Why People Believe What They Do

"If the machinery self-assembles, doesn’t that imply that the machinery has intelligence of it’s own?"

No.

"How else would something mindless self-assemble into something producing intelligence?"

The consistent properties of the elements of reality are what gives rise to the assemblies that provide for the functions of intelligence. The properties themselves are not and do not provide for the functions of intelligence.

"I can see intelligence before machinery, but machinery before intelligence just doesn’t work."

There is no intelligence, or any other function w/o the machinery to enable that function. IOWs, functions can not and do not exist w/o some underlying machinery that enables the function.

"He presumably is not in the world of His Creation,..."

He was and was here in the flesh. Nevertheless, this world is not His permanent residence.

"but ineffably interfaces with it, at Will, via what Newton called the sensorium Dei. This sensorium suggests to my mind a sort of universal field that mediates divine Presence. But then again, God doesn't need anything like a field to facilitate His acts. Or so it seems to me. Yet perhaps Newton, being a scientist, simply needed to think and speak in such terms."

No function is possible w/o some underlying physics to provide for it's realization. That's something Newton understood.

Thank you for sharing your testimony, dear spunkets!

No function is possible w/o some underlying physics to provide for it's realization. That's something Newton understood.

Of course this is true, spunkets. But what really fascinates me is that you and I and daffodils and rocks and rabbits and bees, etc., etc., are all made up of the identical physical "stuff" (particles and fields) — yet all these objects are different. It's clear to me that matter and its underlying physics cannot fully account for this. IOW, the universe does not "reduce" to one single principle, matter. There's an intangible "something else" at work in it as well. Or so it seems to me.

[ the universe does not "reduce" to one single principle, matter. There's an intangible "something else" at work in it as well. Or so it seems to me. ]

Could be the physics humans are aware of is a sub-set formulation of reality..
Understood in a timestamped closed loop for awhile..

If so then,
"No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him"...

Of course this is true, spunkets. But what really fascinates me is that you and I and daffodils and rocks and rabbits and bees, etc., etc., are all made up of the identical physical "stuff" (particles and fields) — yet all these objects are different. It's clear to me that matter and its underlying physics cannot fully account for this. IOW, the universe does not "reduce" to one single principle, matter. There's an intangible "something else" at work in it as well. Or so it seems to me.

I very strongly agree, dearest sister in Christ!

In living organism, the whole is always greater than the sum of the parts.

I love that promise from Scripture! Thank you so much for bringing it to the table, dear hosepipe!

"...what really fascinates me is that you and I and daffodils and rocks and rabbits and bees, etc., etc., are all made up of the identical physical "stuff" (particles and fields) — yet all these objects are different."

The properties of that "stuff" differs and varies considerably. The properties of some elements, such as carbon are essential for the machinery life. For homework contrast the properties of sodium with carbon, then reassess your claim that the stuff is all identical.

"It's clear to me that matter and its underlying physics cannot fully account for this."

Energy... Matter is simply a form of energy.

"IOW, the universe does not "reduce" to one single principle, matter."

Matter is a form of energy and isn't a principle. A principle is a statement regarding a property of some element of reality. Energy is the fundamental element of reality. It is its animating force. I don't think the word reduce is an appropriate term to refer to nature's fundamental animating force.

"There's an intangible "something else" at work in it as well."

Physics is consistent w/o anything else that stands as some arbitrary fifth force. It's also complete, in that all objects and processes can be seen as arising from the physics itself.

The properties of some elements, such as carbon are essential for the machinery life. For homework contrast the properties of sodium with carbon, then reassess your claim that the stuff is all identical.

Do you really believe that life is just a "machine?"

Sodium and carbon are each elements; and we know that they are classified in the periodic table of the elements in terms of their atomic parts. That is, there's something more basic in nature than elements: subatomic particles, ultimately quarks.

You wrote, "Energy... Matter is simply a form of energy." On the face of it, that appears to be true. But what does this statement actually tell us about matter? Einstein proposed an equivalence of mass and energy, the famous equation E = MC² of his paper on special relativity (1905). Yet strictly speaking, mass is a property of matter, not matter itself. The equation does not directly describe particulate matter, nor does it appear to have much to say about massless particles (photons).

You wrote:

Matter is a form of energy and isn't a principle. A principle is a statement regarding a property of some element of reality. Energy is the fundamental element of reality. It is its animating force. I don't think the word reduce is an appropriate term to refer to nature's fundamental animating force.

I'm not sure I can agree with your definition of "principle" here. It seems that what you're describing here is more like an attribute or property. A principle is defined as a descriptive comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption, and as such is expected to have universal, not contingent, application (attributes are contingent and specific).

We are not necessarily looking for an arbitrary fifth force in nature. The missing pieces of the physical picture may not be forces at all, but relations.

I get the distinct impression that you think we can simply assert that "Energy is the fundamental element of reality. It is its animating force" and be done with it. But putting it very crudely, what tells the energy where to go, and what to do?

And I outright disagree with you here: "[Physics is] also complete, in that all objects and processes can be seen as arising from the physics itself."

Living systems are based in physics — because they are in part material systems — but they do not entirely "reduce" to physics. The causal or organizational structure of life forms is what sets them apart from non-living systems in nature (which are essentially simple, or as Robert Rosen put it, mechanical). And this structure is not a physical or material phenomenon.

Indeed, Rosen described life as closed to efficient cause.

Thank you so very much for all of your wonderful insights, dearest sister in Christ!

"Sodium and carbon are each elements; and we know that they are classified in the periodic table of the elements in terms of their atomic parts. That is, there's something more basic in nature than elements: subatomic particles, ultimately quarks."

You're noting and catagorizing parts and placing them in heirarchical order. What's important to note and what's been missed is that those elements have properties which are essential to the machinery that provides for the functions of life and for that machinery to necessarily appear in the world in the first place.

"Einstein proposed an equivalence of mass and energy, the famous equation E = MC2 of his paper on special relativity (1905). Yet strictly speaking, mass is a property of matter, not matter itself."

The equation is a statement of the equivalence of matter and energy. Mass is measure of the energy tied up in the interaction of energy with the Higgs field. Mass is a measure of the energy which is referred to as matter, it is not simply a property of something else.

"A principle is defined as a descriptive comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption, and as such is expected to have universal, not contingent, application (attributes are contingent and specific)."

It can be a law, but not an assumption, and never doctrine. Doctrine is simply something that's declared to be so and assumptions are arbitrary.

"The missing pieces of the physical picture may not be forces at all, but relations."

Relations of what?

"I get the distinct impression that you think we can simply assert that "Energy is the fundamental element of reality. It is its animating force" and be done with it. But putting it very crudely, what tells the energy where to go, and what to do?"

The energy behaves according to it's nature, or essence. There is nothing, or anyone that "tells it what to do".

"And I outright disagree with you here: "[Physics is] also complete, in that all objects and processes can be seen as arising from the physics itself.""

As far as objects and the assemblies of physical elements that give rise to functional capacities go, conservation of energy holds. That's a principle and a physical law that must be broken, or was never true if what I said is not true. In order for there to be any weight to a disagreement with what I said, evidence must be provided that the conservation of energy principle does not hold in general.

"Living systems are based in physics — because they are in part material systems — but they do not entirely "reduce" to physics.

Not because they are part material systems, but because life requires the physical machinery that provides for the functions of life. W/o that physical machinery, there is nothing that provides fur the funcitons of life. If you htink there is, you're simply returning to some other alternative machinery that's providing for the functions of life.

"The causal or organizational structure of life forms is what sets them apart from non-living systems in nature(which are essentially simple, or as Robert Rosen put it, mechanical). And this structure is not a physical or material phenomenon."

Rosen is simply making claims that physics is incomplete w/o any evidence whatsoever. Claiming that physics is incomplete in order to inject an arbitrary and unphysical 5th force is not science. There is nothing different between the living and the nonliving and there is no additional force, or "relation" necessary for life to exist. All that's necessary is that there be a physics that provides for the machinery that provides for the functions of life.

"Do you really believe that life is just a "machine?"

No, but w/o the machinery of life, there can be nothing to provide for the functions of life. No machinery- no life!

You’re noting and categorizing parts and placing them in hierarchical order. What’s important to note and what’s been missed is that those elements have properties, which are essential to the machinery that provides for the functions of life and for that machinery to necessarily appear in the world in the first place.

Well of course the elements have properties and structure (where did these come from?); and I didn’t say that they were in any way inessential to the carrying out of biological functions. All I was trying to suggest is that the “machine model” implicit in classical (i.e., Newtonian) physics cannot describe complex material systems in nature, of which life forms are the preeminent example.

A Newtonian approach starts from the premise that our cell, as a material system, is to be studied and understood in the same universal terms as any other material system. That means: it must be analyzed down to a family of constituent particles. These particles define or specify a formal state space, or phase space; … the original system, the cell, is then imaged by some special set of points in this space. To find the dynamical laws, we must look empirically at the different kinds of particles we have resolved our cell into; we must determine from them, in isolation, how they can interact with things around them. Specifically, we must determine both how they respond to forces imposed on them and how they impose forces on each other. From these a set of dynamical relationships (i.e., a constraint) can be written down, which specify the necessary entailments, the necessary recursions, valid on our whole space of states or phases. A fortiori, these entailments determine also the behaviors of our original system; they are recaptured in terms of the state transition sequences imposed by the general recursion rules on the special set of states that represent our original organized system. The only thing remaining is to mandate the initial conditions; we must specify one of those special states; otherwise, we will find ourselves studying some other disposition of those same particles but one that is artifactual as far as our original system was concerned.
In empirical terms, then, the very first step in the analysis of an organized system (e.g., our cell) is to destroy the organization. That is, we kill the cell, sonicate it, osmotically rupture it, or do some other drastic thing to it. We must do this to liberate the constituent particles, which are then to be further fractionated…. [I]n [the] Newtonian picture, we lose nothing by this process; once the analysis is complete, we can recapture everything about our original cell, merely by specifying any convenient initial state of it.
There are many things wrong with this picture. [LOLOL!!!] … One of them … is this: if I give you another, different cell, then the entire analysis must be repeated for that new cell. There is nothing in the fact that the subject of analysis is a cell that can shorten the analysis or indeed help in any way, and when we get done, there is nothing in the resulting picture to tell us that the systems we have analyzed were cells. A consistent reductionism in biology thus converts it into a catalog or encyclopedia of individual analyses of this kind, cell by cell, organism by organism, ad infinitum. Indeed, people are actually engaged in trying to do this kind of thing at the present time.
In any case, I can epitomize a reductionist approach to organization in general, and to life in particular, as follows: throw away the organization and keep the underlying matter.
The relational alternative to this says the exact opposite, namely: throw away the matter and keep the underlying organization — Robert Rosen, Life Itself: A Comprehensive Inquiry into the Nature, Origin, and Fabrication of Life. Itals in the original.

Needless to say, Rosen probably comes across to, e.g., a physical chemist as some kind of radical, fire-breathing underminer of Newtonian orthodoxy. Which, by the way, he wasn’t, IMHO FWIW. What he does say is that biology is not a "special case" of physics; rather biology is the general, and physics, the special case of that general. Rosen does appear to be rather convinced about this. :^) (He wouldn't be the first.)

The equation is a statement of the equivalence of matter and energy. Mass is measure of the energy tied up in the interaction of energy with the Higgs field. Mass is a measure of the energy which is referred to as matter, it is not simply a property of something else.

Still, I shall beg your forgiveness to insist that Einstein was doing what we might call “cosmic geometry,” not particle physics….

Oh, you have written so much of interest, spunkets. Skipping down the text, for instance: “The energy behaves according to it's nature, or essence. There is nothing, or anyone that ‘tells it what to do’.” Oh my. Shades of the divinization of energy here (in a double sense)! Are you suggesting that energy is causa sui [i.e., self-caused], and thus in a condition of universal perseity [i.e., in which a thing is acting out of its own inner nature]?

In the human past, such descriptions have usually been been reserved to God.

Questions, questions, questions. Please share your thoughts, spunkets? Thank you so very much for writing!

Indeed, Rosen described life as closed to efficient cause.

Indeed, he did. As he put it, “a material system is an organism if, and only if, it is closed to efficient causation.”

Rosen is coming at these problems from the “side” of mathematical modeling and complex systems theory, as supplementary to physics. His approach culminates in a theory of “relational biology.” This theory presupposes that what is truly distinctive about biological organisms is not the “stuff” out of which they are made, but the way that “stuff” is organized: That is to say the Whole is never the simple summation of its parts. Rosen maintains that any organizational system displays a pattern of causal entailment that can be mathematically modeled. And when we do model them, we find that simple, “mechanistic” systems in nature look very different from complex, “biological” ones. The network of causation tells the tale between inorganic and organic systems in nature.

The root of Rosen’s approach is to be found in the classical, i.e., Aristotelian categories of causation. Especially since such this problem touches on a conversation I’m having with spunkets right now, maybe it’s finally time for me to say a word or two about Aristotle’s theory of causation, since it is now so alive in my mind just now, and bears on that conversation.

Rosen bottom-line seems to be a Natural Law theorist; so it’s not surprising he would look back to Aristotle — the very guy Francis Bacon tried to exorcise from “natural philosophy” [the term “science” didn’t become popular until the 19th century] altogether! (Who was the very father of natural philosophy; so much for the irony here….)

In the spirit of full and fair disclosure, the picture of Aristotelian causation I’m about to present is the work of a life-long student, not of any kind of “expert” in the “field” of Aristotle….

One has a very strong sense that Aristotle perceives a hierarchy of causes, that might be summed up as (1) the cosmic-level description (or category); and (2) the phenomenal-level description (or category).

At the cosmic level, we have First Cause (usually associated with the idea of the Prime Unmoved Mover); Final Cause (the purpose for which the original “moving” was done in the first place, the telos); and in-between these two ultimate causes of the universe, the Immanent Cause. First and Final seem intuitively clear. But what is this Immanent Cause? And how does it express in space and time? Whatever it is, it seems to mediate in such a way as to connect the first with the last….

Of course already it is clear that we are not speaking just of “epistemological things” here [i.e., things within the compass of the "science" of knowledge]; we are firmly landed in the domain of ontology, of metaphysics, of theology [i.e., things within the compass of the "science" of Being, or existence]. The latter of which ostensibly has no relation to the conduct of scientific inquiry, for the simple reason that the cosmic-level causal inquiry is not directly relevant to the conduct of empirical science.

But then again, in all fairness, neither does it ever entirely go away. Just because science shifts attention away from it, in the course of working its own methodology, this does not extinguish the reality of the cosmic-level background.

It’s the foreground that the scientific method is best suited to capture — the phenomenal world, the world of observation. Aristotle posits four fundamental causes there — and moreover says that no phenomenon in nature can possibly be truthfully described without recourse to all four causes: Formal, Material, Efficient, Final.

Oh, here’s a hoary old sketch offered to get us all on the same page:

The formal cause (eidos) is the pattern or design according to which materials are selected and assembled for the execution of a particular goal or purpose. For example, in the case of a Boeing 747, the blueprint (or schematic) would be its formal cause. This is the key “explanation” for the jet; for its construction materials and subcomponents would be only a pile of rubble (or a different jet) if they were not put together in the particular way its blueprint specified.
The material cause is the basic stuff out of which something is made. The material cause of a Boeing 747, for example, would include the metals, plastics, glass, and other component materials used in its construction. All of these things belong in an explanation of the 747 because it could not exist unless they were present in its composition.
The efficient cause is the agent or force immediately responsible for bringing that material and that form together in the production of the Boeing 747. Thus, the efficient cause of the jet would include the efforts of engineers, materials fabricators, hydraulics specialists, and other workers who use the designated materials and components to build the jet in accordance with its specifying blueprint. Clearly the Boeing 747 could not be what it is without their contribution: It would remain unbuilt.
Lastly, the final cause (telos) is the end or purpose for which the Boeing 747 exists. The final cause of the jet would be to provide safe, reliable, comfortable air transportation for human beings. This is part of the explanation of the 747’s existence, because it never would have been built in the first place unless people needed a means of air transportation.

Now arguably the Newtonian Paradigm recognizes only three of these causes: Formal, Material, and Efficient.

Formal cause is “initial conditions”;
Material cause is “matter present”; and
Efficient cause is “the gravitational effects of matter present,” as captured at coordinates x, y…. [???]

Noticeably absent is any idea of Final Cause — to Francis Bacon’s enormous relief I imagine. :^) RIP.

The problem seems to be a confusion WRT the categorical distinction obtaining between a “final cause” in the cosmological sense, and a “final cause” in the phenomenal (direct observational) sense. In the former case, we had to speak of a telos — a cosmic, or even divine, goal and/or purpose as implicit in primal form and subsequent evolution of the universe. Since this sort of thing can never come within the range of direct human observation, it is not an object for science.

But “final cause” in the phenomenal sense does not invoke the idea of telos on cosmic scale. It only invokes the idea of finality of a process in nature. Such as a biological function.

Finality in this sense pertains to the causal closure necessary for efficient causation to depend solely on the resources of the “isolated” system in which it operates. A further indispensable insight is, from the standpoint of the biological Whole, there are no isolated systems; there are only a multiplicity of particular systems, each of which produces its “desired” effect in contribution to the already elaborate, multifarious multiplicity of other effects which altogether are necessary to sustain the integrated biological Whole.

Which I gather is why Rosen thought he ought to seek out complex systems theory for guiding helps…. Stochastic methods having already shown their shortcomings….

Isolated systems are not biological ones as a rule. Or at least, not for long. It seems to me that one cannot speak of a “function” absent the idea of system closure, which can be described at the causal level if the idea of final cause can be admitted to the table.

If these ideas seem overly abstruse, we can easily simplify them just by taking a hint from Robert Rosen. He suggested that the entire idea of “final cause” is exactly equivalent to positing the natural human question, “Why?” Anytime we ask the question, “Why?” about anything in natural experience, we are invoking — or soliciting — a final cause explanation.

Oh, I’m sure there’s more to be said on this subject, but I just can’t say it right now.

Dearest sister in Christ, thank you ever so much for writing, and for your kind words!

Thank you oh so very much for your wonderful essay-post, dearest sister in Christ!

That is definitely a "keeper" and will be bookmarked for future reference.

As you clearly explained, final cause at the immanent level does not necessarily entail theological issues. Moreover, final cause is essential to understanding biological systems.

For instance, it would be counterproductive to deny the liver has a function.

But truly the Newtonian paradigm ignores final cause and thus is not adequate for biological investigations.

In my view, the other three causes are addressed by the Newtonian paradigm, e.g. formal cause by physical laws/constants, material cause by matter/energy and efficient cause by momentum/inertia (which entails gravity, i.e. equivalence principle.)

I would see space/time as the domain of Immanent Cause and being as the domain of Cosmic Cause.

Oh, thank you so very much for your kind words, dearest sister in Christ! I much admire the way you related the "phenomenal four" to the "cosmic immanent" —

...final cause is essential to understanding biological systems.... For instance, it would be counterproductive to deny the liver has a function....

In my view, the other three causes are addressed by the Newtonian paradigm, e.g. formal cause by physical laws/constants, material cause by matter/energy and efficient cause by momentum/inertia (which entails gravity, i.e. equivalence principle.)

Formal cause — physical laws/constants

Material cause — matter/energy

Efficient cause — momentum/inertia (entailing gravity)

Final cause — the cause which entails the other three causes (i.e., which effects causal closure, so that efficient cause is constrained to within the system); the limit, purpose, or functional goal that seems to act "from the future" (e.g., Alex Williams' inversely-causal metainformation).

If that sounds strange, maybe Aristotle can clear it up for us:

...the final cause is an end, and that sort of end which is not for the sake of something else, but for whose sake everything else is; so that if there is to be a last term of this sort, the process will not be infinite; but if there is no such term, there will be no final cause, but those who maintain the infinite series eliminate the Good without knowing it (yet no one would try to do anything if he were not going to come to a limit); nor would there be reason in the world; the reasonable man, at least, always acts for a purpose, and this is a limit; for the end is a limit. — Aristotle Metaphysics Book II, Part 2
For the final cause is (a) some being for whose good an action is done, and (b) something at which the action aims; and of these the latter exists among unchangeable entities though the former does not. The final cause, then, produces motion as being loved, but all other things move by being moved. — Ibid. Book XII, Part 7

Dearest sister in Christ, you wrote: "I would see space/time as the domain of Immanent Cause and being as the domain of Cosmic Cause." Thank you oh so very much for this marvelous insight! I can see that, too.

To God be the glory!

I believe that our Creator established the laws of physics as a part of his overall design, set things in motion, and allowed them to proceed accordingly. However, I suspect that He keeps things in order and proceeding according to His plan by the exertion of subtle, and mostly undetectable, corrective actions. (We scientists describe such actions via the esoteric and technical term, "tweaks"...) LOL!

Hi TXnMA! I meant to ping you to reply #136, thinking you might find it of interest....

Thank you oh so very much for these additional insights, dearest sister in Christ, and thank you for your encouragements!

Final cause — the cause which entails the other three causes (i.e., which effects causal closure, so that efficient cause is constrained to within the system); the limit, purpose, or functional goal that seems to act "from the future" (e.g., Alex Williams' inversely-causal metainformation).

Very well said!

Aristotle: For the final cause is (a) some being for whose good an action is done, and (b) something at which the action aims; and of these the latter exists among unchangeable entities though the former does not. The final cause, then, produces motion as being loved, but all other things move by being moved.

Fascinating insight in that excerpt!

Autonomy is key to "life itself" in Rosen's mathematical model for relational biology. As he says "a material system is an organism if, and only if, it is closed to efficient causation."

Likewise, autonomy is relevant in defining life v non-life/death in nature using Shannon's mathematical model of communications. Which is to say, when a thing in nature is autonomously communicating its message (DNA/RNA) it is alive. When it can no longer communicate, it is dead. If it never could communicate, it is non-life.

Moreover, Scripture confirms biological autonomy (emphasis mine:)

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. - Genesis 1:20

As we briefly discussed on another thread, the link between water and the message being communicated is the hydrogen bond which gives DNA its double helix geometry.

In contrast to biological life which is autonomous ("hath life") - our Spiritual life is non-autonomous.

But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. - Romans 8:9

For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. - Colossians 3:3

The Spiritual message which enlivens us - the words of God - are not altogether physically manifest like DNA. The people Jesus is addressing below were physically hearing Him but they could not spiritually hear Him. They did not have "ears to hear" but we do.

Why do ye not understand my speech? [even] because ye cannot hear my word. – John 8:43

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life. – John 6:63

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: - John 10:27

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned. - I Corinthians 2:14

And that difference comports with Aristotle's insight to the Cosmic level and the Immanent Level.

And another confirmation from Scripture:

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. - John 3:5-7

I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. - Galatians 2:20

What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost [which is] in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? - I Corinthians 6:19

God's Name is I AM.

Hi there, dear brother in Christ!

You might also be interested in my post 138.

The Spiritual message which enlivens us - the words of God - are not altogether physically manifest like DNA.

Not altogether — depending on the "ears"....

But neither is DNA "altogether physically manifest." There is a sense in which DNA is not physical at all, its sense as an idea — and a pretty darn useful one, as it turns out. The point is, the term DNA refers both to "code" and the physical carrier of the code (i.e., the DNA molecule). Yet typically we do not draw this distinction. Anyhoot, you can "fractionate," or "reduce" a molecule all day long; but you cannot "fractionate" an idea.

The Word cannot be fractionated.

Your points about autonomy/non-autonomy and the vital importance of communication in living systems are so well stated, dearest sister in Christ!

...when a thing in nature is autonomously communicating its message (DNA/RNA) it is alive. When it can no longer communicate, it is dead. If it never could communicate, it is non-life.

Seems like an excellent "rule of thumb" to me!

Thank you ever so much for your wonderful essay/post, dearest sister in Christ, and for your very kind words of support!