live in or not."

Your sentence and its structure is not understandable. But if I had to make a guess at your sentence meaning would reply thusly. I do care about the world in which I assume exists but do not take notions of vibrating membranes or infinite stretching of a universe without something more than the physics of imagination.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

onycho what I am about to tell you will probably shake your understanding of the world but: I am not pelastration.
We're different people, see my knicname is Guybrush Threepwood, he is pelastration. Is it clear enough for you?

 

[olde drunk]

CONFUSED ! !

Folks: are we here to exchange ideas and expand our awareness OR to debate words just to show how smart/cute we can be??

conciousness, imho, is my total being(mind and spirit). my human personality cannot comprehend it's full definition due to the limitations of my physical brain.

again, can we have some working definitions with which to discuss our views and opinions??

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by Guybrush Threepwood
onycho what I am about to tell you will probably shake your understanding of the world but: I am not pelastration.
We're different people, see my knicname is Guybrush Threepwood, he is pelastration. Is it clear enough for you?

Sorry for the mixup. My posts should have been directed pelastration as he is the one with ideation of matter creation. My apologies.

 

[onycho]

"Folks: are we here to exchange ideas and expand our awareness OR to debate words just to show how smart/cute we can be??

conciousness, imho, is my total being(mind and spirit). my human personality cannot comprehend it's full definition due to the limitations of my physical brain.

again, can we have some working definitions with which to discuss our views and opinions??"

I believe you are correct in your assumption that we are here for the exchange of ideas and expand our awareness but that is why we are here in the Philosophy-Metaphysics & Epistemology section of the Physics Forum.

In my humble opinion (for what it is worth) the current machinations and theories of the physics of the universe are nothing more than current suppositions based on a finite human intellect and scientific experimentation which seems to fit into observation of the world from our solar system perspective.

Many scientists, cosmolgists and physicists admit that these same theories probably do not have validity in a universe we assume exists out there.

No one has explained to my satisfation the insight in your previous statement; "...my total being(mind and spirit). my human personality cannot comprehend it's full definition due to the limitations of my physical brain"

What makes inanimate particles think?

 

[olde drunk]

What makes inanimate particles think?

hmm, within our perspective, imho, they do not think. many philosophers over time have presented us with the idea that they do have a 'soul' or greater existence. i doubt that it would be worthwhile to pursue an inanimate objects existence since we are having enuff trouble understanding our own (to which we have access).

IF we are to accept that we are energy with the ability to acknowledge ourselves and a greater reality, then we are conscious or have conciousness?

to me, the mere fact that we can concieve of a universe and beyond is evidence that we are limitless. we may not be able to explain all of what is out there but we do 'sense' (know?) that we are eternal. not our body but our spirit or conciousness. the zen masters have reveled us with their experience and view of this broader reality. druggies also try to relate the dimensions they have visited. unfortunately, words and formulas, etc. are insufficient/inadequate. until we allow all our senses to be integrated into our obsevation of any reality, we will not fully understand our experience.

do not misunderstand me, i am not able to do that. i am able to broaden my experiece the more aware i become of all my abilities.
i submit that we are more than the laws of physics can explain. we have done and witnessed things that are unexplainable. exclude the acient prophets and only study a more recent enlightened human.

how did Edgar Cayce correctly diagnose and prescribe for people that he only viewed in a trance? the cases are there to study. being logical, he was able to focus his conciousness (attention) on another level of existence and relate what he saw. i do not believe that he is/was the only human with this ability. i strongly believe that we all have these talents. unfortunately, we were trained from birth that there ain't no santa claus or easter bunny; only the solid four demensions. remote cultures retain these abilities because they are reinforced in everyday life.

it is my suspicion that quantum theory will reveal what we need to know and accept in order to open a whole new world of experience for the human reality.

if you believe, you are not peter pan! believing is the basis for experience. Guybush believes that what he observes is really there, apart from him. i believe that what is out there is a reflection of what is inside here(me, pointing to my heart). the heart is a symbol of my spirit.

now, the real question is "WHY?".

thanks,
chet