Time

[b1cmum73]

'TIME'

The secret of the universe and all existence as we know it is a simple thing we call time.

In Albert Einstein's famous equation (E=MC2) there are only three things. Energy, which we have an understanding of, Mass, which we also seem to comprehend, and Time ("C" the speed of light...the time it takes light to travel from point A to point B) and time is something no scientist on earth can explain or really define, let alone understand.. Einstein proved that time can even be slowed by increasing acceleration. We often hear the saying "from the beginning of time" or "til the end of time"....but what was there before the beginning of time, and if time runs out...what then. Is there a past, present and future?. Well apparently there is a past and a future...but there can never be a present, for as soon as we say the word "now" it is in the past, for time does not stop nor stand still even for the shortest possible moment. Scientists have determined that the present Universe is about 14 billion years old. What existed before the Universe began....was that the beginning of time? We, as human beings, cannot imagine nor comprehend anything without a beginning nor an end, for everything we know as human beings has had a beginning and an end and therefore as the Universe had a beginning, (the big bang according to scientists) then it must have and end. So when someone figures out exactly what time really is, they will have discovered the secret of all that exists,but because of that famous equation we realize that time is a thing not just a passing just as mass is a thing. And if there is a supreme intelligence (GOD) it is quite possible that for this being time does not exist at all...something, we as human beings, cannot understand, at least. not yet And it must also be observed that as Einstein said....space and time are inseparable...thus a space-time continuum. For without time there can be no space and without space there can be no time. So if one is taken away then so is the other, so that nothingness remains, and this is a concept that the human brain cannot imagine......and perhaps this place where time and space do not exist is where "GOD" dwells. And taking into account that something cannot come from nothing then it is my conclusion that there was no beginning and there will never be an end, but infinity, each one of us, as unique as we are, will reappear in the future even if it takes trillions and trillions of years of time as we know it....and in that sense we (each one of us) must have existed countless times in the past and will exist countless times in the future, thereby making us immortal...however, perhaps sadly, our memories will not follow us, and of course we will believe that each life we are in is our one and only life.....and each time we die, time for us will cease to exist while we are dead and those possible trillions of years for us will be less than a blink of the eye. Yes we will reappear because given enough time everything that exists including us will come about again and again because time is infinite going forward or backward, and this also means that the number of universes are infinite as well and going a step further we are not in the only universe that exists but at this very moment in all probability there are an infinite number of other parallel universes. I therefore opine that as we live these many lives and if we become better persons in each life, there could possibly be a time that in one of these lives we become "worthy" or "saintly" then in that life when we die, we will be plucked out of this time-space continuum by the will of that supreme intelligence I spoke of, and we will then reside in that place where "GOD" dwells ...a place we humans call heaven.and this heaven as we call it, is that place where time and space do not exist, and where we will experience eternal joy and pleasure that is so great that we as humans cannot imagine such happiness...and if we don't become worthy, then we are doomed to remain in this space-time continuum for as long as it takes where we will continue to suffer pain and turmoil along with sprinkles of happiness as humans do and of course, death.

Even if most of the above is incorrect....one thing I am sure is correct and that is that the secret of all that we know that exists will only be explained when we actually know what time really is. If we can define "time" and explain it fully, then we will have uncovered the secret of all that exists as we know it. But I fear we will never know the real explanation and definition of 'time' and maybe that is how it is meant to be.

Observations by J. Roger Kean of what might be. December 20th, 2008

Addendum: May 1, 2009. I have just finished reading the book entitled “ENDLESS UNIVERSE” by physicists Paul J. Steinhardt and Neil Turok and they contend as I also had believed, that the universe is cyclical and not inflationary. Simply put this means that time did not begin with the big bang as was previously thought but that time itself is infinite going backwards as well as forward. Our universe is only one of an infinite number….as one ends, another begins. As I have said earlier, I believe that given enough time (and infinity certainly is that) we, each one of us, have existed before and will exist again ad infinitum. But as I said our memories will not follow us and and we will, of course, instinctively believe that the life we are leading is our one and only life. And, of course, each life will be unique and completely different from all the others. What would be the point or reason for the existence of a universe, or a planet as beautiful as planet earth, if there were no intelligent life to admire it? Therefore it follows that we exist for that reason and to learn and discover the reason WHY? Because it only makes sense that for everything there is a reason and man's quest throughout time is to study and learn the answers to the question WHY? This, of course, will take an enormous span of time.....there it is again that thing called time. But I believe at some point in the very, very, distant future the answer will be revealed and as for each one of us, we are, as I theorized earlier ...immortal. Remember this quote ("Fear not death, for the sooner we die, the longer we shall be immortal" by Benjamin Franklin),

I do believe that nature and evolution are nothing less than the working hand of God, metaphorically speaking, for it is only logical that in order to create intelligence, a much greater intelligence must exist, and even though much bad and evil exist there has to be a reason, and because we have been given free will, it becomes necessary that we have to accept all that befalls us. We cannot know the mind of God and therefore must accept rather than question. I am also of the opinion that at some point in our existence the answer to that eternal question "Why?" will be revealed to us. It is at that point and only then that we will have an understanding of all that "is", and our joy will be immeasureable.

Of course, everything I have put forward in the above is conjecture based upon theoretical physics as far as "time" is concerned, along with my own reasoning powers. Therefore the reader will have to come to his or her own conclusions as to what he or she believes. But of one thing I am fairly certain, and that is if something doesn't make sense then it isn't true and it doesn't make sense that we exist for a tiny period of time and then are delivered into oblivion forever, because then there would be no purpose whatsoever for our existence which goes against all logic. J. Roger Kean

Postscript: The concept of infinity is very difficult, almost impossible for the human mind to comprehend. Everything we know as humans has had a beginning and an end. For something to have no beginning (let's say a piece of rope, or a highway, anything etc.) is impossible to visualize. Even the stars in our universe, of which our sun is one, are continuously being born and dying. That is why "Time" itself is undefineable. Even the smartest physicists and scientists cannot define it.....it is a real mystery. Atheists like to ask the question...Where does God come from?....Well the answer is very simple...."God" (whatever or whoever God is) doesn't come from anywhere, God (He, She or It) always was and always will be. JRK

[coberst]

Long, long ago, I took a course in physics at Oklahoma Agriculture and Mechanical College now called Oklahoma State University. That physics course defined speed to be equal to the distance traversed by an object in a unit of time. For the initiated that is s=d/t. It was assumed that distance and time were more primitive concepts than was motion.

I live in the mountains and often go hiking. On occasion some motion among all the other fluttering motions going on within my perception halts all activity, my pulse races, chills run down my back, and all my attention is focused upon a particular motion. Later I consciously analyze the situation and discover that that motion was similar to a dangerous motion as defined by my genes. We are hard-wired to respond to motion. I discover every time such an incident occurs that motion is number one and time is not supreme.

“What we call the domain of time appears to be a conceptual domain that we use for asking certain questions about events through our comparison to other events: where they are “located” relative to other events, how can they be measured relative to other events, and so on. What is literal and inherent about the conceptual domain of time is that it is characterized by the comparison of events.”

“This does not mean that we do not have an experience of time…What it means is that our real experience of time is dependent, is always relative to our real experience of events. It also means that our experience of time is dependent on or embodied conceptualization of time in terms of events. This is a major point: Experience does not always come prior to conceptualization, because conceptualization is itself embodied. Furthermore, it means that our experience of time is grounded in other experiences, the experience of events.”

What, if anything, is time ‘in itself’? I suspect no one can answer that question because such a thing, I guess, does not exist. We are able to talk of time only with metaphors.

Common linguistic expressions: “That’s all behind us now. Let’s put that in back of us now. We’re looking ahead to the future. He has a great future in front of of him.”

A Moving Time Metaphor: “There is a lone, stationary observer facing in a fixed direction. There is an indefinitely long sequence of objects moving past the observer from front to back. The moving objects are conceptualized as having fronts in their direction of motion.”

Common linguistic expressions: “There’s going to be trouble down the road. Will you be staying a long time or a short time. Let’s spread the conference over two weeks. We passed the deadline. I’ll be there in a minute.”

A Moving Observer Metaphor: “What we will encounter in the future is what we are moving towards. What we are encountering now is what we are moving by. What we encounter in the past is what we moved past.”

We see in these time metaphors a duality of figure and background reversals. In one metaphor time moves and the observer is stationary while in the other the observer moves and time is stationary. Such duality of figure-ground reversals is apparently common in human perception. “Object-location duality occurs for a simple reason: Many metaphorical mappings take a motion in space as a source domain. With motion in space, there is the possibility of reversing figure and ground.”

The quotes are from Philosophy in the Flesh by Lakoff and Johnson.

[Bryn Mawr]

coberst;1257154 wrote:

A Moving Time Metaphor: “There is a lone, stationary observer facing in a fixed direction. There is an indefinitely long sequence of objects moving past the observer from front to back. The moving objects are conceptualized as having fronts in their direction of motion.”



A Moving Observer Metaphor: “What we will encounter in the future is what we are moving towards. What we are encountering now is what we are moving by. What we encounter in the past is what we moved past.”




The metaphor I've always liked and used has the observer facing is a fixed direction and the relative motion of the objects being from back to front with their faces against the direction of relative motion.

The present is the plane on the observer looking into the past - the recent past is closer and therefore more visible to him and the farther into the past an object is the less distinctly he will see it. The future is behind his line of vision and therefore invisible to him.

[KSnyder]

Bryn Mawr;1257187 wrote: The metaphor I've always liked and used has the observer facing is a fixed direction and the relative motion of the objects being from back to front with their faces against the direction of relative motion.

The present is the plane on the observer looking into the past - the recent past is closer and therefore more visible to him and the farther into the past an object is the less distinctly he will see it. The future is behind his line of vision and therefore invisible to him.


All you had to say was that "time" hasn't, doesn't, and will never exist Bryn!

[OpenMind]

I have mused on whether our universe is finite or infinite. If it is finite, what would the boundary look like and would we be able to touch it? As a teenager, I have wondered if our universe is a particle in a bigger universe and whether particles in our universe are universes in themselves. There is no reason why either should not be an infinite arrangement unless the limitations of Planck’s constant holds true throughout.

Time, like length, breadth, and height, is a convenient system of measurement. Time provides a parameter for observing change. Like length, breadth, and width, physical time can only have a positive quantity in the physical universe. These four dimensions only ever acquire negative values in mathematical processes.

Physical change is the result of processes many of which are irreversible. Time reversal would mean nothing to these irreversible processes.

We can observe changes as they occur. However, we can only recall what has passed and imagine what may befall.

Length, breadth, and width; these are all simply straight-line measurements with different angles of inclination with reference to the observer.



I have also mused on the subject of the awareness of self, consciousness, being, and so on. Inner reflection has led me to believe that my self-awareness is defined by my sensory system. That in itself is a simple enough conclusion – remove all the senses and there is nothing to perceive with.

Instead, I am left with questions that appear to have no answers. Why should we all have a personal experience and awareness of life and why in this host body? What point is there to the experience when it is nothing but a flash in the entire cycle of life? Does this mean that any life with a sensory system, however primitive, experiences self-awareness. Clearly, humans have been asking questions like these for as long as there has been human self-awareness.

Like the thread starter, I have considered the proposal that we experience variations of the same personality through repeated life cycles of the universe. If my memory serves me, this theory was developed on the back of the steady state universe theory.

On the other hand, some religious theories suggest that perhaps the focus of self-awareness simply switches to another self-aware personality. The only problem with this theory is that every self-aware life form needs to have the focus and this requires the focus to be able to switch back and forth through time.

I have discarded the idea that we become spirits when we die or that we were spirits before we were born for the simple reason that particles cannot occupy the same space. If a spirit is to exist, it must consist of particles the same as anything else that exists. Even thoughts require particles in order to exist. On the other hand, if spirits consist of dark matter, that would put a different light on the subject (if you’ll excuse the pun).

[KSnyder]

OpenMind;1257602 wrote: I have mused on whether our universe is finite or infinite. If it is finite, what would the boundary look like and would we be able to touch it? As a teenager, I have wondered if our universe is a particle in a bigger universe and whether particles in our universe are universes in themselves. There is no reason why either should not be an infinite arrangement unless the limitations of Planck’s constant holds true throughout.

Time, like length, breadth, and height, is a convenient system of measurement. Time provides a parameter for observing change. Like length, breadth, and width, physical time can only have a positive quantity in the physical universe. These four dimensions only ever acquire negative values in mathematical processes.

Physical change is the result of processes many of which are irreversible. Time reversal would mean nothing to these irreversible processes.

We can observe changes as they occur. However, we can only recall what has passed and imagine what may befall.

Length, breadth, and width; these are all simply straight-line measurements with different angles of inclination with reference to the observer.



I have also mused on the subject of the awareness of self, consciousness, being, and so on. Inner reflection has led me to believe that my self-awareness is defined by my sensory system. That in itself is a simple enough conclusion – remove all the senses and there is nothing to perceive with.

Instead, I am left with questions that appear to have no answers. Why should we all have a personal experience and awareness of life and why in this host body? What point is there to the experience when it is nothing but a flash in the entire cycle of life? Does this mean that any life with a sensory system, however primitive, experiences self-awareness. Clearly, humans have been asking questions like these for as long as there has been human self-awareness.

Like the thread starter, I have considered the proposal that we experience variations of the same personality through repeated life cycles of the universe. If my memory serves me, this theory was developed on the back of the steady state universe theory.

On the other hand, some religious theories suggest that perhaps the focus of self-awareness simply switches to another self-aware personality. The only problem with this theory is that every self-aware life form needs to have the focus and this requires the focus to be able to switch back and forth through time.

I have discarded the idea that we become spirits when we die or that we were spirits before we were born for the simple reason that particles cannot occupy the same space. If a spirit is to exist, it must consist of particles the same as anything else that exists. Even thoughts require particles in order to exist. On the other hand, if spirits consist of dark matter, that would put a different light on the subject (if you’ll excuse the pun).


Any form of self awareness is a form of selfishness in my mind!

We're all made up of elements(We all owe our thanks to Supernovas btw!) so I think essentially people tend to put too much emphasis on human "perception". When we die every bit of who we are still lives on because that which defines us will still move on! The difference being in what shape or form(Spirit you speak of).

What would cancel us out would ultimately have to end with anti electrons or positrons("antielectron - positron: an elementary particle with positive charge; interaction of a positron and an electron results in annihilation)! Quintessentially in my mind this raises quite a philosophical debate! Could we in ourselves invent negativity? Assuming so, ever so cynically, is it in the best interests of the Universe that we as human beings be wiped out? US!?!??!?!? We as human beings the true bacteria of the Universe that finds a way to survive?

Charles Robert Darwin has made more sense than any damn religious fanatic will! Perhaps religion, based off of this blatantly plausible suggestion, does actually make sense! Not by the ridiculously stupid fairy tails but by the passion of human beings wanting to better themselves. I don't mind that! In fact I encourage it! Just so long as "you" do it intelligently, that's all! Burning people at the stakes is not intelligent! or is it? What's left is a "god" that insists on the destruction of man kind! Not a very nice "god"!

I'm not even going to get into "The Universe in a Nutshell" by Stephen A. Hawking because that stuff begins to sound like a last ditch bet in the seventh race at Churchill Downs! "Get up there you lame excuse for stardom!" "HHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPPPPPPPPPPPPPP!!!!!!!!!!" "HIT THAT SON OF A !!!!!!!!!"

BTW: My great, great, great Grandpappy x 777,777 rode in here on a comet whilst he were having sex with me great, great, great Grandmammy x 777,777 at 77km/sec!

AND YES HE WAS WEARING HIS SUNGLASSES PEOPLE WAKE UP!!!!!!

[coberst]

Emotions equal instinct. First, there is emotion, then comes feeling, then comes consciousness of feeling.

What are the emotions? The primary emotions are happiness, sadness, fear, anger, surprise and disgust. The secondary or social emotions are such things as pride, jealousy, embarrassment, and guilt. Damasio considers the background emotions are well-being or malaise, and calm or tension. The label of emotion has also been attached to drives and motivations and to states of pain and pleasure.

Antonio Damasio, Distinguished Professor and Head of the Department of Neurology at the University of Iowa College of Medicine, testifies in his book “The Feelings of What Happens” that the biological process of feelings begins with a ‘state of emotion’, which can be triggered unconsciously and is followed by ‘a state of feeling’, which can be presented nonconsciously; this nonconscious state can then become ‘a state of feeling made conscious’.

”Emotions are about the life of an organism, its body to be precise, and their role is to assist the organism in maintaining life…emotions are biologically determined processes, depending upon innately set brain devices, laid down by long evolutionary history…The devices that produce emotions…are part of a set of structures that both regulate and represent body states…All devices can be engaged automatically, without conscious deliberation…The variety of the emotional responses is responsible for profound changes in both the body landscape and the brain landscape. The collection of these changes constitutes the substrate for the neural patterns which eventually become feelings of emotion.”

The biological function of emotions is to produce an automatic action in certain situations and to regulate the internal processes so that the creature is able to support the action dictated by the situation. The biological purpose of emotions are clear, they are not a luxury but a necessity for survival.

“Emotions are inseparable from the idea of reward and punishment, pleasure or pain, of approach or withdrawal, of personal advantage or disadvantage. Inevitably, emotions are inseparable from the idea of good and evil.”

Emotions result from stimulation of the senses from outside the body sources and also from stimulations from remembered situations. Evolution has provided us with emotional responses from certain types of inducers put these innate responses are often modified by our culture.

“It is through feelings, which are inwardly directed and private, that emotions, which are outwardly directed and public, begin their impact on the mind; but the full and lasting impact of feelings requires consciousness, because only along with the advent of a sense of self do feelings become known to the individual having them.”

First, there is emotion, then comes feeling, then comes consciousness of feeling. There is no evidence that we are conscious of all our feelings, in fact evidence indicates that we are not conscious of all feelings.

Human emotion and feeling pivot on consciousness; this fact has not been generally recognized prior to Damasio’s research. Emotion has probably evolved long before consciousness and surfaces in many of us when caused by inducers we often do not recognize consciously.

The powerful contrast between emotion and feeling is used by the author in his search for a comprehension of consciousness. It is a neurological fact, states the author, that when consciousness is suspended then emotion is likewise usually suspended. This observed human characteristic led Damasio to suspect that even though emotion and consciousness are different phenomenon that there must be an important connection between the two.

Damasio proposes “that the term feeling should be reserve for the private, mental experience of an emotion, while the term emotion should be used to designate the collection of responses, many of which are publicly observable.” This means that while we can observe our own private feelings we cannot observe these same feelings in others.

Empirical evidence indicates that we need not be conscious of emotional inducers nor can we control emotions willfully. We can, however, control the entertainment of an emotional inducer even though we cannot control the emotion induced.

I was raised as a Catholic and taught by the nuns that “impure thoughts” were a sin only if we “entertained” bad thoughts after an inducer caused an emotion that we felt, i.e. God would not punish us for the first impure thought but He would punish us for dwelling upon the impure thought. If that is not sufficient verification of the theory derived from Damasio’s empirical evidence, what is?

In a typical emotion, parts of the brain sends forth messages to other parts of the body, some of these messages travel via the blood stream and some via the body’s nerve system. These neural and chemical messages results in a global change in the organism. The brain itself is just as radically changed. But, before the brain becomes conscious of this matter, before the emotion becomes known, two additional steps must occur. The first is feeling, i.e. an imaging of the bodily changes, followed by a ‘core consciousness’ to the entire set of phenomena. “Knowing an emotion—feeling a feeling—only occurs at this point.”

Quotes from The Feelings of What Happens by Antonio Damasio

[KSnyder]

coberst;1257699 wrote: Emotions equal instinct. First, there is emotion, then comes feeling, then comes consciousness of feeling.

What are the emotions? The primary emotions are happiness, sadness, fear, anger, surprise and disgust. The secondary or social emotions are such things as pride, jealousy, embarrassment, and guilt. Damasio considers the background emotions are well-being or malaise, and calm or tension. The label of emotion has also been attached to drives and motivations and to states of pain and pleasure.

Antonio Damasio, Distinguished Professor and Head of the Department of Neurology at the University of Iowa College of Medicine, testifies in his book “The Feelings of What Happens” that the biological process of feelings begins with a ‘state of emotion’, which can be triggered unconsciously and is followed by ‘a state of feeling’, which can be presented nonconsciously; this nonconscious state can then become ‘a state of feeling made conscious’.

”Emotions are about the life of an organism, its body to be precise, and their role is to assist the organism in maintaining life…emotions are biologically determined processes, depending upon innately set brain devices, laid down by long evolutionary history…The devices that produce emotions…are part of a set of structures that both regulate and represent body states…All devices can be engaged automatically, without conscious deliberation…The variety of the emotional responses is responsible for profound changes in both the body landscape and the brain landscape. The collection of these changes constitutes the substrate for the neural patterns which eventually become feelings of emotion.”

The biological function of emotions is to produce an automatic action in certain situations and to regulate the internal processes so that the creature is able to support the action dictated by the situation. The biological purpose of emotions are clear, they are not a luxury but a necessity for survival.

“Emotions are inseparable from the idea of reward and punishment, pleasure or pain, of approach or withdrawal, of personal advantage or disadvantage. Inevitably, emotions are inseparable from the idea of good and evil.”

Emotions result from stimulation of the senses from outside the body sources and also from stimulations from remembered situations. Evolution has provided us with emotional responses from certain types of inducers put these innate responses are often modified by our culture.

“It is through feelings, which are inwardly directed and private, that emotions, which are outwardly directed and public, begin their impact on the mind; but the full and lasting impact of feelings requires consciousness, because only along with the advent of a sense of self do feelings become known to the individual having them.”

First, there is emotion, then comes feeling, then comes consciousness of feeling. There is no evidence that we are conscious of all our feelings, in fact evidence indicates that we are not conscious of all feelings.

Human emotion and feeling pivot on consciousness; this fact has not been generally recognized prior to Damasio’s research. Emotion has probably evolved long before consciousness and surfaces in many of us when caused by inducers we often do not recognize consciously.

The powerful contrast between emotion and feeling is used by the author in his search for a comprehension of consciousness. It is a neurological fact, states the author, that when consciousness is suspended then emotion is likewise usually suspended. This observed human characteristic led Damasio to suspect that even though emotion and consciousness are different phenomenon that there must be an important connection between the two.

Damasio proposes “that the term feeling should be reserve for the private, mental experience of an emotion, while the term emotion should be used to designate the collection of responses, many of which are publicly observable.” This means that while we can observe our own private feelings we cannot observe these same feelings in others.

Empirical evidence indicates that we need not be conscious of emotional inducers nor can we control emotions willfully. We can, however, control the entertainment of an emotional inducer even though we cannot control the emotion induced.

I was raised as a Catholic and taught by the nuns that “impure thoughts” were a sin only if we “entertained” bad thoughts after an inducer caused an emotion that we felt, i.e. God would not punish us for the first impure thought but He would punish us for dwelling upon the impure thought. If that is not sufficient verification of the theory derived from Damasio’s empirical evidence, what is?

In a typical emotion, parts of the brain sends forth messages to other parts of the body, some of these messages travel via the blood stream and some via the body’s nerve system. These neural and chemical messages results in a global change in the organism. The brain itself is just as radically changed. But, before the brain becomes conscious of this matter, before the emotion becomes known, two additional steps must occur. The first is feeling, i.e. an imaging of the bodily changes, followed by a ‘core consciousness’ to the entire set of phenomena. “Knowing an emotion—feeling a feeling—only occurs at this point.”

Quotes from The Feelings of What Happens by Antonio Damasio


What is your opinion(s) on the relationship, if you feel there is any at all, between "emotions" and "time"?

[coberst]

KSnyder;1257702 wrote: What is your opinion(s) on the relationship, if you feel there is any at all, between "emotions" and "time"?


I am not aware of any relationship. Emotions are concrete concepts that are not consciously controlled except in rare cases we can perhaps learn to control them is some respect. Time is an abstract concept.

[KSnyder]

coberst;1257840 wrote: I am not aware of any relationship. Emotions are concrete concepts that are not consciously controlled except in rare cases we can perhaps learn to control them is some respect. Time is an abstract concept.


Could we not suggest that because all of our bodies are made of the same elements that all that would be left is discovering as to whether or not the Universe is defined by borders that enables "time" travel?

The way I see it is that if the Universe has no border then that equates to the truth behind the definition of "infinity"! That much is logically true! The suggestion is is if "infinity" exists as we know it then a certain series of chromosomes(Having to be defined as infinitely small in nature) could never possibly be mimicked, logically speaking! But then again forever is a very long "time"! Still yet, had there been no true definition of "infinity" "forever" would then forever be non existent, speaking in divination of course!

Ultimately if "infinity" does not exist, as we assume it to, that would mean that math were possible to have an end number ultimately giving credence to an exact replica of chromosomes ultimately proving that "time" travel is not only innately possible, but has already been achieved!

This is how my silly little mind works!