The limits of science and human thought

Hey all,

Just wanted to summarize and clarify what I think so that there is not
needless rancor in these threads:

I believe that there is a silly anti-science, and anti-intellectualism in the
world today, esp. in the US. I think its why we have a 2000 election where
Gore (who has a genius level IQ) is viewed as 'too square' is close in voting
counts to Bush (whose IQ is something like 95).

I think skepticism is *not* practiced enough, and I think it's almost
considered hip to be anti-skeptical and anti-western-science, because science
represents what is percieved to be the dominant white-male-european paradigm.

I react negatively to these trends because they represent to me a lack of
clear and critical thinking.

OTOH, I think science is no panacea, and some scientists are overly proud and
confident in it's power, and that the human mind, wonderful as it is, is
still a mind, and that there are truths that we forever will be shut out
from. By this I mean that just as a dog cannot comprehend the idea of a prime
number, we cannot comprehend some other abstract idea that is proportionally
remote from our minds as prime numbers are to a dog's. And I, like Kraig and
Christopher, think it's hubris to think science can reach a sort of mystical
'all-knowingness'.....as well I think I'm skeptical about the claims of
mental states like 'satori or 'enlightenment' to be really what they claim: a
state of perfect clarity and perception. I bet it *feels* that way, but I
doubt it really is what it feels. Instead I would bet that it's yet another
way the brain is easily led to hallucination.

-Aaron.

--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.dividebypi.com
http://www.akjmusic.com

It is very unscientific to make such judgments when they based on insufficient
evidence.
What data do you have on the subject
The states you refer to are not 'feelings'. Nor do we know what feelings are.

"Aaron K. Johnson" wrote:

> as well I think I'm skeptical about the claims of
> mental states like 'satori or 'enlightenment' to be really what they claim: a
> state of perfect clarity and perception. I bet it *feels* that way, but I
> doubt it really is what it feels. Instead I would bet that it's yet another
> way the brain is easily led to hallucination.
>
> -Aaron.
>
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

On Wednesday 07 July 2004 10:27 am, kraig grady wrote:
> It is very unscientific to make such judgments when they based on
> insufficient evidence.
> What data do you have on the subject
> The states you refer to are not 'feelings'. Nor do we know what feelings
> are.

Yes, you are right, it is unscientific. I should have clarified more, I
supposed, that I was stating my gut opinion here....

> "Aaron K. Johnson" wrote:
> > as well I think I'm skeptical about the claims of
> > mental states like 'satori or 'enlightenment' to be really what they
> > claim: a state of perfect clarity and perception. I bet it *feels* that
> > way, but I doubt it really is what it feels. Instead I would bet that
> > it's yet another way the brain is easily led to hallucination.

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.dividebypi.com
http://www.akjmusic.com

On Wednesday 07 July 2004 11:06 am, Aaron K. Johnson wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 July 2004 10:27 am, kraig grady wrote:
> > It is very unscientific to make such judgments when they based on
> > insufficient evidence.
> > What data do you have on the subject
> > The states you refer to are not 'feelings'. Nor do we know what feelings
> > are.
>
> Yes, you are right, it is unscientific. I should have clarified more, I
> supposed, that I was stating my gut opinion here....

I should also add to myself here: I have no idea what an experiment would look
like that would tell us one way or another whether 'satori' or
'enlightenment' was an illusion after all......so my position is really,
admittedly, faith-based, the faith being that we are limited in our capacity
to have profound insight and understanding of the sort described by some as
'all-knowing', esp. since those who claim to have such experiences are
curiously unable to verbalize much about it--a state akin to what is
experienced under psychedelic intoxication, which I would hardly describe as
'all-knowing', but rather as intensely mystical and mystifying.

> > "Aaron K. Johnson" wrote:
> > > as well I think I'm skeptical about the claims of
> > > mental states like 'satori or 'enlightenment' to be really what they
> > > claim: a state of perfect clarity and perception. I bet it *feels* that
> > > way, but I doubt it really is what it feels. Instead I would bet that
> > > it's yet another way the brain is easily led to hallucination.
>
> Aaron Krister Johnson
> http://www.dividebypi.com
> http://www.akjmusic.com
>
>
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.dividebypi.com
http://www.akjmusic.com

Aaron K. Johnson wrote:

> I should also add to myself here: I have no idea what an experiment would look > like that would tell us one way or another whether 'satori' or > 'enlightenment' was an illusion after all......so my position is really, > admittedly, faith-based, the faith being that we are limited in our capacity > to have profound insight and understanding of the sort described by some as > 'all-knowing', esp. since those who claim to have such experiences are > curiously unable to verbalize much about it--a state akin to what is > experienced under psychedelic intoxication, which I would hardly describe as > 'all-knowing', but rather as intensely mystical and mystifying.

There's certainly research into these kind of things. I found these links with a quick Google search:

http://members.shaw.ca/tfrisen/Buckman.htm

http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2478148

Graham

On Wednesday 07 July 2004 11:37 am, Graham Breed wrote:
> Aaron K. Johnson wrote:
> > I should also add to myself here: I have no idea what an experiment would
> > look like that would tell us one way or another whether 'satori' or
> > 'enlightenment' was an illusion after all......so my position is really,
> > admittedly, faith-based, the faith being that we are limited in our
> > capacity to have profound insight and understanding of the sort described
> > by some as 'all-knowing', esp. since those who claim to have such
> > experiences are curiously unable to verbalize much about it--a state akin
> > to what is experienced under psychedelic intoxication, which I would
> > hardly describe as 'all-knowing', but rather as intensely mystical and
> > mystifying.
>
> There's certainly research into these kind of things. I found these
> links with a quick Google search:
>
> http://members.shaw.ca/tfrisen/Buckman.htm
>
> http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2478148

Fascinating !!!!!!

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.dividebypi.com
http://www.akjmusic.com

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson" <akjmicro@c...>
wrote:

> I believe that there is a silly anti-science, and anti-
intellectualism in the
> world today, esp. in the US. I think its why we have a 2000
election where
> Gore (who has a genius level IQ) is viewed as 'too square' is close
in voting
> counts to Bush (whose IQ is something like 95).

Gore did not have a genius level IQ, and while Bush was at the low
end for someone admitted to Yale, his SAT scores were above average
for the population as a whole, leading to a triple-digit IQ.

Cecil Adams adjusted the norms for Bush, which is not legitimate, but
he gives the scores:

http://tinyurl.com/2v5z8

Carter on some test or other got 176, which is excellent, and passes
my heat test. My heat test says that anyone running for president
should have an IQ score high enough that when converted into degrees
Fahrenheit it would kill you, and should either have a score high
enough or have at least one close advisor with a score high enough to
slow cook you.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson" <akjmicro@c...>
wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> Just wanted to summarize and clarify what I think so that there is
not
> needless rancor in these threads:
>
> I believe that there is a silly anti-science, and anti-
intellectualism in the
> world today, esp. in the US. I think its why we have a 2000
election where
> Gore (who has a genius level IQ) is viewed as 'too square' is close
in voting
> counts to Bush (whose IQ is something like 95).

The IQ numbers that were circulated, purporting that Gore was at
genius level, were a hoax, fabricated. But 95 sounds about right.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <graham@m...> wrote:
> Aaron K. Johnson wrote:
>
> > I should also add to myself here: I have no idea what an
experiment would look
> > like that would tell us one way or another whether 'satori' or
> > 'enlightenment' was an illusion after all......so my position is
really,
> > admittedly, faith-based, the faith being that we are limited in
our capacity
> > to have profound insight and understanding of the sort described
by some as
> > 'all-knowing', esp. since those who claim to have such
experiences are
> > curiously unable to verbalize much about it--a state akin to what
is
> > experienced under psychedelic intoxication, which I would hardly
describe as
> > 'all-knowing', but rather as intensely mystical and mystifying.
>
> There's certainly research into these kind of things. I found
these
> links with a quick Google search:
>
> http://members.shaw.ca/tfrisen/Buckman.htm

This is incredible:

"(4) Also thoughts from the right side of the brain that cross to the
left side are not recognized as our own, but coming from outside
ourselves."

Have you seen the book Johnny Reinhard frequently refers to: THE
ORIGIN OF CONSCIOUSNESS IN THE BREAKDOWN OF THE BICAMERAL MIND (1976)
by Julian Jaynes?

The central thesis of this book, which seemed very far-fetched to me,
is made A WHOLE LOT more plausible by the above.

If it ((4)) is true.

Just because he has the speech problems (like many sadists BTW) doesn't
mean he is not quite a bright snake

Paul Erlich wrote:

>
>
> The IQ numbers that were circulated, purporting that Gore was at
> genius level, were a hoax, fabricated. But 95 sounds about right.
>
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

hi Gene,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:

> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson" <akjmicro@c...
>
> wrote:
>
> > I believe that there is a silly anti-science, and
> > anti-intellectualism in the world today, esp. in the US.
> > I think its why we have a 2000 election where Gore
> > (who has a genius level IQ) is viewed as 'too square'
> > is close in voting counts to Bush (whose IQ is something
> > like 95).
>
> Gore did not have a genius level IQ, and while Bush was at
> the low end for someone admitted to Yale, his SAT scores were
> above average for the population as a whole, leading to a
> triple-digit IQ.

i have absolutely no basis for estimating Bush's math
knowledge ... but based on the evidence of what he's
spoken during his "presidency" (dictatorship), it's
*extremely* hard for me to believe that his English
scores were above average.

perhaps i'm just misunderestimating ...

;-)

-monz

hi Paul,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <PERLICH@A...> wrote:

> > http://members.shaw.ca/tfrisen/Buckman.htm
>
> This is incredible:
>
> "(4) Also thoughts from the right side of the brain that
> cross to the left side are not recognized as our own, but
> coming from outside ourselves."
>
> Have you seen the book Johnny Reinhard frequently refers to:
> THE ORIGIN OF CONSCIOUSNESS IN THE BREAKDOWN OF THE
> BICAMERAL MIND (1976) by Julian Jaynes?
>
> The central thesis of this book, which seemed very far-fetched
> to me, is made A WHOLE LOT more plausible by the above.
>
> If it ((4)) is true.

hmm ... i remember i was reading that book when
i visited you in 1999, and you said then that you
thought it was far-fetched, and i strongly disagreed.

-monz

> i have absolutely no basis for estimating Bush's math
> knowledge ... but based on the evidence of what he's
> spoken during his "presidency" (dictatorship), it's
> *extremely* hard for me to believe that his English
> scores were above average.
>
> perhaps i'm just misunderestimating ...
>
> ;-)

As I think Kraig was hinting, it's possible that he does
a lot of that stuff on purpose. Like Bogey let his lip
get caught on his fillings on purpose.

-Carl

> > > http://members.shaw.ca/tfrisen/Buckman.htm
> >
> > This is incredible:
> >
> > "(4) Also thoughts from the right side of the brain that
> > cross to the left side are not recognized as our own, but
> > coming from outside ourselves."
> >
> > Have you seen the book Johnny Reinhard frequently refers to:
> > THE ORIGIN OF CONSCIOUSNESS IN THE BREAKDOWN OF THE
> > BICAMERAL MIND (1976) by Julian Jaynes?
> >
> > The central thesis of this book, which seemed very far-fetched
> > to me, is made A WHOLE LOT more plausible by the above.
> >
> > If it ((4)) is true.

I would tend to doubt anything on the above page is true.

-Carl

On Thursday 08 July 2004 10:05 am, Carl Lumma wrote:
> > > > http://members.shaw.ca/tfrisen/Buckman.htm
> > >
> > > This is incredible:
> > >
> > > "(4) Also thoughts from the right side of the brain that
> > > cross to the left side are not recognized as our own, but
> > > coming from outside ourselves."
> > >
> > > Have you seen the book Johnny Reinhard frequently refers to:
> > > THE ORIGIN OF CONSCIOUSNESS IN THE BREAKDOWN OF THE
> > > BICAMERAL MIND (1976) by Julian Jaynes?
> > >
> > > The central thesis of this book, which seemed very far-fetched
> > > to me, is made A WHOLE LOT more plausible by the above.
> > >
> > > If it ((4)) is true.
>
> I would tend to doubt anything on the above page is true.

Carl,
why not? what's the basis of your positiion?

Best,
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.dividebypi.com
http://www.akjmusic.com

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:

> i have absolutely no basis for estimating Bush's math
> knowledge ... but based on the evidence of what he's
> spoken during his "presidency" (dictatorship), it's
> *extremely* hard for me to believe that his English
> scores were above average.

They were below average for a Yale undergraduate. Most people can't
manage to reach the level of a dumb Yale undergraduate, so Bush gets
three digits and not two.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

> As I think Kraig was hinting, it's possible that he does
> a lot of that stuff on purpose. Like Bogey let his lip
> get caught on his fillings on purpose.

Eisenhower did that; during press conferences he would produce
baffling verbiage which almost made him seem brain-damaged, but in
private he spoke clearly and concisely, like a general. Nixon hired
Zigler to do the same for him.

> > > > > http://members.shaw.ca/tfrisen/Buckman.htm
> > > >
> > > > This is incredible:
> > > >
> > > > "(4) Also thoughts from the right side of the brain that
> > > > cross to the left side are not recognized as our own, but
> > > > coming from outside ourselves."
//
> > I would tend to doubt anything on the above page is true.
>
> Carl,
> why not? what's the basis of your positiion?

It's second hand, coming from someone obviously outside
the field. And since there's no known way to talk about
thoughts moving around in the brain, (4) above is total
garbage as written.

-Carl

Gore??

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...>
wrote:
> Just because he has the speech problems (like many sadists BTW)
doesn't
> mean he is not quite a bright snake
>
> Paul Erlich wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > The IQ numbers that were circulated, purporting that Gore was at
> > genius level, were a hoax, fabricated. But 95 sounds about right.
> >
> >
>
> -- -Kraig Grady
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
> http://www.anaphoria.com
> The Wandering Medicine Show
> KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> > > > http://members.shaw.ca/tfrisen/Buckman.htm
> > >
> > > This is incredible:
> > >
> > > "(4) Also thoughts from the right side of the brain that
> > > cross to the left side are not recognized as our own, but
> > > coming from outside ourselves."
> > >
> > > Have you seen the book Johnny Reinhard frequently refers to:
> > > THE ORIGIN OF CONSCIOUSNESS IN THE BREAKDOWN OF THE
> > > BICAMERAL MIND (1976) by Julian Jaynes?
> > >
> > > The central thesis of this book, which seemed very far-fetched
> > > to me, is made A WHOLE LOT more plausible by the above.
> > >
> > > If it ((4)) is true.
>
> I would tend to doubt anything on the above page is true.
>
> -Carl

Why is that?

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
>
> > i have absolutely no basis for estimating Bush's math
> > knowledge ... but based on the evidence of what he's
> > spoken during his "presidency" (dictatorship), it's
> > *extremely* hard for me to believe that his English
> > scores were above average.
>
> They were below average for a Yale undergraduate. Most people can't
> manage to reach the level of a dumb Yale undergraduate, so Bush
gets
> three digits and not two.

Umm . . . you're forgetting something. Even today, if you're
a "LEGACY" (have family who are Yale alums), which any member of the
Bush family is many times over, your admission to Yale is decided
with *much* lower standards than the rest of the class. Far lower.

I got to experience the results of this first-hand.

On the good side, Yale admits all the other applicants without regard
to their ability to pay, and offers full financial aid to those who
can't. If it weren't for this, I certainly could never have gone
there, to witness the amusing results of their Legacy policy.

Bush!

Paul Erlich wrote:

>Gore??
>
>
> >

On Thursday 08 July 2004 01:58 pm, Carl Lumma wrote:
> > > > > > http://members.shaw.ca/tfrisen/Buckman.htm
> > > > >
> > > > > This is incredible:
> > > > >
> > > > > "(4) Also thoughts from the right side of the brain that
> > > > > cross to the left side are not recognized as our own, but
> > > > > coming from outside ourselves."
>
> //
>
> > > I would tend to doubt anything on the above page is true.
> >
> > Carl,
> > why not? what's the basis of your positiion?
>
> It's second hand, coming from someone obviously outside
> the field.

Well, people from outside fields are capable of saying true things about a
given field, and people in a filed can also be in error in their area of
expertise. So, I'm more wondering what you object to in the statements based
on what you know are true facts and false facts.

In other words, the argument from authority is a fallacy.

> And since there's no known way to talk about
> thoughts moving around in the brain, (4) above is total
> garbage as written.

I thought this was referring to the corpus callosum, which bridges the left
and right brain. I recall hearing of such experiments, where subject felt a
sense of detachment from their own thought processes. This is also consistent
with Roger Sperry's groundbreaking work, which to my knowledge, is still
being built upon, and hasn't been rejected.

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.dividebypi.com
http://www.akjmusic.com

>>>>>>> http://members.shaw.ca/tfrisen/Buckman.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is incredible:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "(4) Also thoughts from the right side of the brain that
>>>>>> cross to the left side are not recognized as our own, but
>>>>>> coming from outside ourselves."
>> //
>>>> I would tend to doubt anything on the above page is true.
>>>
>>> Carl,
>>> why not? what's the basis of your positiion?
>>
>> It's second hand, coming from someone obviously outside
>> the field.
>
> Well, people from outside fields are capable of saying true
> things about a given field, and people in a filed can also
> be in error in their area of expertise. So, I'm more
> wondering what you object to in the statements based
> on what you know are true facts and false facts.
>
> In other words, the argument from authority is a fallacy.

Dude, I said "tend to doubt".

> > And since there's no known way to talk about
> > thoughts moving around in the brain, (4) above is total
> > garbage as written.
>
> I thought this was referring to the corpus callosum,
> which bridges the left and right brain.

*thoughts* is the term I'm objecting to.

> I recall hearing of such experiments, where subject felt a
> sense of detachment from their own thought processes.
> This is also consistent with Roger Sperry's groundbreaking
> work, which to my knowledge, is still being built upon,
> and hasn't been rejected.

I'm not familiar with Sperry, but yes there are lots and
lots of out of body experiences, feeling your thoughts are
alien, phantom limbs, claiming your mother is an imposter,
etc. etc. etc. I'm sure there are good explanations for
all of them. What's your point?

-Carl

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <PERLICH@A...> wrote:
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
> wrote:

> > They were below average for a Yale undergraduate. Most people
can't
> > manage to reach the level of a dumb Yale undergraduate, so Bush
> gets
> > three digits and not two.
>
> Umm . . . you're forgetting something. Even today, if you're
> a "LEGACY" (have family who are Yale alums), which any member of
the
> Bush family is many times over, your admission to Yale is decided
> with *much* lower standards than the rest of the class. Far lower.

That's my point--Bush was a dumb Yale undergraduate.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

> I'm not familiar with Sperry, but yes there are lots and
> lots of out of body experiences, feeling your thoughts are
> alien, phantom limbs, claiming your mother is an imposter,
> etc. etc. etc. I'm sure there are good explanations for
> all of them.

And the website you were objecting to so strongly was offering
explanations for just these phenomena. Was something not "good" about
those explanations?

On Thursday 08 July 2004 07:30 pm, Carl Lumma wrote:
> >>>>>>> http://members.shaw.ca/tfrisen/Buckman.htm
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This is incredible:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "(4) Also thoughts from the right side of the brain that
> >>>>>> cross to the left side are not recognized as our own, but
> >>>>>> coming from outside ourselves."
> >>
> >> //
> >>
> >>>> I would tend to doubt anything on the above page is true.
> >>>
> >>> Carl,
> >>> why not? what's the basis of your positiion?
> >>
> >> It's second hand, coming from someone obviously outside
> >> the field.
> >
> > Well, people from outside fields are capable of saying true
> > things about a given field, and people in a filed can also
> > be in error in their area of expertise. So, I'm more
> > wondering what you object to in the statements based
> > on what you know are true facts and false facts.
> >
> > In other words, the argument from authority is a fallacy.
>
> Dude, I said "tend to doubt".
>
> > > And since there's no known way to talk about
> > > thoughts moving around in the brain, (4) above is total
> > > garbage as written.
> >
> > I thought this was referring to the corpus callosum,
> > which bridges the left and right brain.
>
> *thoughts* is the term I'm objecting to.
>
> > I recall hearing of such experiments, where subject felt a
> > sense of detachment from their own thought processes.
> > This is also consistent with Roger Sperry's groundbreaking
> > work, which to my knowledge, is still being built upon,
> > and hasn't been rejected.
>
> I'm not familiar with Sperry, but yes there are lots and
> lots of out of body experiences, feeling your thoughts are
> alien, phantom limbs, claiming your mother is an imposter,
> etc. etc. etc. I'm sure there are good explanations for
> all of them. What's your point?

Dude, you're being *very un-dude* !!! (Big Lebowski reference anyone)

Anyhow, my point was to try to get you to be more specific about your
objections, that's all.

About Sperry, he was one of the first, to my knowledge, to do very thourough
studies of right/left brain phnomenon. I haven't read source material Sperry,
though--ut he is an oft-reference figure in popular scientific expositions of
brain/neurological texts.

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.dividebypi.com
http://www.akjmusic.com

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <PERLICH@A...>
wrote:
> > --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith"
<gwsmith@s...>
> > wrote:
>
> > > They were below average for a Yale undergraduate. Most people
> can't
> > > manage to reach the level of a dumb Yale undergraduate, so Bush
> > gets
> > > three digits and not two.
> >
> > Umm . . . you're forgetting something. Even today, if you're
> > a "LEGACY" (have family who are Yale alums), which any member of
> the
> > Bush family is many times over, your admission to Yale is decided
> > with *much* lower standards than the rest of the class. Far lower.
>
> That's my point--Bush was a dumb Yale undergraduate.

My point was that some of these legacy admittees do not even manage a
three-digit IQ.

> > I'm not familiar with Sperry, but yes there are lots and
> > lots of out of body experiences, feeling your thoughts are
> > alien, phantom limbs, claiming your mother is an imposter,
> > etc. etc. etc. I'm sure there are good explanations for
> > all of them.
>
> And the website you were objecting to so strongly was offering
> explanations for just these phenomena. Was something not "good"
> about those explanations?

I didn't see any *explanations* at all, just nearly-meaningless,
wishy-washy assertions. IIRC there were references, though.

-Carl