A3

Hello Syn.
I would rather say materialism is false because it does not make sense (to me).
It assumes there is no God thus there is no purpose to life. The ‘big bang’ theory can hardly be construed as to having any element of purpose.

Materialists say (and tell me if I’m wrong) it appears that there is no god. It appears as if there is no purpose to life. It appears that whatever we can see with our physical eyes is all that exists. And that all we do see, like our brain, eyes, male and female body cells etc. is the result of something that started on the pre-molacular level (electrons and neurons?) Billions of years ago when ‘nothing’ existed.
And all this is based on the fact that there is no physical prove of anything to the contrary.

Opposite to that is what makes sense to me.
To believe there is a loving God who created male and female beings for the purpose of becoming one angel and being happy in a heavenly state to eternity. This Creator gave us the freedom to love Him or reject this completely by separating the spiritual from the natural. Who regardless of our choice keeps His life flowing into us, but so that we don’t feel it, otherwise we wouldn’t have the freedom to think materialisticly. His creation has very predictable natural laws and spiritual laws. There is a very intricate, delicate ecosystem that has ‘design’ printed all over it from the pre-molacular (non-thinking level) on every level of every ‘kingom.’ Which design we, slowly, over the ages have been able to figure out, somewhat.
Sorry, I have to go to work now
I have this on the wall here, it say "Every appearance that is confirmed as a truth becomes a fallacy"
Makes sense to me.
A3

crocodile deathroll

Why do we use the mind and the brain so interchangeably, like we of use the expression if the is a quiz show "the battle of the great mind brains" or "the battle of the great mind minds" learning is food for the brain or the mind, he has a great mind or a great brain. One word we do not use so interchangeably is "consciousness". We cannot say someone has a great consciousness or your consciousness is enhanced in a few years time when you graduate, but we can say they have a great mind or you mind is enhanced. Consciousness remains pretty constant. Your are no more conscious when you were a kid at kindergarten than when you have a record of credentials after your name.
I am sure the mind is a condition of the brain, but consciousness is merely a space-time frame of reference that comes to your conscious attention. Just a point on a trajectory through space and time and you for the moment is locked into this trajectory until your death after then it is freed up to reemerge somewhere else but consciousness without an individual brain for any frame of reference has the potential to exist anywhere the physical conditions make it possible and you have the potential to emerge within any brain past present and future
People sometimes speak of a "collective consciousness", but I think consciousness itself in inherently "collective" anyway and it would be like stating the Earth has a collective atmosphere or the universe has a process of collective nuclear fusion.
A collective mind is much more difficult to comprehend. A mind is more a property of an advanced brain that has the faculty of semantic and episodic memories.
A collective brain is a lot easier to comprehend because from the outset the human brain emerged from collective genetically encoded principles like consciousness REM sleep, slow wave sleep. In it would be fair to say that all the fetal human brains past present a future in isolation (with all other matter on this earth cancelled out) and observed as one great cluster of matter when we repeatedly recede and advance light-years away from years away would create an interesting picture in the universe.
I think we are at first at one with just such a system before we were born

Laurentius

Adrian Selby

First of all, it is not I that have brought computers, AI and artifacts into this discussion since I consider them bearers of human intelligence, abilities and goals – and thus prolonging the Mind, not competing with it.

What’s this software thing, the distinction isn’t real.

In the case of the computers and AI you have been talking about the distinction is very clear. Living things, indeed, are highly different in this respect, which is the reason why I introduced that classification in the first place.

A living thing does not just make a structure endowed with the capacity to preserve itself, it is self-preservation in flesh. This is the reason why I was using the idea of “immanently project-bearing objects” – a super-sophisticated computer such as Deep Blue can be reformatted, and thus parted from its software, but not a living thing.

The fact that living things are inherently endowed with complex capabilities for their own conservation, unlike non-living things, forms the ground of the categorization I’ve introduced between inert matter and living matter.

A further breath-taking breakthrough in terms of complexity is observable among the members of the living: self-reflectivity. Again, the physical mechanisms allowing self-reflection and the physical frames encapsulating them are inseparable in the case of these fortunate organisms, but the distinction is necessary, even physical description seem to cover everything. You may be right in your neuronal intuitions, but fail to notice that, while mere electric waves always move the same along a wire net, according to the same laws of electricity, humans can at least partly control these phenomena and use them at will. This ability constitutes the reason why I have introduced the distinction between superior and inferior living things in my hierarchy, which attempts to describe a physical reality in terms of my values. Values do not pertain solely to the object valued, they are rather the expression of our goals and beliefs. Well, the fact that I’m a Humanist has led to me not accepting that matter should all be some amorphous stuff where, say, the formation of a molecule, bird mating and human marriage bear the same complexity and significance.
AVE

[ March 15, 2002: Message edited by: Laurentius ]</p>

Laurentius

Owleye
On social systems, colonies, etc… about which you went on at length… I confess I’m not sure the relevance of this, except as I brought it up in connection with what could have been a reference of yours to the exclusion of artifacts

Has it been only that, perhaps I wouldn’t have gone on at such length. It happens that self-reflectivity is sometimes said, by anthropologists, to have been triggered by the necessity of the individual to anticipate the behavior of the members of his community. In an ape community, for instance, the relationships between its members can be a lot more complex, changeable, rewarding or disadvantageous than those in a termite colony, where either instinct or randomness are the only options.

The complexity of the human community nourishes the Mind, which in turn shapes the social order through the conscious elaboration of rules that deal with the same existential problems differently from one community to the other. This shows that (a) human organization is different from other forms of animal organization and (b) it is superior to them.
AVE

Christopher Lord

Oh please, computers have separate software and hardware by design. It makes for easier development, not having to build new hardware to fix a bug, which, by the way, evolution does with life forms, and explains the 3-billion year period of testing and refinement.

The first computers had their programming intertwined with their function, and were thus not 'programmable' in the manner today’s 'formattable' computers are.

The fact remains that the software in a living thing is intrinsic and intermingled with the hardware. Higher level software, such as the mind, must be taught by others over a period of 10-20 years, it is not free.

Besides, programmable life forms would be superior to non-programmable ones from the perspective of mind building, since it is then no longer tied to generations for improvements. Having the two integrated is a survival trait, and a non-amendable feature, since evolution has a hard time changing the basics like survival instincts and eating.

This thread has degenerated into the same old tripe. OOhhh, mystical will and mind and souls.

Perhaps I'm just bitter because my previous reply was ignored.

[ March 15, 2002: Message edited by: Christopher Lord ]</p>

Laurentius

synaethesia
The terrorist, presumably, is aware of the consequences of his action. He places metaphysical idea or political goals ahead of human live and organizations. An informed decision is made (the full reasons for which are never totally accessible to the individual who’s decision it is.). A barometric fuse is not capable of comprehending moral consequences to it’s functions, nor is an infant nor one who is severely mentally impaired. It is foolish, therefore, to treat them as though they could appreciate moral culpability.

I was not talking about whether they should say: "I was wrong to do it" but just "I did it" - I did not have moral/ethical implications in mind. I chose this case because it is one where usually people need to cleary place responsibilities. We can however take another example, the one of an artist using computer software to produce 3D art. Once his work is ready, who should we consider to be the author? When I set the thermostat to heat the room, who should be held responsible, me or it?

Non living matter does not have goals of itself. In this respect, a supernova, Deep Blue and a thermostat are all the same.

Some undetectable stuff that doesn’t really make a difference to anything, a ghost in the machine. You repeatedly assume that this essence exists, but you remain silent on what it adds to our understanding.

I repeatedly mention the distinction that I have initially made in my working classification. I never mention the existence of an essence, but of a different (higher) degree of physical organization. Classifications and hierarchizations do serve to knowledge. And they serve to human action as well. The fact that we place the computer and the artist in different categories helps us decide on originality, and the fact that we place the computer and the terrorist into different categories helps us decide on moral responsability.

Living things are good at self-preservation and self-replication for one reason only: because those that were bad at it are dead. This is, as you should know, evolution; A purely physical process requiring no more than purely physical structures.

Yes, but it is not a waste of time to observe what are the qualities that endow some living things with better survining chances - we might even see that they have different degrees of "survivability" and understand why, at least in the interest of our own species and each of its individuals.

Whether or not the universe is deterministic or statistically determinant isn’t really important. Chess was invented by a biological organism that evolved over the course of 3.8 billion years from (relatively) simple self-replicating molecules which evolved out of stable molecular components. Atoms and brownian motion and relentless unfairness. The result is chess, a system in which past changes can constrain future changes but needs and can produce no violation of the laws of physics.

In fact, what you are saying is that you choose not to care about chess rules as long as they do not break physical laws and as long as they have been produced by physically identifiable organizations. You refuse to note that chess rules have deterministically nothing to do with physical ones, so that you can affirm that there is no need for distinctions. Well, this is your choice.
AVE

[ March 15, 2002: Message edited by: Laurentius ]</p>

Synaesthesia

Laurentius,

I’m going to respond to some of your other points in later posts because without clarification of this issue, very little meaningful discussion will occur on the topic. I would like to hear what non-trivial manner in which your position differs from mine. To understand my position, it is very, important to recognize the distinctness of the following two assertions:

(1).Chess rules are something beyond physical processes. There is an essence, maybe a platonic reality to chess rules that transcends the physical world.

(2).Chess rules describe relations within a constrained system. Chess is only physical, but when we speak of chess, we are speaking only of specific functional relations within the physical world. There is (and I cannot sufficiently stress this point) no simple one-to-one mapping of chess rules to physical rules, but the relations defined within the game of chess need only refer to physical processes. No ontological transcending is going on here.

To clarify the second position, to see how an abstract structure can be only physical, an analogy might be helpful.

Conway’s game of life is a very simple physical world. It is two dimensional, consisting of a matrix of square cells each of which can be in one of two states, on or off. At each discrete moment in “time”, the state of each cell is examined and simple rules are consulted to determine whether or not it will change. The rules, applied to each and every cell, are as follows:

1. If there are two adjacent cells, stay in whatever state you are currently in.
2. If there are three adjacent cells, whatever state you are in, turn ON.
3. If there are any other number of adjacent cells, turn OFF.

We will call these physical laws the G-laws.
To get a sense for what is going on, here is a JAVA implementation of the game:

<a href="http://www.bitstorm.org/gameoflife/" target="_blank">http://www.bitstorm.org/gameoflife/</a>

If you’ll look under the popup menu, you will notice a listing of objects like glider and 10 cell row. Try clicking on one. What you will see is a shape, no more than ON and OFF cells of course, that can evolve ONLY according to the rules of the game.

Tell me, does it require a G-law description of what happens to each cell in each moment of the game to tell what the glider does? No, we can simply say that it moves along the screen as it morphs. Are any laws being added to the G-laws? Well, count up the squares at each moment and let me know, I think you’ll find that despite the fact that gliding is not specified within the game’s rules, it is produced by them nevertheless. Nothing transcends the physics, but everything quickly transcends our conception of what the physics can do.

Regards,
Synaesthesia

PS. <a href="http://www.rendell.uk.co/gol/turing_js_r.gif" target="_blank">http://www.rendell.uk.co/gol/turing_js_r.gif</a>

That is a picture of a turing machine(http://www.rendell.uk.co/gol/tm.htm). Within the physics of the game of life, any possible computer program can be implemented. Indeed, the game of life can be implemented within the game of life...

owleye

Laurentius...

By hiding the mind in "complexity", as you have done, and as has been done by Daniel Dennett, I think you obscure your point rather than make it. It makes it too easy for someone to deny that complexity alone is a sufficient condition for minds. Computer programs, including operating systems, can evolve by accretion (rarely by jettisoning) into complex systems that no one person can comprehend. Because there appears to be (and I confess not reading any significant part of it) that a discussion of chess programs is underway within this topic, I can safely bring in the program known as Deep Thought, which undoubtedly is very complex. If complexity alone is all that is required, we might have to conclude that Deep Thought is a mind (when it is "thinking"). As I understand it, many AI (or CS) folks, believing in a Turing test, become committed to this position. However, I suspect that it will remain unconvincing outside of that community (except in the sense in which folks can be fooled) and many more will put an emphasis on Searle's syntax - semantics breakdown. The rules by which the program operates lack semantic content. As such they cannot be minds.

owleye

Laurentius

Christopher Lord

I must have reach some inspiration dead end if I “managed” to leave the impression that I’ve been ignored you. Right now I’m trying to identify a more appropriate approach to the topic. Gosh, it is the first time I have ever supported a dualistic view, and moreover I’m not genuinely a dualistic either. Were I one, I’d do a better job (from the debate’s point of you, I mean), I’m sure. Meanwhile, let me take a more careful look at your post and see what I’ve neglected. I’m glad you’ve been frank on this – frankness and tolerance of frankness make two of my best skills. This generally makes my blunders more bearable.

I agree your hierarchy exists and can be used to extract meaningful categorization.

I wonder. One should know that due to my chronic lack of time I use almost no reference when I post things, and I’m sure that if I searched for some I would either make more sense or inspire more authority. More sense would be more preferable, though.

I think it does help to both strengthen and diminish the meaning of your words, though, since I can’t figure out what your implicit meaning is behind some of the succinct descriptions.

This is worrisome. It is not just another problem of expressing myself in English; it must be, on the one hand, my feeling that what I’m posting should be accepted as self-evident, or my lack of adequate philosophical descriptors (both notional and linguistic), on the other hand. Sometimes I’m so taken aback by some responses that I have the impression that we all tend to be quite solipsistic.

Things do tend to proceed on a gradient with leaps and whatnot due to species loss and minor revolutions, even from non-life, for instance. Take a self-replicating protein. Is this device a machine or a life-form? How about one with a simple information medium through which evolution can begin? RNA Viruses? Prions? Single-celled creatures?

This is dilemmatic. If everything can find its place on a discreetly gradual ladder comprising all entities in the “creation” from scratch to virtually infinite sophistication, then we might really live in an absolute deterministic universe. If, on the contrary, leaps are possible and they cannot be explained strictly physically, then some metaphysical cause should be identified, and this should contravene my clear materialist position.

I think all of these can be understood completely by a single human given a fair amount of research. After this, the complexity overwhelms a single human.

I used to be quite “objectivist” here and consider that as long as humans show enough interest in one issue, there is no way they won’t be able to pursue that particular issue till finding the complete “truth”. Nowadays I’m less confident.

One can’t yet fully understand a neural-limbic endoskeletal feline. We can see that the main limitation in understanding more advanced forms of life is our own. Even though the complexity has surpassed our ability to fully understand, we can still know that all the processes in a cat are ultimately physical, directly analogous way to a computer.

I agree. This is one of the reasons why I’ve introduced the ideas of embedded self-preservation, will and self-reflectivity.

But what then of the mind? Well, my original statement was that it is the manifestation of a procedural execution of the complex neural network it runs on. By this I mean the mind is a cascade of neural events inside a mass of neurons. I use the word cascade because the mind is a procedure of events, and these events can trigger more suchlike events. These events can be trained to fire certain events with certain inputs, including feedback input. Training introduces information, memory, and order, all of which can be the source of still more events. This cascade of events rides all the way up to a very abstract level, which is what we refer to as the mind. This process does indeed occur in most animals with a central nervous system, but at some critical threshold a mind can be supported on this tower of abstraction. Therefore my definition of a mind is “A tower of abstractions of sufficient height to support abstract reasoning, memory, creativity and self-awareness.” Once a device capable of building abstraction layers exists, it need only be refined to this point in order to express a mind.

I have no problem with this definition either (except that it sounds somehow limitative – but I guess any definition is improvable); in fact, I’ve come across several really interesting ones since I’m a member here. And as I have anticipated, these descriptions, your included, imply the following:
(a) the mind is a manifestation of an exclusively material structure (no other stuff than matter is required);
(b) material structures necessarily lead to more complex ones (no other causes than physical laws are required);
(c) the highly complex material structure whose manifestation the mind is can be labeled as the most sophisticated system ever (this is the brain – nothing but the brain is required in order to describe “abstract reasoning, memory, creativity and self-awareness”, making the mind terminology superfluous and misleading).

Okay. Well, (a) and (b) lead to the conclusion that the emergence of the mind is inevitable – all you need is a universe and time. Yeah, I think so, that’s why I call myself a materialist. However, (c) seems limitative from my point of view. The mind at work shows so various facets (such as will, or emotional assessment), many of which are outright irrational, that I have come to the conclusion that the mind covers all aspects of our personality. Each of us makes a peculiar biological soup whose functioning principles are similar, but whose actual realization may differ slightly at atomic or cellular level, which leads to cumulative effects such as different IQs, temperament traits, talents, etc. There is an old question, in fact two, in conjunction: “Where does my real ego start? Where does my sheer body stop?” I think that my ego is as large as my physical spatiality allows it – my mind is my perceptions, my endocrinal reactions, my idiosyncrasies, my affections, my rational justifications of all these, and so on. I don’t think that I’m a materialist because I’ve been musing longer and more significantly than a Christian. I’m a materialist because I feel like one. All the sensible constructs that are usually considered the main attributes of the mind are ultimately irrational and pertain to the whole being at once. My previous post about will was aiming (among other things) at making you aware that the Mind supersedes the Brain in that it involves processes larger than the important but specialized activity of the Brain.

I have not defined an abstraction layer yet, so I will now do so. A layer of abstraction is a way of compartmentalizing a set of information into a single new bit. Using a symbol for a physical thing is an abstraction, for instance. Using a specific call to signal a predator is an abstraction, and having a concept of predator in the first place is also one, associating a whole collection of sensual data with a single neural signal. Eventually this is the foundation through which we as mind-bearing humans use to communicate to each other, and much more importantly, to ourselves--via abstract spoken language. The inner dialog is the main reason we feel we are superior to the ‘lower’ animals. It is the glue for our piecemeal brain, bringing together the mind.

The power of abstraction developed in the Brain is the one that endows us with reason, intelligence and self-awareness. It distinguishes us from the inferior animals. It gives us the Mind. But this fantastic ability is all embracing: it centralizes all the aspects of our biological and psychological selves to form a more or less harmonious unity: all of us physically equivalent - each of us with its own pattern and peculiarity. .

Back to your comments. I use the word magic to ensure you are not a pure soul-based dualist. The dichotomy is not false, I believe, however, since information is simply a procedure applied to matter. Matter also consists of the forces and energy, since they are equivalent. I note this to ensure we are on the same page. Now take a machine which counts stones. In order to count stones, you must have a symbol for each number from 0 to stonecount + 1. Using symbols are a form of abstraction. Why have one symbol for each and every stone though? Why not symbolize the symbols, and use a Base X number system, such as binary, trinary, hexadecimal, or decimal? This enables you to use a very small set of symbols which in turn symbolize all the symbols you need for physical objects. All you need to do is proceduralize your counting a bit more. Are we still in the realm of the physical or are we now in your alternate dimension? As I will show, once you accept symbols for counting rocks, you are on a slippery slope towards accepting that symbols for love and minds are of the same sort.

The fact that more than just numbers make up the Mind is actually my point. For the rational Mind to emerge triumphantly the Brain is no doubt fundamental, the procedure you mention is applied to all life and psyche activities. Let me give you a specific example of how the Mind implies both rationalities and irrationalities As I have already mentioned, I belong to the variegated Balkan community. People here may belong to different ethnic groups but they can all be included into the so-called “white race”. However, not once have I noticed xenophobia and chauvinism expressed in the form of physical apperception: “I have nothing against … (and a specific ethnic group is mentioned),” the xenophobe or chauvinist will state. “But you know what? They have this characteristic odor… Yeah, they smell.”

If someone built a machine capable of all the abstractions a human is capable of, would this machine have a mind? Answering yes would be a pure materialistic answer, since a mind with all the abstractions and a means to proceduralize them would be an exact replica. Answering no admits that this machine does not/can not possess something that the neuron clumps do. This would be a dualist position, and it implies we have something machines can not possibly have, and can not pass on.

Yes, machines do not have an inherent curiosity, for instance. They lack will. They don’t show solidarism in relation with one another. These things spontaneously happen to living things.

When asked what this something is, dualists quickly turn towards attacking materialism as overzealous reductionism. They never lay out their cards, but they insist on claiming they have the better hand none the less. Currently, we have machines capable of early-mammal-class abstraction abilities, and expert system AI is currently exceeding human capability, since an expert system has a smaller abstraction set. No science fiction here--If you have ever flown in a commercial airliner, you have placed your life completely in the hands of an expert system AI, developed a decade ago. There is every reason to suspect this will scale up with our ever-spiralling technology just like it has so far, quite likely producing human-level abstraction capabilities in 20 years. If this is science fiction, what barrier-to-entry exists for ever-improving AI? I would propose that at the very least, human level minds are the limit, since they have already been realized by a much slower process of abstraction building.
Firstly, I consider current AI an extension of human intelligence actively stored in non-living objects. Secondly, I think non-living things, either technological or natural objects, cannot be held responsible for what they do – they lack any will, sense of purpose, value-triggered attitude such as disillusionment etc. (the exploding supernova vs. the suicidal man, the thermostat vs. the housemaid, the 3D artist vs. the computer)

Later in your post you make mention again of what you consider my view of biological life. In your view, I appear to believe life is a robotic, industrial process of cogs and wheels, working like clock-work (evidenced by the use of the words ‘reductionist’ and ‘mechanisim&#8217 . If this is your view of me, it is a straw-man. It takes a tremendous pile of abstractions for even a simple life form to operate. ATP, DNA and RNA are all abstractions of physical things. Cells operate like entire cities, with buildings compartmentalizing and abstracting away the physical world. At this point already chaos has reduced the clockwork-ness of life to almost nothing. Stars, galaxies, and even crystals resist entropy by following a procedure. Life also resists with its own set of bureaucratic processes. These processes happen to be more complex and efficient because they had the advantage of being honed with replicative evolution.

Good description. As for my position, I will only mention that non living things amorphously emerge and disappear. They never represent individualities with personal projects and particular responses to the environment. Well, I’m afraid I’ve been repeating these same arguments here and in previous posts, and that’s why I said I was thinking of initiating a different approach altogether to this matter.

Your final statement regarding self-conservation does not take into account that self-conservation is a trait highly favoured by evolution, and is thus probably one of the first behaviours after food-seeking and replication itself to develop. In effect, living things gave themselves self-preservation due to competition with nature and other replicators.
As I final point for now, the classification I’ve served is meant to point out the complexity at which matter (the Brain and adjacent components) have to get in order for the Mind to become manifest. It is this manifestation of the Mind that preoccupies me, not the idea of a ghost in the brain or soul in the body. My dualism is not ontological, although it is related to visible physical hierarchical order – but philosophical, and it aims at finding a foundation for Secular Humanism.

Things go slow though – I still have the feeling that at times I’m ambiguous and expedient. Thank you for your interest anyway.
AVE

Laurentius

Synaesthesia
On these distinctions.
I’m not going to beat about the bush, but I think that it is not less significant to notice that chess is basically a mental game (even if our physical presence is required). Basketball, tennis, etc. are basically physical games (even if “brainless” players do not count). It has never been my intention to attest the Mind as a platonic essence. But basketball for instance occurs in the physical plan of reality and demands exquisite physical performance (i.e. physical skills) for one to win, while chess occurs in the mental plan of reality and demands exquisite mental performance (i.e. mental skills).

My operating with these two plans of reality, physical and mental, does not hint at the possibility of a non-physical essence, but the physical configuration representing the Brain and its assistants can generate and sustain mental objects, such as Conway’s game of life.

This is called a game, but what we have in fact, is very high number of math problems. Conway has not devised a game, but mathematical universe, where squares can be ON or OFF according to the unique internal laws that have been initially stated – squares will be either on or off indefinitely. Thus, I think that the comparison between Conway’s game and chess is not relevant; you may at most compare Conway’s game with our own universe.

No, if don’t call it a “glider”. But the moment you call it so, that means you have performed some additional operations that are specific to the Mind, such as noticing regularities in the random world and creating or accepting abstract notions. There is no glider if there is no integrative mind to determine so.

As I have said, the fact that the observer is the Mind, a great deal is added to the G-laws. It is like watching clouds in the sky taking shapes of dragons, faces, bunnies etc. that actually are creations of our mind, nurtured by the laws that govern it.

Here’s a simpler “game”, which requires only a calculator.
Type 22222222. Apply the root. What you’ll get is: 4714.0451.
The symmetry of the initial number has been broken.
Type 33333333. Apply the root. What you’ll get is: 5773.5026.
The symmetry of the initial number is broken again.
You can try this with other numbers of your own choice.
Now try these:
Type 11111111. Apply the root. What you’ll get is: 3333.3333.
The symmetry of the initial number is somewhat preserved.
Type 44444444. Apply the root. You’ll get 6666.6666.
The same recognizable symmetry.
Type 99999999. Apply the root. You’ll get 9999.9999.
Wow. Even cooler. I could even call this a magic number. Why? Because the mind, as an observer, implicitly may introduce rules and meanings that do not pertain to the object to be observed. (I have the same comment to make regarding the other picture.)
AVE

[ March 17, 2002: Message edited by: Laurentius ]</p>