Re-evolution.

[Technosoul]

Many people are aware that history has a way or repeating it's self. I guess there is some truism in that observation, and if we do not learn from the errors of history we are doomed to repeat them in the next go-around.

But I got a better idea. We could spearhead a political movement to re-write all the history books used in public schools. Not with falsehoods but just so the data is managed differently. Here is how it would work.....

We would totally downplay all the wars to just a couple of lines with an explaination that this was a low point in history, and then expand upon and highlight all the good things that was happening in histroy, things that were productive, creative, useful, and peaceful.

Thusly drawing attention away for the negative and towards the positive.

Instead of giving the impression that America is great because of some war where people died for your rights, we would instead focus on all the events and people who made America great by doing more worth while things, such as more about who wrote the constitution and about those who changed things for the better via reforms, and those who invented things, and those who "came to America with a only a dime and found the success and the dreams they had hoped for". Pointing attention to the acheavments instead of the giving so much long winded attention to our more destructive times.

Therefore when history repeats we would be repeating the good stuff instead of more wars. And if a President wanted to make a name for his self in history he would not think the must led a great war to get his name famous in the books, but rather he would make a name for his self in history by doing something outstanding on the domestic front by some new program that would improve our society.

Change the future by changing the history books. Simple but worth thinking about as an poltical objective relative to education.

Whatcha think?
Technosoul.

[GeminiRising]

Well I like history, but I think it needs to be an accurate account of everything that happened, the good and the bad. When you talk about only focusing on certain things, it's like censorship. But maybe that is already what has happened with history anyways. How does the saying go "History is written by the winners..." or something like that. I know since I have branched out from "traditional" accounts of certain events in history, I've been surprised at the things I have learned.

[Gorgo]

Good idea, Tech. Howard Zinn made a start with the People's History of the United States.

What other good history books have already done what you're talking about?

[Technosoul]

I am not sure how many people have wrote history books that capture the idea I expressed. And the one you mentioned and any others would be good research for someone to develope history books for schools. At least history books used up through the 12th grade. I do not think we would censor books that people buy at a book store for private and personal interest. Nor that those school books would remove all data about wars, but just downplay them in a manner where wars do not stand out as the major events for human progress or are glorified with super heros, etc. Let the heros and role models be those who were building the cities before someone else destroyed them.

[Gorgo]

Public (and I assume most private) schools are a place for indoctrination, not learning.

You would first need to change the schools. The books are out there.

[Technosoul]

Gorgo you are right.

A world teacher by the name of Kristimurti pioneered concepts for alternative education that I liked in one of his books.

I went up to google to find a link but guess what happend, the only link I could find took be to my own post here at this webpage where I had mentioned him in a topic called "Capitolistic Dictators" - what a surprise! I did not know our posts would become part of the google search engine.

Anyway one reason we have what we have in education is because all the educators were educated in that system and so they just repeat it, because they have no experience working in any other alternative educational system.

Back with more input later,
Technosoul.

[Technosoul]

Okay I did another search and low and behold, I had spelled his name wrong in my first post and here.

But I came up with a webpage of alternative thinkers who played roles in shaping our world.

Everyone might find this site of use for research.

http://www.ethologic.com/sasha/thinkers.html

The person I was speaking about is listed on that site with links (if they still work?).

[Gorgo]

This is the Krishnamurti that I knew about.

http://www.kfa.org/

http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/

[Technosoul]

Originally posted by Gorgo, This is the Krishnamurti that I knew about. http://www.kfa.org/ http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/

Yes, that is the person of which I speak, I have listened to many hours of his taped messages.

At one point he opened his won school for children and a book was published about the school and the methods used (that school might have been located in England). I was hoping to find a web article just about that school but did not find one listed.

He spent his last years living here in California.

[Technosoul]

Now back to history. History is not (or should not be) just about people, human activity is related and somewhat dependant upon the historical momentum in play, of which, few people are even aware of.

Here is some information from the department of alternative science.

http://www.intuition.org/txt/sheldra1.htm

[Gregthegreat]

War should in the history books. in detail.Miltary spending is the catalyst of change (sadly)! We wouldn't have the technology of today if it weren't for war. I'd bet that humanity still be sitting on their arse flaking flint,without mans bloodlust.

Think about it. The real reason for the "space race" and the tech goodies that resulted from it was a military motive.

War will be with us to the end. the military and thier cousins (police CIAs FBIs KGBs.... (on and on to nausea) and government will always dovetail. Necessity may be the mother of invention, But war is the demon that bears gifts. So look at the bright side. BLOOD=MONEY=TECHNOLOGY=CONTROLL=PEACE!Sick but true.

The text books should be updated bi yearly be graphic and accurate. Let the children see the true horrors of war. It will be up to them to decide about these issues. If we could modify the text books, then students will have the accurate (not the propaganda of today) information to make a decision.Ive been there (war). As long as we live in a world ruled by men (or women) war will be required to hold the other evil nation at bay.

This post has been edited by vladsbyte on 09-07-2004 04:58 PM


--------------------
Reality is optional

[Technosoul]

Originally posted by vladsbyte, Are you serious? War should in the history books. in detail.Miltary spending is the catalyst of change (sadly)! We wouldn't have the technology of today if it weren't for war. I'd bet that humanity still be sitting on their arse flaking flint,without mans bloodlust. Think about it. The real reason for the "space race" and the tech goodies that resulted from it was a military motive. War will be with us to the end. the military and thier cousins (police CIAs FBIs KGBs.... (on and on to nausea) and government will always dovetail. Necessity may be the mother of invention, But war is the demon that bears gifts. So look at the bright side. BLOOD=MONEY=TECHNOLOGY=CONTROLL=PEACE!Sick but true. The text books should be updated bi yearly be graphic and accurate. Let the children see the true horrors of war. It will be up to them to decide about these issues. If we could do this, then they will have the accurate (not the propaganda of today) to make a decision.Ive been there (war). As long as we live in a world ruled by men (or women) war will be required to hold the other evil nation at bay.

I do not agree for the following reasons.

Through the years of public education our teachers and parents are responsible for "molding" the minds of children so that when they do reach the age of consent (where they are old enough to make choices) they would be able to make the right choice based in large part on the knowledge we imparted to them durning their "formitive years".

I totally do not agree what human progress was effected by wars. However I would agree that wars might have resulted in some inventions that were later were altered for private useages. But the same minds could have invented those things wihtout the wars (also). Truely wars have been around for a long time and likewise have dominated history because they are more "action packed" which writers love to write about. You cannot speculate however how human progress or culture would have progressed without such wars, for all you know Rome might have landed on the moon is a spaceship during the 1800s had not the Christian crusade destroyed their science culture with the dark ages.

Technosoul.

[PatrickHenry]

Writing history is not for dilettantes like you, Technosoul.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=d...nary&y=11&x=26&
It is the source of programming for the young and will never be subject to those who wish to have a more positive view. You don't know who you are up against. Did you think education was a benign aspect of society, simply for the purpose of teaching children "truth" or "beauty?"

If so, you are mistaken. The purpose of education is to spread the memes of the establishment. Even if you had the time and funding to write a new history, it will not be adopted by the school system.

How do you push your agenda? My advice: just live it... your other scheme is grandiose and in conflict with power, ie, impossible.

[Compugasm]

Originally posted by Technosoul, But the same minds could have invented those things wihtout the wars (also).

I disagree.

[Scribbler1]

Originally posted by Technosoul, I totally do not agree what human progress was effected by wars.  However I would agree that wars might have resulted in some inventions that were later were altered for private useages.

A few? A conservative estimate of the technological benefits we have which were made possible by war would be about (at least) 50%. Computers were originally used to calculate artillery trajectories. Your microwave oven is a direct offshoot of RADAR. You already KNOW where atomic energy began. Blood plasma for your next operation? The modern method of transfusion and the aforementioned plasma were developed for field hospitals in war zones.

How about everything we got from the space program and NASA? There wouldn't even BE a NASA without rockets, which were used as weapons for centuries, and the modern rocket was a spinoff of the German V2 missile. Without the military necessity of rockets, development would have been slowed to the point where we might be launching the Project Mercury rockets today! Remember, Alan Sheperd, the first American in Space rode atop a Redstone Rocket, an ICBM.

Just a small sample. You should watch James Burke's "Connections" program if it comes back on Cable.

But the same minds could have invented those things wihtout the wars (also).

Maybe, but that's just a guess, whereas what we have now because of wars is factual.

You cannot speculate however how human progress or culture would have progressed without such wars, for all you know Rome might have landed on the moon is a spaceship during the 1800s had not the Christian crusade destroyed their science culture with the dark ages. Technosoul.

Bad example. For all *I* know, it would have been impossible to do that. The Dark Ages did indeed put the brakes on scientific development, but there are materials and processes used in Space exploration (among other things) today which could not have existed back then. An educated guess would be much of what has been developed might have come about maybe 50 years earlier, but that's about it.

Also keep in mind the military is a unique customer and much of what they wanted was impractical for any other use at the time. It was only AFTER these things were developed for war that people found other uses for them and not the other way around. In other words, the military wanted BIG rockets to throw BIG bombs at people and it was only AFTER the big rockets were there that someone had the idea to use them to take people into space. If these same people had started from scratch and asked the government for billions of dollars over time to develop a missile that had ONLY one use, to take people into space, do you think our (or any) government would have funded it?

[Technosoul]

Originally posted by Scribbler1,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Scribbler1,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Technosoul, I totally do not agree what human progress was effected by wars.  However I would agree that wars might have resulted in some inventions that were later were altered for private useages.

A few? A conservative estimate of the technological benefits we have which were made possible by war would be about (at least) 50%. Computers were originally used to calculate artillery trajectories. Your microwave oven is a direct offshoot of RADAR. You already KNOW where atomic energy began. Blood plasma for your next operation? The modern method of transfusion and the aforementioned plasma were developed for field hospitals in war zones.

How about everything we got from the space program and NASA? There wouldn't even BE a NASA without rockets, which were used as weapons for centuries, and the modern rocket was a spinoff of the German V2 missile. Without the military necessity of rockets, development would have been slowed to the point where we might be launching the Project Mercury rockets today! Remember, Alan Sheperd, the first American in Space rode atop a Redstone Rocket, an ICBM.

Just a small sample. You should watch James Burke's "Connections" program if it comes back on Cable.






Maybe, but that's just a guess, whereas what we have now because of wars is factual.

You cannot speculate however how human progress or culture would have progressed without such wars, for all you know Rome might have landed on the moon is a spaceship during the 1800s had not the Christian crusade destroyed their science culture with the dark ages. Technosoul.

Bad example. For all *I* know, it would have been impossible to do that. The Dark Ages did indeed put the brakes on scientific development, but there are materials and processes used in Space exploration (among other things) today which could not have existed back then. An educated guess would be much of what has been developed might have come about maybe 50 years earlier, but that's about it.

Also keep in mind the military is a unique customer and much of what they wanted was impractical for any other use at the time. It was only AFTER these things were developed for war that people found other uses for them and not the other way around. In other words, the military wanted BIG rockets to throw BIG bombs at people and it was only AFTER the big rockets were there that someone had the idea to use them to take people into space. If these same people had started from scratch and asked the government for billions of dollars over time to develop a missile that had ONLY one use, to take people into space, do you think our (or any) government would have funded it?[/b][/quote]


Sribbler,

Not sure if Albert came up with his ideas because he wanted to help out the war effort with nuclear bombs or not, but to save time I will not question your data by demanding proof.

I already agreed that some war technology was also later used for peaceful purposes. This I see happening to the greatest degree within the past 75 years and not as evident in the whole scope of human history. In fact it might be that because America has not had many wars within our borders for so long that we could develope our progress to it's present level. If your theory is correct then all countries that have had on-going wars should likewise have advanced techologies and progress simular to ours and I could perhaps note that this is not self-evident world wide.

It is somewhat evident that the computer is an evolution of the typewriter, the TV set, and chips in those transister radios we got from Japan a while back. Although the CIA had gaint computers with large reel to reel tapes the smaller desk models were likewise influenced by "light shows" for greatfull dead concerts, used to simulate LSD effects on our mind.

You mentioned radar, check out this webpage.

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_90666...nceanddiscovery

People being interested in observing nature and learning from nature was hardly the result of war. History books should give thanks to the environmentalists and naturalists for that.

And so I have grave doubts about just how important the missuse of technology for war could be framed as being important for the gadget industry, after all, Japan managed to advance in that field in short order without a big military.

You speculated that the Greek-Roman science culture might have put us on the moon only 50 years sooner to debunk my speculation it might have happened in the 1800s, lets see, 1899 plus 50 years brings us to 1949 (nuclear age), so our speculatons in time are less then perhaps about 15 years apart. Drop in the bucket time wise, I would think.

So that is my come-back rebuttle, whatcha think?
Technosoul.

[Scribbler1]

Originally posted by Technosoul, Sribbler, Not sure if Albert came up with his ideas because he wanted to help out the war effort with nuclear bombs or not, but to save time I will not question your data by demanding proof.

Good thing you're NOT demanding proof, because I didn't even MENTION Einstein. But for the record, Einstein was a devoted pacifist and didn't write the famous letter to Roosevelt until AFTER Leo Szilard and Edward Teller convinced them that Germany would end up with the A-Bomb. Einstein, being Jewish, was terrified Hitler would get the bomb first. Besides, it was Enrico Fermi and J. Robert Oppenheimer (and a few others who I can't recall right now) who were the big shots behind the A-Bomb.

I already agreed that some war technology was also later used for peaceful purposes. This I see happening to the greatest degree within the past 75 years and not as evident in the whole scope of human history.

How did you arrive at 75 years?

In fact it might be that because America has not had many wars within our borders for so long that we could develope our progress to it's present level. If your theory is correct then all countries that have had on-going wars should likewise have advanced techologies and progress simular to ours and I could perhaps note that this is not self-evident world wide.

Don't you think those countries WOULD have developed advanced weaponry if they COULD? You are not considering the reality of the situation. You leave out the four things necessary for such weapons development. A strong government, a large military, the necessary resources and a lot of money. WE had all four. So did Germany, Japan and England, among others. Now look at the countries which were routinely invaded. Most of them were lucky if they had TWO of the necessary factors. And I didn't even mention the scientific minds behind the weapons, most of whom were concentrated in the abovementioned countries.

It is somewhat evident that the computer is an evolution of the typewriter, the TV set, and chips in those transister radios we got from Japan a while back. Although the CIA had gaint computers with large reel to reel tapes the smaller desk models were likewise influenced by "light shows" for greatfull dead concerts, used to simulate LSD effects on our mind.

I hope the rest of your technical knowledge isn't as faulty as this. If you think the typewriter evolved directly into the computer, I doubt I could explain to you how it DIDN'T. However, FWIW the earlier analog computers weren't even accessed with a keyboard.

(sigh) The smaller desk model computers (minicomputers) were originally the Commodore PET (Personal Electronic Transactor) and the IBM PC. The Greatful Dead's audiences were influenced by colored oils on an overhead projector.

People being interested in observing nature and learning from nature was hardly the result of war. History books should give thanks to the environmentalists and naturalists for that.

That makes no sense at all.

And so I have grave doubts about just how important the missuse of technology for war could be framed as being important for the gadget industry, after all, Japan managed to advance in that field in short order without a big military.

(sigh-sigh) You have that totally backward. The technology for war was not MISused at all. It was CREATED for war, and used for peaceful, uses AFTERWARDS, and I don't refer to the technologies I mentioned, such as the space program as "gadgets".
And guess what, you are right about Japan. Japan DIDN'T have any military when they successfuly marketed these "gadgets"...because we had already BEATEN them in WW2!! THAT'S why they didn't have a military, we wouldn't LET THEM have one, mainly because they were kicking our asses when they DID!
And before you mention Japan and the Transistor again, be aware that it was invented in 1948 by Bell Labs and only marketed by the Japanese.

You speculated that the Greek-Roman science culture might have put us on the moon only 50 years sooner to debunk my speculation it might have happened in the 1800s, lets see, 1899 plus 50 years brings us to 1949 (nuclear age), so our speculatons in time are less then perhaps about 15 years apart. Drop in the bucket time wise, I would think.

I would think 1899 is pushing it a bit when describing the 1800's, but whatever.

So that is my come-back rebuttle, whatcha think? Technosoul.

Needs just a smidgen more research, my friend.

[Technosoul]

Originally posted by Scribbler1,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Scribbler1,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Technosoul, Sribbler, Not sure if Albert came up with his ideas because he wanted to help out the war effort with nuclear bombs or not, but to save time I will not question your data by demanding proof.

Good thing you're NOT demanding proof, because I didn't even MENTION Einstein. But for the record, Einstein was a devoted pacifist and didn't write the famous letter to Roosevelt until AFTER Leo Szilard and Edward Teller convinced them that Germany would end up with the A-Bomb. Einstein, being Jewish, was terrified Hitler would get the bomb first. Besides, it was Enrico Fermi and J. Robert Oppenheimer (and a few others who I can't recall right now) who were the big shots behind the A-Bomb.



How did you arrive at 75 years?




Don't you think those countries WOULD have developed advanced weaponry if they COULD? You are not considering the reality of the situation. You leave out the four things necessary for such weapons development. A strong government, a large military, the necessary resources and a lot of money. WE had all four. So did Germany, Japan and England, among others. Now look at the countries which were routinely invaded. Most of them were lucky if they had TWO of the necessary factors. And I didn't even mention the scientific minds behind the weapons, most of whom were concentrated in the abovementioned countries.




I hope the rest of your technical knowledge isn't as faulty as this. If you think the typewriter evolved directly into the computer, I doubt I could explain to you how it DIDN'T. However, FWIW the earlier analog computers weren't even accessed with a keyboard.

(sigh) The smaller desk model computers (minicomputers) were originally the Commodore PET (Personal Electronic Transactor) and the IBM PC. The Greatful Dead's audiences were influenced by colored oils on an overhead projector.




That makes no sense at all.



(sigh-sigh) You have that totally backward. The technology for war was not MISused at all. It was CREATED for war, and used for peaceful, uses AFTERWARDS, and I don't refer to the technologies I mentioned, such as the space program as "gadgets".
And guess what, you are right about Japan. Japan DIDN'T have any military when they successfuly marketed these "gadgets"...because we had already BEATEN them in WW2!! THAT'S why they didn't have a military, we wouldn't LET THEM have one, mainly because they were kicking our asses when they DID!
And before you mention Japan and the Transistor again, be aware that it was invented in 1948 by Bell Labs and only marketed by the Japanese.



I would think 1899 is pushing it a bit when describing the 1800's, but whatever.

So that is my come-back rebuttle, whatcha think? Technosoul.

Needs just a smidgen more research, my friend.[/b][/quote]


(1) So do you think the military boys could have made the first A Bomb if Albert Einstien had not done the science first?

(2) How did I arrive at 75 years? I gave extra time because things were starting to perk in the late 1800s and during the 1920s. Relative to technology as Henry Ford mass produced cars, radios and wind up record players were invented and the such. But things did not speed up until the 1950s as we got black and white TV and a number of electric things, and all the things invented from 1960 to date have been nearly beyond belief, like at top speed and vastly impressive. And not just with inventions but in many fields.

(3) You mentioned the four factors needed to produce weapons of war, and I would assume you also mean the spin-off technologies for the private sector.
But did wars produce those four factors? Was not Henry Ford already making cars and were airplanes not already invented? (In fact Henry Ford was active exchanging informtion with Germany before we got involved in the war). However, I do think the war happening in Germany and our choice to help out England and others gave industry a big push, at the time just before that we had experienced a depression and had countless out of work people, the war changed all that, some were drafted but others worked hard in factories and whatever to all the equipment, jeeps, planes, radios, military clothing, and so forth. With that we developed a lot of production skills because we had to work fast to catch up. Many have said that we have a economy based on war for that historical reason. I hope you are somewhat aware of some of the statements I made so I do not have search for weblinks. So as the wars closed out a bit in the 1950s we had all these production and industral skills in place, which were turned towards making things for the home and office, etc.
And so, I would agree that the wars with Germany and Japan, and even Korea perhaps, stemulated production skills and that in turn resulted, over a few short years, to our era of modern technology. That favored also other countries involved in those conflicts who also learned they could "do a lot" if motivated. Japan, Russia, Germany, and others. The cold war following also motivated the continued arms race and related technology relative to spying as well as the famous "race to the moon".

One small example happened of late. I once was protecting the classified night vision technology but then when the cold war ended Clinton cut funding and so they had to make it unclassified, selling it too police departments and later for private useage, and to other countries, that started somewhat what Clinton called the "information age". Selling ideas like "night vision" to China and elsewhere and we had eager buyers world wide for our formerly classified research. Bin Laden sent in order for some boxcutters (last line a not-so-funny joke).

And so I can see where you are coming from and so history books should perhaps explain that part of our current history. But do not think the same case would appply to all wars in the past, which were more of an religious expression then as a science based secular movement.

(5) I know that they had the original computers such as you mentioned. My anology was about the computers such as we use to go on-line. Sometimes discos and such were illuminated with lights dancing on the walls produced by projectors, but they also made them to go inside a TV set. We had one make to made special inside something else for our wall, it was a computer and you plug into the record player and each different sound produced causes the screen to light up with a different color of light. The high tones would be brighter lights like yellows, and the bass sounds would be dark colors. We had a strobe light also connected for very high pitched sounds. And that home use item simulated the lights we think about behind a Jefferson Airplane or Greatful Dead concert.

(6) You said that makes no sense at all, I assume you are talking about the weblink with information about bats having radar and a computer brain to "see" with that natual technology. Clearly bat radar was not because of wars. Bats fly ( like airplanes) and use radar to target insects and fruit, etc. The study of nature in fact gives us many of the ideas we use for our own technology, and people would study nature even during peaceful times. When the native saw that a tree limb when bent down would spring back to it original state, the bow and arrow idea was born, the arrow became the first type of "rocket ship", as we learned about better fuels (such as gun powder) we could add more power behind the new "arrow heads" (aka bullets) and as one idea evolved into another idea we ended up with rocket ships.

But it makes sense that this all came about first through our study of nature and then applied for whatever purpose we needed at the time.

As well much was the manifested destiny for the powers of imagination. Ages before Kennedy announced the space race to the moon people have imagined it.
We had mythological stores about it (witches on brooms) and science fiction books (First man on the moon), and much more which was common to all cultures.
Thusly, through imagination, the momentum was already in motion within the human consciousness, and such seeding someday comes to light and the flowers bloom from that ground. Even our latest war with Iraq was born out of imagination and not factual reality.

The jet airplane is realistically a bird brain idea.

"Houston, the "Eagle" has landed".

Perhaps we found some agreements and perhaps not, but that is my latest re-butt. Whatcha' think?

Technsoul.

[Scribbler1]

Tech, it's too late tonight to address every point. But, merely from a technological standpoint I wanted to address #5.

(5) I know that they had the original computers such as you mentioned. My anology was about the computers such as we use to go on-line. Sometimes discos and such were illuminated with lights dancing on the walls produced by projectors, but they also made them to go inside a TV set. We had one make to made special inside something else for our wall, it was a computer and you plug into the record player and each different sound produced causes the screen to light up with a different color of light. The high tones would be brighter lights like yellows, and the bass sounds would be dark colors. We had a strobe light also connected for very high pitched sounds. And that home use item simulated the lights we think about behind a Jefferson Airplane or Greatful Dead concert.

What you described was called a "color organ" and had ZERO connection with any computer. All it consisted of was a cheap electronic circuit and some lights. The signal came from the sound system and the circuit would fire different colored lights in relation to the strengt of different frequencies. Radio Shack used to sell one for home use (I even had one myself) that was about the size of a large stereo speaker with a plastic screen. You plugged in your stereo's output and the circuit would fire red christmas lights when bass tones were played, yellow for midrange tones and blue for high notes. Not computerized in any way.

I strongly suggest a really great web site called How Things Work It shows how just about anything you can think of works. Honestly, you could use a little brushing up on things technical, my friend. :)

[Technosoul]

Guess I am more soul then techno.

I know it was not plugged into a computer because we did not have them yet in the private sector. Mine was made by this guy who does the kinds of work you discribe, the electronics would compute what sound would trigger what colored light. If you do a math problem you are computing something. The radio shack cheapo thing came out later on and was stupid because they did not even have knowledge about which colors should be computed to go with which music tones. Totally un-Zen of them.

The model I have (hand made) would also illuinate stronger if the music was louder, but keep the same colors when the volume was turned down, but the light would be dimmer. They have simular color patterns now used for screen savors or at websites where you download music, but not in conformity with the music.

Most of the hand made hippy light shows were made with TV sets where they used the TV tube for the screen. It was in my opinion one reason why they also came up with the ideas for TV like screens that are used to display what ever effect is plugged into the monitor, from a typewriter like keyboard to stereo like hard drives and software. They also wire it together in part with "cheap radio shack wiring" - which might not be that cheap cost wise, come to think of it. There are common principles involved and related ideas. Of course a ship would not use a Bat's Ear for it's radar receptor, but the idea is the same.

Here is the "how things work" webpage I use.

http://www.deoxy.org/8brains.htm

Cheers,
Technosoul.