Also, genuine "strong" artificial intelligences probably wouldn't qualify as animals. But I'm strongly opposed to using AI's as slaves, or deleting (killing) them.
Most objections to Judeo-Christian morality are rooted in two causes: 1. Personal vice. 2. Inexperience. The first is almost never philosophical. The second is almost invariably philosophical, but dwells on matters in which the philosopher has no actual experience.
I should replace "Yeah, everyone who disagrees with you does so because they lack life experience." with "Yeah, most people who disagree with you do so because they lack life experience (or because they're vile sinners.)"
Actually, I need to change "Seems like you're saying sapient aliens would be on the same moral level as cows" to "Seems like you're saying sapient aliens would be on the same moral level as chickens" because Hindus are forbidden from killing cows, and that's not what I mean to say. I *think* chickens are considered acceptable to kill to eat in most major religions, but if I've missed a religion please let me know.
Oops. Replace "any more than classical nondeterminism through exponential dependence on initial conditions" with "any more than classical 'nondeterminism' through exponential sensitivity to initial conditions"
Actually, after reading his comment a few times I don't think I know what he's talking about at all. Maybe your interpretation was more accurate than mine...
So... because you've changed your mind in the past, there has to be a supernatural force affecting the physics that govern your neurons? Wow.
I've previously said that free will seems like a nearly insurmountable philosophical problem. Supernatural effects don't seem to fix this problem any more than classical nondeterminism through exponential dependence on initial conditions or quantum nondeterminism. These "quick-fixes" either turn a deterministic, predictable system into a deterministic but unpredictable system, or a genuinely nondeterministic system that obeys statistical laws. Supernatural effects seem similar except they wouldn't necessarily have to obey statistical laws.
But just like quantum nondeterminism doesn't adequately explain free-will, supernatural effects don't seem to explain the subjective impression we have of free-will. How would supernatural violations of (say) conservation of energy or momentum result in my subjective impression that I make my own decisions?
Appealing to magic to find a quick answer to a hard problem is tempting. Especially when that answer also implies that death is just a transition to see our departed loved ones, that evil people will be punished in this life or the next, and that we're not insignificant mayflies in an oppressively vast universe.
In contrast, saying "I don't know" isn't nearly as satisfying an answer. But sometimes that's all we can say.
Being Aryan is a basic characteristic of humanity.... It is not for us to feel sympathy for the Jews.... I'd like you to prove, using your definition of what it means to be human, that:... Jews are human.
What a way to light up a straw man. And then accuse me of it yourself! Actually, the Nazis stopped at 12 million, so we can't consider them the same. Right now, pro-choicers are up in Stalin territory, who reputedly killed about 55 million. But I didn't write this post (or its parent) to bash pro-choice people. But trollish rhetoric aside, there are some points I'd like to clarify: But since you had to mention the Nazis... the ideological bases for the pro-choice movement originated with Nazi collaborators. This is not hyperbole, I'm not trolling, it's a historical fact.
Yes... I mentioned the Nazis. Right.
It's not that I really believe all pro-choice people are in league with the devil, but merely that they are unaware of the larger, underlying issues in the debate. Maybe you, personally, have other reasons for holding a pro-choice view, but the movement as a whole has some rather unsavory origins.
Yes, maybe I have other reasons for holding a pro-choice view other than being in league with the devil. Love the ambiguity there, as though I didn't just explain my reasons for being pro-choice in my other post.
The issue of abortion hinges on the definition of what it means to be human.
In my other post I argued that it hinges on which beings qualify for individual rights, and I decided that all sapient beings deserve the right to life. I explicitly extended this right far beyond the human race. Not based on superstitious, unfalsifiable claims like the presence or absence of a "soul" but the quality of sapience that can (at least in principle) be detected.
The sapient alien question is hardly compelling because a moral evil does not require damaging a human being. In Islam, it is morally wrong to mistreat an animal. If the sapient alien would qualify as an animal, we could safely say killing one would be morally wrong, without ever addressing the issue of whether they possessed a soul, were sentient, intelligent, loving, caring, etc...
Seems like you're saying sapient aliens would be on the same moral level as cows. Mistreating one would be morally wrong, but "humanely" slaughtering it for food is presumably okay. I strenuously disagree.
So instead, they simply avoid the debate, and their proponents are left in a rather untenable position of being able to do nothing more than assert, without reason, the supposed correctness of their cause.
Like when some people assert that homosexuality is immoral because a straight father really loves his son? Or how some people assert that abortion should be illegal because they watched a person die unexpectedly? I agree, both of those instances seem like enormous leaps of logic that are very good examples of assertions not backed up by reason.
I think what he meant by "test" is that you're trying to draw incredibly broad (cosmological, even) conclusions from your own personal feelings regarding fatherhood. He's saying that a particular emotion of joy at seeing your child doesn't say anything about God, so your conclusions about God's desires for us don't follow.
Yeah, everyone who disagrees with you does so because they lack life experience. For instance, I've never left the operating room in which I was born. What are these "children" and "homosexuals" you speak of?
As an example, I'll use homosexuality. According to Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, it's wrong. But why?
Because people are fundamentally herd animals, and fear anyone who's different. This prejudice affects everyone, even the people who wrote those "holy books."
I honestly didn't know the answer. Why would God care if someone found sexual pleasure in a unique way? He wants us to be happy, right? I didn't find out until after I had married and had a child.... I had *no idea* being a father could be so rewarding. But most homosexuals will never experience this joy, let alone know it exists.
Neither will single people, couples who can't have kids, or couples who choose not to conceive. But they're not all sinners because of their choices (depending on the religion in question and the method of contraception.) Also, homosexuals can have children through surrogates and should certainly be able to adopt children.
In a similar manner, someone afflicted with homosexual desires, often simply can't understand why they would resist temptation.
Because God creates people with homosexual tendencies (even though He wants us to all have children) just to watch them squirm. If they manage to suppress the desires He gave them, they don't burn for all eternity. Hey, this sounds plausible and reasonable. Where do I sign up?
The first time I met a homosexual, it was immediately apparent to me that they were undergoing an epic internal struggle, the least of which concerned their sexuality. Yet, to them, this condition has persisted for so long it felt "normal" And without the ability to defer judgment to another's experience, they saw no reason to change. Without any understanding that things could be better, they thought of my position as merely trying to take away what little happiness they did posses.
The first time I met a Christian, it was immediately apparent to me that they were undergoing an epic internal struggle, the least of which concerned their theology. Yet, to them, this condition has persisted for so long it felt "normal" And without the ability to defer judgment to another's experience, they saw no reason to change. Without any understanding that things could be better, they thought of my position as merely trying to take away what little happiness they did posses.
I'm just kidding. I don't really believe that. But it was silly of me to justify a position with such a subjective anecdote, wasn't it? Maybe calling homosexual desires "afflictions" makes you tend to see more of an internal struggle than can be traced back to the fact that gays live in a world that hates and harms them for no good reason?
Having actually seen someone die unexpectedly, it is very clear to me that all human life is valued by God. Until that happened, the abortion issue for me had been largely a philosophical exercise. It wasn't until I witnessed the death of a human being that my mind changed dramatically. But I realize that most reading this have not had that experience.
Maybe it's very clear to you how that conclusion follows from witnessing an unexpected death. And maybe all the atheists in the world just haven't seen anyone die unexpectedly. (I wonder what the odds of this are?)
Or maybe grief affects everyone differently, and doesn't imply anything about any deity.
In fact, most of us will never have all of the experiences which shaped the Torah or the Bible. We simply have to trust that these tenets of morality were written down and copied throughout the ages because enough people recognized the value and truth in them.
If a human does not possess rights - specifically, the right to live - simply because they are human, created by God, then no human has any rights at all.
I've just pointed out that your position seems to imply that sapient aliens don't have rights. I'm curious, if we ever encounter a sapient alien, would it be immoral to kill it?
Frankly, I'm not expecting a thoughtful response since the rest of your post boils down to "pro-choice people are the same as Nazis!" In fact, it's a perfect example of the strawman I mentioned in my other post.
But, hey. Maybe you'll surprise me and raise my opinion of Christians. Maybe they don't all caricature people who disagree with them as being in league with the devil and/or Hitler?
Provide evidence that indicates that an unborn child is not human.
Individual rights aren't directly linked to genetics. Otherwise it would be perfectly moral to kill a sapient alien. He's not trying to say fetuses aren't human in a biological sense, but rather that mere human DNA doesn't necessarily confer individual rights.
Does that mean that persons with mental defects are somehow not human?
Again, they're biologically human. But morally, a person who suffers irreversible brain death is no longer sapient, so our laws (correctly) allow families to "pull the plug." This is the most extreme case, of course, and it's common for this position to be used as a strawman position: "Pro-choice means that anyone with an IQ below X should be killed!"
This couldn't be farther from reality. Most people recognize the need for shades of grey. For instance:
How about people with alzheimer's and very young born children? Are they inhuman because they lack some of these qualities you speak of? No sir... you are unequivocally wrong.
People with alzheimers shouldn't be given driver's licenses, nor should they have access to firearms or heavy machinery. Very young children don't have the right to vote or enter contracts. But only a lunatic would say that they have the same rights as a brain-dead vegetable. Shades of grey are necessary.
A dog has the mental capacity of a 2 year old child yet you would not say that the line was drawn at that point; the dog is thought of being less than the human despite similar mental capacity.
For a very good reason; dogs don't ever progress past that point. Humans do.
You value human life on a fairly arbitrary scale that favors your opinion but has little to do with reality.
All moral decisions seem arbitrary to me, in the sense that they can't be falsified. But I also arbitrarily think that all sapient beings have the right to life. This includes all humans except for those without the capacity for sapience (e.g. fetuses prior to the development of a "reasonably" complicated brain, and people who have suffered irreversible brain death.) It also includes sapient aliens, genuine artificial intelligences, and possibly cetaceans, cephalapods, and some of the other great apes.
I haven't conclusively figured out where to put the boundaries for individual rights. Anyone who thinks these issues are simple is either naive or a genius on a level I'll never be able to reach. Morality in the real world is messy and arbitrary for everyone who hasn't locked himself into a moral system prescribed by an omnipotent, omniscient deity.
All I'm looking for is one study showing that pot produces significantly more damage, either personal or social or both, than alcohol.
Took me 5 minutes on Google Scholar. Maybe not what you're looking for, but it meets the criteria you've outlined. If I wasn't supposed to be studying Biochem right now I'd try to find you a better one.
I don't think anyone's suggesting that pregnant women should smoke pot. Also, studies in Jamaica and elsewhere have long shown that marijuana's effects are less severe than alcohol's.
Again, I'm in favor of legalization but I don't think pregnant women should drink or smoke pot. But if every drink, intoxicant, food and activity that pregnant women should abstain from was illegal like cannabis is, our laws would be even more ridiculous than they already are...
Interesting, I hadn't thought of it that way. Plants have evolved to orient towards the Sun in order to maximize growth rates (presumably- otherwise why would this strategy be selected for?) This implies that cells receiving less light than other cells in the same plant will grow faster in order to point the leaves towards the Sun, thus maximizing the plant's overall growth rate. I thought you originally meant a plant would grow faster on the shaded side of a hill than on the sunnier side, but I now understand that you were making a different point. I'm still not sure this effect would occur if the overall light intensity changed-- it seems like an effect that depends on relative differences in light intensity.
Most plants exhibit positive phototropism; i.e. they grow towards light. I'd think that more sunlight = faster growth, as do the researchers in the article because they reason that higher GCR intensity = more clouds = more diffuse light = easier to penetrate forest canopy = more light available to plants = faster growth.
I do believe magnetic fields do indeed have an effect on light since there seems to be a relationship between luminosity and magnetic activity
That just shows that the solar cycle affects both the luminosity and magnetic activity of the Sun. It doesn't show a causal connection between the two.
Moreover, while the following effects may not affect luminosity they do show interaction between magnetism and light: the Faraday effect and the Magneto-optic Kerr effect.
Yes, Faraday rotators are used in optics labs to rotate the polarization of polarized light. I didn't mention either of these effects because they're irrelevant in this context. Sunlight isn't polarized, so rotating its polarization doesn't do anything. Plus, the magnetic fields required for a measurable rotation are far stronger than the Earth's field. Finally, notice that the effect is proportional to the square of the wavelength. This means the effect is much weaker for visible light (and especially weak for blue-violet light) than for radio waves.
the Earth's magnetic field blocks less blue-violet-uv then when the magnetic field is weaker so more blue-violet-uv frequencies make it to the plants and hence increase a plant's photosynthetic rate thus contributing to higher growth.
Magnetic fields don't affect light, only charged particles.
I expect that sun-spots (star-spots) wouldn't change the position of the absorption and emission lines in the spectrum, only make some darker or lighter.
Sunspots actually split emission lines because of the Zeeman effect. That's how scientists know that sunspots are magnetic phenomena, in fact.
That's what I'm thinking too. GCR intensity is highest when sunspot activity is lowest, generally modulating on an 11 year cycle. But solar irradiance also varies at the same frequency; the Sun is actually (~0.1%) brighter when more sunspots are present, contrary to intuition.
If tree growth between 1953-2006 really is highest when sunspot activity is lowest, that implies trees grow faster when the Sun is very slightly dimmer. Weird. Their diffusion explanation makes sense, but as they note this cloud condensation effect is supposed to be a very small effect. Perhaps it's just large enough to be noticed in these proxy data, though. I agree, however, that a link to solar irradiance is more intuitively appealing, and it's not immediately obvious how it could be ruled out.
I'd bet they've already considered this issue and ruled it out, possibly by using satellite measurements of solar irradiance and solar wind over the last few decades. They're supposed to be tightly correlated, but if the solar wind varies even slightly differently than solar irradiance it should be possible to see which is causing this variation in growth rates.
Very, very few people are actually denying climate change; change is the norm - stasis is the exception.
As I've repeatedly explained, those natural changes happened 35x slower than the abrupt climate change that's occurring now due to human emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
Is it right, however, to lump together those who are skeptical of evolution with those who are skeptical of AGW, particularly CO2-driven AGW ?
Creationists are making a bigger mistake than climate-change deniers because creationists confuse religious faith with falsifiable science. But in my experience there's a significantoverlapbetween the two groups, and (on average) their arguments are at the same intellectual and educational level.
It's frustrating to spend years trying to combat the "arrogant, insulting scientist" stereotype, then see all my efforts negated in the span of a single slashdot post. I see now why so many people are creationists and climate-change deniers.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, genuine "strong" artificial intelligences probably wouldn't qualify as animals. But I'm strongly opposed to using AI's as slaves, or deleting (killing) them.
Oops. Made another mistake. Based on:
I should replace "Yeah, everyone who disagrees with you does so because they lack life experience." with "Yeah, most people who disagree with you do so because they lack life experience (or because they're vile sinners.)"
Sorry for any confusion that might have caused.
Actually, I need to change "Seems like you're saying sapient aliens would be on the same moral level as cows" to "Seems like you're saying sapient aliens would be on the same moral level as chickens" because Hindus are forbidden from killing cows, and that's not what I mean to say. I *think* chickens are considered acceptable to kill to eat in most major religions, but if I've missed a religion please let me know.
Oops. Replace "any more than classical nondeterminism through exponential dependence on initial conditions" with "any more than classical 'nondeterminism' through exponential sensitivity to initial conditions"
Actually, after reading his comment a few times I don't think I know what he's talking about at all. Maybe your interpretation was more accurate than mine...
So... because you've changed your mind in the past, there has to be a supernatural force affecting the physics that govern your neurons? Wow.
I've previously said that free will seems like a nearly insurmountable philosophical problem. Supernatural effects don't seem to fix this problem any more than classical nondeterminism through exponential dependence on initial conditions or quantum nondeterminism. These "quick-fixes" either turn a deterministic, predictable system into a deterministic but unpredictable system, or a genuinely nondeterministic system that obeys statistical laws. Supernatural effects seem similar except they wouldn't necessarily have to obey statistical laws.
But just like quantum nondeterminism doesn't adequately explain free-will, supernatural effects don't seem to explain the subjective impression we have of free-will. How would supernatural violations of (say) conservation of energy or momentum result in my subjective impression that I make my own decisions?
Appealing to magic to find a quick answer to a hard problem is tempting. Especially when that answer also implies that death is just a transition to see our departed loved ones, that evil people will be punished in this life or the next, and that we're not insignificant mayflies in an oppressively vast universe.
In contrast, saying "I don't know" isn't nearly as satisfying an answer. But sometimes that's all we can say.
Yes... I mentioned the Nazis. Right.
Yes, maybe I have other reasons for holding a pro-choice view other than being in league with the devil. Love the ambiguity there, as though I didn't just explain my reasons for being pro-choice in my other post.
In my other post I argued that it hinges on which beings qualify for individual rights, and I decided that all sapient beings deserve the right to life. I explicitly extended this right far beyond the human race. Not based on superstitious, unfalsifiable claims like the presence or absence of a "soul" but the quality of sapience that can (at least in principle) be detected.
Seems like you're saying sapient aliens would be on the same moral level as cows. Mistreating one would be morally wrong, but "humanely" slaughtering it for food is presumably okay. I strenuously disagree.
Like when some people assert that homosexuality is immoral because a straight father really loves his son? Or how some people assert that abortion should be illegal because they watched a person die unexpectedly? I agree, both of those instances seem like enormous leaps of logic that are very good examples of assertions not backed up by reason.
I think what he meant by "test" is that you're trying to draw incredibly broad (cosmological, even) conclusions from your own personal feelings regarding fatherhood. He's saying that a particular emotion of joy at seeing your child doesn't say anything about God, so your conclusions about God's desires for us don't follow.
Yeah, everyone who disagrees with you does so because they lack life experience. For instance, I've never left the operating room in which I was born. What are these "children" and "homosexuals" you speak of?
No problem. And if that was off-topic, the commenter after you is off-planet... in a different galaxy.
Because people are fundamentally herd animals, and fear anyone who's different. This prejudice affects everyone, even the people who wrote those "holy books."
Neither will single people, couples who can't have kids, or couples who choose not to conceive. But they're not all sinners because of their choices (depending on the religion in question and the method of contraception.) Also, homosexuals can have children through surrogates and should certainly be able to adopt children.
Because God creates people with homosexual tendencies (even though He wants us to all have children) just to watch them squirm. If they manage to suppress the desires He gave them, they don't burn for all eternity. Hey, this sounds plausible and reasonable. Where do I sign up?
The first time I met a Christian, it was immediately apparent to me that they were undergoing an epic internal struggle, the least of which concerned their theology. Yet, to them, this condition has persisted for so long it felt "normal" And without the ability to defer judgment to another's experience, they saw no reason to change. Without any understanding that things could be better, they thought of my position as merely trying to take away what little happiness they did posses.
I'm just kidding. I don't really believe that. But it was silly of me to justify a position with such a subjective anecdote, wasn't it? Maybe calling homosexual desires "afflictions" makes you tend to see more of an internal struggle than can be traced back to the fact that gays live in a world that hates and harms them for no good reason?
Maybe it's very clear to you how that conclusion follows from witnessing an unexpected death. And maybe all the atheists in the world just haven't seen anyone die unexpectedly. (I wonder what the odds of this are?)
Or maybe grief affects everyone differently, and doesn't imply anything about any deity.
You simply have to trust them. I prefer to think for myself.
I've just pointed out that your position seems to imply that sapient aliens don't have rights. I'm curious, if we ever encounter a sapient alien, would it be immoral to kill it?
Frankly, I'm not expecting a thoughtful response since the rest of your post boils down to "pro-choice people are the same as Nazis!" In fact, it's a perfect example of the strawman I mentioned in my other post.
But, hey. Maybe you'll surprise me and raise my opinion of Christians. Maybe they don't all caricature people who disagree with them as being in league with the devil and/or Hitler?
Individual rights aren't directly linked to genetics. Otherwise it would be perfectly moral to kill a sapient alien. He's not trying to say fetuses aren't human in a biological sense, but rather that mere human DNA doesn't necessarily confer individual rights.
Again, they're biologically human. But morally, a person who suffers irreversible brain death is no longer sapient, so our laws (correctly) allow families to "pull the plug." This is the most extreme case, of course, and it's common for this position to be used as a strawman position: "Pro-choice means that anyone with an IQ below X should be killed!"
This couldn't be farther from reality. Most people recognize the need for shades of grey. For instance:
People with alzheimers shouldn't be given driver's licenses, nor should they have access to firearms or heavy machinery. Very young children don't have the right to vote or enter contracts. But only a lunatic would say that they have the same rights as a brain-dead vegetable. Shades of grey are necessary.
For a very good reason; dogs don't ever progress past that point. Humans do.
All moral decisions seem arbitrary to me, in the sense that they can't be falsified. But I also arbitrarily think that all sapient beings have the right to life. This includes all humans except for those without the capacity for sapience (e.g. fetuses prior to the development of a "reasonably" complicated brain, and people who have suffered irreversible brain death.) It also includes sapient aliens, genuine artificial intelligences, and possibly cetaceans, cephalapods, and some of the other great apes.
I haven't conclusively figured out where to put the boundaries for individual rights. Anyone who thinks these issues are simple is either naive or a genius on a level I'll never be able to reach. Morality in the real world is messy and arbitrary for everyone who hasn't locked himself into a moral system prescribed by an omnipotent, omniscient deity.
I don't think anyone's suggesting that pregnant women should smoke pot. Also, studies in Jamaica and elsewhere have long shown that marijuana's effects are less severe than alcohol's.
Again, I'm in favor of legalization but I don't think pregnant women should drink or smoke pot. But if every drink, intoxicant, food and activity that pregnant women should abstain from was illegal like cannabis is, our laws would be even more ridiculous than they already are...
Interesting, I hadn't thought of it that way. Plants have evolved to orient towards the Sun in order to maximize growth rates (presumably- otherwise why would this strategy be selected for?) This implies that cells receiving less light than other cells in the same plant will grow faster in order to point the leaves towards the Sun, thus maximizing the plant's overall growth rate. I thought you originally meant a plant would grow faster on the shaded side of a hill than on the sunnier side, but I now understand that you were making a different point. I'm still not sure this effect would occur if the overall light intensity changed-- it seems like an effect that depends on relative differences in light intensity.
Most plants exhibit positive phototropism; i.e. they grow towards light. I'd think that more sunlight = faster growth, as do the researchers in the article because they reason that higher GCR intensity = more clouds = more diffuse light = easier to penetrate forest canopy = more light available to plants = faster growth.
That just shows that the solar cycle affects both the luminosity and magnetic activity of the Sun. It doesn't show a causal connection between the two.
Yes, Faraday rotators are used in optics labs to rotate the polarization of polarized light. I didn't mention either of these effects because they're irrelevant in this context. Sunlight isn't polarized, so rotating its polarization doesn't do anything. Plus, the magnetic fields required for a measurable rotation are far stronger than the Earth's field. Finally, notice that the effect is proportional to the square of the wavelength. This means the effect is much weaker for visible light (and especially weak for blue-violet light) than for radio waves.
Magnetic fields don't affect light, only charged particles.
Sunspots actually split emission lines because of the Zeeman effect. That's how scientists know that sunspots are magnetic phenomena, in fact.
That's what I'm thinking too. GCR intensity is highest when sunspot activity is lowest, generally modulating on an 11 year cycle. But solar irradiance also varies at the same frequency; the Sun is actually (~0.1%) brighter when more sunspots are present, contrary to intuition.
If tree growth between 1953-2006 really is highest when sunspot activity is lowest, that implies trees grow faster when the Sun is very slightly dimmer. Weird. Their diffusion explanation makes sense, but as they note this cloud condensation effect is supposed to be a very small effect. Perhaps it's just large enough to be noticed in these proxy data, though. I agree, however, that a link to solar irradiance is more intuitively appealing, and it's not immediately obvious how it could be ruled out.
I'd bet they've already considered this issue and ruled it out, possibly by using satellite measurements of solar irradiance and solar wind over the last few decades. They're supposed to be tightly correlated, but if the solar wind varies even slightly differently than solar irradiance it should be possible to see which is causing this variation in growth rates.
Because my point about this being a minor typo was modded "overrated" at the initial score of 2, so it's probably below your threshold.
As I've repeatedly explained, those natural changes happened 35x slower than the abrupt climate change that's occurring now due to human emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
Creationists are making a bigger mistake than climate-change deniers because creationists confuse religious faith with falsifiable science. But in my experience there's a significant overlap between the two groups, and (on average) their arguments are at the same intellectual and educational level.
Nitpick: that's 10^(-37) seconds, or ~2M Planck times.
It's frustrating to spend years trying to combat the "arrogant, insulting scientist" stereotype, then see all my efforts negated in the span of a single slashdot post. I see now why so many people are creationists and climate-change deniers.
At first I found this repetition confusing, then it was annoying.
But I'm getting serious Memento vibes. So I hope you recover your long-term memory soon. Until then, I'm afraid I can't help you.