INBOX
|
HELP
|
ONLINE
|
SEARCH
|
MEET ME
| FORUMS |
CHEMISTRY
|
UPGRADE
|
SIGN IN
Show ALL Forums
Posted In Forum:
All Forums
Alabama
Alaska
Alberta
Arizona
Arkansas
Art/Music
Ask A Girl
Ask A Guy
Australia
British Columbia
Broken Hearts
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Dating & Love Advice
Dating Experiences
Dating Sites
Delaware
District Of Columbia
Event Hosts forum
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Health & Fitness
Humor
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Introductions
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Manitoba
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Brunswick
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
Newfoundland
News/Current Events
North Carolina
North Dakota
Nova Scotia
Off Topic
Ohio
Oklahoma
Ontario
Oregon
Over 30
Over 45
Pennsylvania
Plentyoffish Get Togethers
Plentyoffish Site/Suggestions/Help
Poems And Quotes
Politics
Prince Edward Island
Profile Reviews
Quebec
Recipes & Cooking
Relationships
Religion/Supernatural
Rhode Island
Saskatchewan
Science/Philosophy
Sex and Dating
Single Parents
South Carolina
South Dakota
Sports
Stories/creative writing
Technology and computers
Tennessee
Testimonials
Texas
Uk Forums
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Volunteer Moderators Only
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Home
login
MyForums
Author
Thread: An interesting upcoming moment in time...
silivros
Joined:
10/16/2006
Msg:
20 (
view
)
An interesting upcoming moment in time...
Posted: 9/5/2009 1:49:56 AM
What is the correct way of expressing time?
In the moment, which is timeless. All other references are based on the past or future.
Mister Logic, you have some of the best threads. Thanks
silivros
Joined:
10/16/2006
Msg:
244 (
view
)
Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 9/3/2009 4:28:28 PM
The biggest problem I have with the traditional evolutionary argument is that mutation is random. That sounds like a big excuse for not being able to discover why changes happen - "random" simply does not exist. There are ALWAYS causes to mutation effects, and I think it's likely those causes come from many environmental influences. The idea that DNA just up and switches around willy nilly for no reason at a regular pace in all organisms makes no sense.
Bravo! Well said.
The truth being that we are only beginning to understand how the brain and genetics work.
For every thought we think, we produce a specific neural-chemical response for each and every thought.
We also know that what initiates genetic expression is a neural chemical componet.
We have seen the direct physical results of thought manifest in the human body based on results of clinical testing on stress.
Stress doesn't just happen it needs a cognitive perception (interpretation) to begin the stress response. Therefore we can control stress by controlling our perception of it.
Prolonged chronic stress response is a contributing factor to many diseases such as heart disease, diabeties, and cancer. (To what degree is still unclear)
To what affect does this have genetically? We do not know yet, but we are beginning to understand that genetic expression is not static. It changes, the hows and whys we are still trying to decifer, but we are getting closer. If we understand that the changes do not happen "willy nilly" then we might also get a grip on all that supposed "Junk DNA" we got running amok inside us.
silivros
Joined:
10/16/2006
Msg:
136 (
view
)
Reincarnation, from a scientific perspective
Posted: 9/3/2009 3:27:14 PM
Even if a memory can activate in one part of the brain does not mean that by removing that part the memory will not pop up somewhere else
You have a point, BUT :-) this needs much more explination than you are providing.
Memoires are associative. Our brain records experiences on multiple sensory and cognitive levels.
So when you state that the memory will pop up, It will be an incomplete memory. Fragmented if you will. For example If we remove the auditory component of a memory, you would be able to remember the visual portion of the memory but not the auditory. We've all seen a door close, and when you read this your brain produced a visual image based upon a past experience (memory). Within that visual image would also be an auditory component of the memory. Only if we lost the auditory componet you would not be able to recall the sound a door makes when it closes. Same goes for any memory - - Dog, Cat, Train. etc. If we lose that portion of the memory then the memory is fragmented.
We also see this effect happen in Alzhiemer and Dementia patients, where the neural pathway has been interrupted resulting in fragmented memory recall.
silivros
Joined:
10/16/2006
Msg:
203 (
view
)
perpetual energy and other promising inventions
Posted: 9/3/2009 10:35:00 AM
After reading this thread I was reminded of this.
Back in 1982/83, I was a DJ at a golden oldies radio station. At the top of the hour we would give the weather and read news headlines from the AP ticker. One headline I read was about a man from Arkansas who had invented a perpetual motion machine and for several days afterward we read expanded reports on this story that the machine had been taken to a local university and tests had been positive.Then the stories stopped. I never saw anything again. I wonder if anyone else has heard of this story and could share. I googled this the other day and came up with nothing.
How you can make totally preposterous statements and then expect to be taken seriously by anyone at all is beyond the ridiculous
Because if they ridicule everyone they can somehow reaffirm their own ignorance by trying to make everyone else believe as they believe. New information scares them. It might change the world they've become comfortable in.
Just recently, on another thread, I was involved in a discussion with a fellow POFer who demanded references for my statements. In the interest of fair play I felt he should provide references to his own conflicting arguments as well.
He did provide references, but just as you've implied above, his arguments/references were based on outdated information, and yet when I provided more current references validating my point he vanished from the thread. Sadly many people like him don't want to expand their knowledge base, they are content to live in their own boxed in little worlds.
What I've seen is that many of the same POFers attempt to squash most of the discourse on many of these threads. While I must admit, occasionally they are justified in their disagreements, but it is rather their disrespectful manner by which they get their points accross that cause the problems.
I have no issue with disagreeing or being wrong, because without these experiences how would we learn anything?
If only some of us can learn to play nice.
silivros
Joined:
10/16/2006
Msg:
203 (
view
)
Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 9/1/2009 1:39:20 AM
Well Rhino, I'm certainly glad you could find the time to acutally do a little google search.
This is a wonderful thing because I knew you could engage the process, but we still have to work on your condencending attitude. You don't seem to be able to play nice.
I see you found Dr. Spock. Capt. Kirk will be so pleased.
He's a little outdated, but he'll suffice.
<div class='quote'> did do some quick research on the topic before I responded, as well. Again, pretty much all of the established research shows that handedness is NOT a learned trait (even those citations that list it as a possibility state it's probably not, but can't be clearly ruled out), but I thought it might be possible you had located some hidden cache that had escaped me.
Yes sir, found it rather easily, which makes me wonder just how much searching you actually did. (Dr. Spock, Really?) You know I found many, but I have to ask, did you read any of your searches? While Dr. Spock was wonderful how much genetic research did he do? I thought he worked primarily in behavioral research.
Here's one from Scientific America, please feel free to follow the link to read more.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-causes-some-people-t
If the familial genetic pool contains C genes, then hand preference becomes amenable to chance influences, including the pressures of familial training and other environmental interventions that favor the use of one hand over the other.
The next two are from Books ~ Google the titles I believe they are online.
2. Experimental Techniques in Human Neuropsychology by Julia Hannay
Developments of Handedness
The age at which clear lateral preference is extablished has often been cited as between 8 and 9 years (Belmont & Birch, 1963; Gesell, Ilg, & Ames, 1950). Research supports the observation that marked shifts in handedness may occur between the ages of 20 weeks and 8 years, although the tonic neck reflex present at birth has been described as predictive of hand preference in the elementary school child (Gesell & Ames, 1947; Young, 1977). Although the few longitudinal studies available have generally been of small sample size, a recent large scale study (Fennell, Satz & Morris, 1983) suggest that hand preference in kindergarten (age 5) (as measured by the Harris test of Lateral Dominance; Harris, 1947) is highly predictive of hand preference in fifth grade (age 11) except for children initially classified as ambidexters.”
In a major review, Morgan and Corballis (1978) propose a nongenetic basis for handedness and cerebral organization for speech, concluding that left handedness is due to postnatal environmental influences. --- Genetics influence the degree but not the direction of handedness and cerebral asymmetries.
More recently, Ashton (1982) developed a model of handedness which combines genetic, environmental, and age influences to account for the incidence of left handedness.
3. Hand function in the child: foundations for remediation By Anne Henderson, Charlane Pehoski
Pg 176 Sociocultural and Environmental Influences in handedness.
“Handedness is undeveloped at birth, and becomes established within the first 5 to 6 years of life (Tan, 1985). Although the direction of handedness already may be apparent in infancy and is considered to be stable by 5 years (McManus et al., 1988; Goodall, 1984), 11 years (Whittington & Richards, 1987), or even across the entire life span (Porac & Coren, 1981).
Environmental and cultural influences are likely to have a significant effect on handedness, although there is little empiric support for handedness as a sole product of cultural influences. (Carter-Saltzman, 1980)
Pg. 177
Concluding Remarks – In summary, hand preference can be perceived as a multicausal behavior that is influenced by a variety of mechanisms, including genetic and nongenetic factors.
These are just the tip of the iceberg with the research that is out there my contradictory friend, believe them if you wish, but they are out there for your perusal should you care to continue this.
What these and many more articles imply is that left handedness is impacted by several influences, environmental being one of them.
MODELING IS an environmental influence and therefore my previous statement from Msg 205. "can be a result of environmental modeling picked up by the children within your family unit." is right on.
For me what is truly more interesting is that this "discussion", (if we can call it that), has it's roots in the debate of Nature vs. Nurture.
Human behavior has been argued by the behavioralist for years as strictly a learned process or Nurtured, while more recently the Nature side of the argument has its roots in the genetic side of the argument, being that we inherit certain behaviors genetically.
The bottom line is that they are both.
Now this, in part, is why I brought up the Lamarckian theory.
Lamarckian theory, for those not familiar with it, is the "idea that an organism can pass on characteristics that it acquired during its lifetime to its offspring" (Wikipedia, I hate using Wiki, but it was handy)
This theory was mostly discredited in the 1800's, though possibly because the evolution of traits within an organism (The Change) that was looked for MAY have been to small incrementally to notice.
Now with the advances in medical science, specifically in genetics, we may be able to see that evolution in species does not have to be a large jump to be noticed and, as we have seen in anthropological studies evolution it is rather more often a gradual process.
If an organisms physical manifestation is predicated by its genetic expression and IF that genetic expression is impacted by environmental influences is it not possible that the experiences an organism has in it's life impacts the genetic expression to adapt to its changing environment? How does evolution happen for crying out loud?
How does an organism adapt to its environment? By changing it's behavior.
Is a change in an organism’s behavior impacted genetically? It's beginning to look like it.
We have only recently (within the last 10? years) been able to get a better understanding just how much genetics impact organisms both physically and behaviorally
Again, I mention epigenetics, this is a jump in genetic expression (outside of DNA sequence) caused by environmental influences. This change can be continued within an organism generationally. A biology professor I know recently remarked, "Wouldn’t the implications of this make Lamarck roll in his grave?" Truly it would.
Now my dear Rhino, ole buddy, ole pal, while I make no claims I do, and have, legitimate reason to offer up Lamarckian theory for discussion. Surely even you can see this.
<div class='quote'> I just get tired of arguing with someone so clearly biased against "hard science" explanations.
I'm not one to bandy about my educational credentials, but I didn't just fall off the turnip truck yesterday and if truth be known, from my perspective your credentials are worthy.
I will never stop being the student, which means that the science I know is never a "hard science" but rather a "soft science". One that evolves and grows with new information and that my friend is where we differ. I'm not locked into outdated beliefs and I leave the door open for change.
Suffice to say, I have quite a bit of a science background, and if you understood where I come from, you would see I am not at all biased against "hard science", rather I see it, not as an absolute nor as an ending, but only as a starting point.
In closing Rhino, I want to thank you, for you have helped me do a little priming in preparation for a lecture I'm giving in a couple of weeks on The Brain and Genetics in the Developing Mind.
silivros
Joined:
10/16/2006
Msg:
193 (
view
)
Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 8/30/2009 11:27:50 PM
Rhino, why am I not surprised.
Did you take the time to look any of this up before you stepped into the arena? Or does this, Yet again, fall into your wide array of stored knowledge? I suppose you are a geneticist as well as a geologist, physicist, and whatever else you lay claim to an authority as.
Tell you what, you take the time, you do the research. You are arguing a point of your own presumed common knowledge that environmental modeling doesn't happen. Prove your point. And please don't come back with your tired line, "You made the claims, you provide the proof
If you wern't so concerned with your own malicious agenda you might have noticed my verbage - "can be a result of environmental modeling picked up by the children within your family unit."
I'll give you a little direction, try developmental psychology for starters. You might learn a little something. If you start to gain some understanding we can go on from there.
I've offered you references on numerous posts from different threads and to what avail? You ignore them when they are supplied. You do not offer anything to the conversation but contestation. When you change your attitude maybe I might share references with you, but until then, it would be like offering pearls to swine.
Read the paragraph on Lamark over s-l-o-w-l-y then put aside your nefereous plots of personal attacks and see that I make no claims I only offer up, for discussion, that Lamark may have been on to something due to the fact that we have learned so much more now about "human" genetics than we knew in the past.
If you weren't so bent on picking a fight and being condencending maybe you might be taken more seriously. Just saying is all.
These forums can be fun with healthy discussion or vial and filled with ridicule and contempt. What do you bring to the table? But maybe that is what you call fun?
Engage the process
silivros
Joined:
10/16/2006
Msg:
191 (
view
)
Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 8/30/2009 8:02:42 PM
Hiya nevaagin
Behavioral triats do not necessarily express themselves in direct genelological lines.
This is an interesting thing in genetics where behavioral traits may require an environmental reinforcement to initiate genetic expression.
This is understood from the perspective that genetic expressions require a chemical imput to begin expression. The required chemical imput being originated in the thought processes of the cognitive interpretations of personal experiences.
Each of us are born with a template of genetic potential from our biological parents. You know of the 23 chromesomes from each parent etc. What is initially seen from each parent are the physical traits passed on to the child, but what is left to environmental impact are many of our behavioral traits. Personality traits that are dominant in the parent, but not necessarily expressed in a young child can be reinforced, or modeled from the parent during a childs developmental stage, and subsequently expressed in the child/adult as a dominant trait. This example is shown in research done with siblings and twins separated at birth from the biological parents. While the siblings/twins will have similar personality traits to each other, the siblings that had contact with the biological parents by far revele a greater similarity in genetic expression to the parents then do the children that have not had contact with the biological parents.
The left handedness found in your family can be a result of environmental modeling picked up by the children within your family unit. Children will often be ambidextrous at an early age, but as they grow they will differentiate into either right or left handedness . How traits are expressed within genetic bloodlines is an interesting field of research. What is understood is that what is required to light up specific genetic espressions are chemical imputs. We know that for each and every thought we have our brain/body produces a neural-chemical response.
Likewise we know that family units tend to have similiar cognitive functions (thought processes) therefore, they have similar neural-chemical responses. Subsequently this results in family members having similar personality traits or perhaps in your family's case, a behavioral trait of left handedness.
A while ago I was researching hereditary diseases and had read an article suggesting that hereditary diseases might be connected to a families similar cognitive function. While this thought (pun intended) might have a hint of Lamarkian theory, I would note that Lamarkian theory was thougth to be refuted, but with the advent of a greater understanding of genetics (epigentics?) we may have to review what Lamark had to say. Although this is somewhat digressing, we do not know what initiates evolutionary change, we know it happens, but not the process by which it is done.
Anyway, I find genetics a fascinating field of research and while there is much yet to understand concerning genetics, I hope this give you something to think about.
silivros
Joined:
10/16/2006
Msg:
20 (
view
)
Santa Claus and Zeus
Posted: 8/29/2009 8:14:47 PM
The difference between Santa and Zues is that there is an abundance of literature, and books, and written history, stories and such that put Santa in the proper context, in addition to other historical facts.
Literature, and Books and all sorts of written, decomposable material, so very unlike a stone tabtlet or wall, or sheep or goat skins for that matter. The chance of written evidence, like books, surviving 2000+ years is slim. Furthermore, how much would be found, are we assuming that the geography stays the same?
For example, how much of Egyptian history is buried beneath the sands of North Africa? Sure, we may know a fare bit, but only because they wrote much of their history in stone.
silivros
Joined:
10/16/2006
Msg:
24 (
view
)
CREATIVE EVOLUTION
Posted: 8/27/2009 3:31:19 PM
I would not rush to label this thread as a simple solipsism. Although from an initial perspective one might see it as such if one only believes that reality is solely created by each individual without any interaction from any other individual.
If we look at creating reality not only from an individual perspective, but also that we live in this existence as part of a collective consciousness, and that it is imperative that we have an interaction within the collective consciousness in order to evolve to the point of, not only creating our reality, but learning to direct it as well.
If we look at this concept in simplistic terms, do we not now already create the world we live in?
Do we not consciously and collectively, (at least for some) determine our reality by the choices we make each and every day?
While we are part of the collective consciousness, we also have the choice to act outside of the collective whole, although it would seem, most do not believe that and therefore only do as the collective whole believes it is capable of doing. (On a side note, this is a limiting factor in scientific imperialism, not the methodology [empiricism], but rather the consciousness of those in the scientific fields who believe in absolutes)
If we believe that we are only capable of doing what others tell us we can do, are we not part of a collective consciousness?
If we note, throughout history it is the person that believed outside of the paradigm of collective consciousness that changed the reality of the world we live in, indeed it is that person that changed the paradigm of the collective whole.
This would be the Evolution part of the thread. The collective consciousness is evolved when some brave soul challenges the status quo of the collective whole by daring to imagine something greater that what is currently believed in. Look no further than many of the discoveries and inventions of modern reality ~ Electricity, atomic energy, space flight, medicine (with a caveat) and many of the technological marvels now happening today. 100 years ago who would have thought of space flight? Of the cell phone? Of sky scrapers almost a mile high?
We ARE creating and evolving our reality, and only the ignorant fail to see it as such and only fools believe that this current reality is the pinnacle of our knowledge for there is much much more to our existence and we have only scratched the surface of what we are capable of creating.
So do we create our reality? I believe we do and that we do so consciously. Nothing exists in our reality without first being imagined and imagination is fostered in the consciousness of the individual mind of man. The proof of this is evidenced in the reality of each and everyone living our existence. All of us create our reality within the collective consciousness, but some of us step outside of the collective consciousness to change the paradigm of the whole for no two lives are exactly alike and the more accepting your consciousness is to your own abilities the greater your life can be.
In closing
~If you continue to think the way you've always thought, you'll continue to get what you've always got. (unknown)
~Argue for your limitations and they are yours. (Richard Bach)
~The problem with mankind isn't that we are ignorant, rather that we are arrogant to what we think we know, and apathetic to our own greatness. (bjm)
~The greatest of things are achieved in a light heart (rse)
silivros
Joined:
10/16/2006
Msg:
923 (
view
)
Evolution
Posted: 8/26/2009 4:19:50 PM
it would be quite logical if the extra 98% of our genome just happened to contain 98% of our genetic coding.
So what would be your thoughts on all that "junk" DNA running about?
silivros
Joined:
10/16/2006
Msg:
37 (
view
)
Braille on drive-up ATMS and other foolishness
Posted: 8/3/2009 12:02:30 AM
You weren't trying to start some sort of friendly, light hearted conversation. You started this to get attention for your insane political agenda about lawyers and big govt oppressing small business by putting braille on money.
Very funny! Had this been an isolated event I would possible disagree with you on this point, but considering the OP's history, I think you're dead on.
silivros
Joined:
10/16/2006
Msg:
81 (
view
)
Quantum Reality
Posted: 8/2/2009 11:58:42 PM
What i suggest is what if you have no film at the back, and just keep on calculating the continued quantum state?
How???? Would you know???
There has to be a conscious observer.
silivros
Joined:
10/16/2006
Msg:
69 (
view
)
Does the hallucinogen DMT get released in the brain as were dying ?
Posted: 8/2/2009 11:56:32 PM
That is, what we term our reality is nothing more than a set of arbitrary agreements arrived at to give us a semblance of order and context.
A collective consciousness?
silivros
Joined:
10/16/2006
Msg:
28 (
view
)
How accurate can carbon dating truly be?
Posted: 8/2/2009 11:48:23 PM
The fact that you put radiometric dating and '200 million years' in the same sentence betrays your lack of knowledge on the matter, as does the comment on uniformitarianism.
rockodon, If you quote me, quote in context. Otherwise you weaken your argument.
The relevant meaning within my post with regard to uniformitarianism would be that aprox. 15 to 10 thousand years ago was the last major climate change (Younger Dryas)
This is further understood because during this time, know as the end of the Pleistocene era, there were massive extinctions on every continent. This evidence suggests that these extinctions were caused primarily as a result of this climate change.
This was also the last glacial period.
How many glacial periods have there been?
Would there not also be a climate change during every glacial period?
What are the chances that these climate changes impacted Carbon levels?
Are you starting to see the picture here?
Carbon levels have not been uniform - this is well understood and accounted for when carbon dating
Please, elaborate how this is understood and can actually be accounted for.
The truth of the matter is that there is not enough known about the concentrations of Carbon levels beyond calabrated dates, even with tree ring data.(See circular reasoning) to verify dating accuracy beyond 10 to 15 thousand years. Therefore any proclaimation beyond that time I'd take with a grain of salt.
In closing, one final thought. Think about archeologists - Aren't they are always arguing about timelines? Even they rarely agree.
silivros
Joined:
10/16/2006
Msg:
79 (
view
)
Quantum Reality
Posted: 8/2/2009 5:51:53 PM
Could you, by the rules of quantum mechanics, figure out the position and momentum functions and any later point for as long as the entire set remains un-observed?
Is this a trick question?
If you know the position and momentum function of all particles that could be involved in an "un-observed" interaction
If you know, then how can it be un-observed?
silivros
Joined:
10/16/2006
Msg:
12 (
view
)
Is there a limit to what we can learn and understand ?
Posted: 8/2/2009 3:27:49 PM
As long as you think you have boundaries, YOU ALWAYS WILL!!!!!!!!!
Argue for your limitations ~ and they are yours. (rb)
From this point of reference, then no, there is no limit to what we can learn and understand.
silivros
Joined:
10/16/2006
Msg:
16 (
view
)
How accurate can carbon dating truly be?
Posted: 8/1/2009 3:05:49 AM
Radio-Carbon dating, when calibrated, can be accurate within a known calabrated date. (Known meaning when we can calaborate from a historical event) Although what is often omitted is that carbon dating is based on a principle called uniformitarianism which assumes that our planet has had the same atmospheric conditions over the last 200 millions years or so. This assumption therefore infers that the C14 and C12 levels have also been constant over that lenght of time as well. There is not proof of this over the last 15K years let alone 200 million years. Also it is assumed that there is/was uniform levels of C14, C12 throughout the planet. This also hasn't been proven.
Finally, while the error factors in a calabrated dating can be minimal, when dating beyond a known calabration the margin of error can be rather large.
What is considered a positive accuracy level, 75%, 50%, 25% ?
Too many assumptions.
P.S. The world is older than 6K years and all that that implies, so don't even go there.
silivros
Joined:
10/16/2006
Msg:
73 (
view
)
Thought experiment...
Posted: 7/31/2009 7:55:50 PM
I think, what you are thinking, is the hypothalamus, which is often referred to as the "reptilian brain"
The midbrain is usually refered to as the primitive brain while the cerebellum is usually refered to as the reptilian brain. The cerebellum is the smaller brain, located within the back and lower portion of your skull. The cerebellum is involved with sensory relationship with regard to balance and posture. Also involved with muscle memory. (Actually not nearly enough is known about the cerebellum.)
The hypothalamus is a gland within the limbic system (midbrain), generally considered to be the chief gland of the hormonal system as well as the central intergrater of the limbic system.
silivros
Joined:
10/16/2006
Msg:
68 (
view
)
Thought experiment...
Posted: 7/31/2009 4:39:11 PM
Higher brain function comes from the outside bit, not the cortex.
The term cortex is associated with "the outside bit" as you so elequently refered to it, as in the cerebral cortex.
Have fun and carry on.
silivros
Joined:
10/16/2006
Msg:
16 (
view
)
Braille on drive-up ATMS and other foolishness
Posted: 7/31/2009 11:11:12 AM
Several years ago, while in a state of exteme bordom, I was reading the fine print on a box of toothpicks.
Instructions.
Also
I live in WA state where the salmon population has been in decline over the last 50 years. A large part of this decline is caused by destruction of viable breeding areas by development and from the logging industry's clear cutting policys.
The sports fishing lobbyist and the indigineous peoples hold considerable amount of influence on the Department of Natural Resources actions.
A few years ago there was a dramatic decrease in the population whereby the DNR closed salmon fishing in most of the tributaries.
The sports fishing lobbyist complained that the decline was in large part caused by the resident sea lion population in the South Puget Sound area.
The state responed by killing aprox. 100 sea lions in order to appease these lobbyists.
silivros
Joined:
10/16/2006
Msg:
29 (
view
)
I have a question about reflections.
Posted: 7/31/2009 10:43:46 AM
The underlying fundamental concept is invariance, not differences. In both types of rekativity, there are quanties that are the same, called invariants, when measured by any observer.
This obviously doesn't apply to ex's.
Be that as it may, to clearify, some phenomenom are considered universal to every observer.
silivros
Joined:
10/16/2006
Msg:
85 (
view
)
The Big Bang theory surely is the limit case ?
Posted: 7/29/2009 9:24:21 PM
it would take years of study in astro and theoretical physics to enlighten you on the subject of the big bang theory.
And that enlightenment would be nothing but speculation based on a valid window of 60 years or so.
but we haven't determined the cause.
Precisely, therefore all this is speculation.
silivros
Joined:
10/16/2006
Msg:
5 (
view
)
The Global Brain
Posted: 7/29/2009 5:04:23 PM
A Global Brain ?
I don't believe that consciousness would operate mass to mass. While it certainly operates singularly within the brain I believe that collectively, consciousness would operate outside of the brain.
Then one might call it a Global consciousness?
But,
Isn't that already the case? Do we not have a collective consciousness already?
silivros
Joined:
10/16/2006
Msg:
20 (
view
)
Altrusim vs. Individualism
Posted: 7/29/2009 2:31:15 AM
There is no one ideology or philosophy that can address all circumstance and situation equally and without fail
Agreed.
Yet from an understanding that all circumstances are interelated experiences from each individuals perspective, and if every one could, in theory, learn from the reflection of the experience, all circumstances, no matter how they are judged, are worthy.
that's just as much a 'good' thing as it is a 'bad' one (frankly, it's neither; it just is what it is).
yea, guess it depends on your perspective. Of course some might see it just "as it is" :-)
silivros
Joined:
10/16/2006
Msg:
8 (
view
)
What if we are wrong
Posted: 7/28/2009 11:03:59 PM
What if we are wrong?
We are wrong, about a lot of things. .
I believe we are wrong about uniformitarianism with regard to earth geology and human history.
I believe that those that think that we have reached the pinnicle of our knowledge and there are many of them here on POF, are absolutely mislead.
I know that we are only tapping the tip of the iceburg with regard to the human brain and what it actually does.
Quantum physics is going to change the world as we know it and our understanding of our place in it.
But !
We are getting there on some things
silivros
Joined:
10/16/2006
Msg:
38 (
view
)
Quantum Reality
Posted: 7/28/2009 10:38:19 PM
I sometimes wonder if man will ever truly develop the ability to understand the nature of matter and energy.
I think that if we look at how a wave function is collapsed we might gain a greater understanding of the nature of matter and energy.
For the sake of this discussion, let us say that Schrödinger and Heisenberg were on to something. That the observer, does in fact, impact the wave function collapsing a wave into a particle.
And
If the wave function is energy and energy is matter and the observer has an impact on wave function that collapses it into a particle.
If that is the case
Then what, or who, is the observer that causes that undifferentiated wave function to collapse into a particle?
What is the observer?
Oh, and for that someone special - - - Isn't Macro scale made up of Micro scale?
silivros
Joined:
10/16/2006
Msg:
75 (
view
)
The Big Bang theory surely is the limit case ?
Posted: 7/28/2009 7:01:04 PM
so ultimately you end up at a singular point.
The assumption being that "Now" to the presumed "Big Bang" is a linear event.
The concept is certainly understood from that perspective, which could imply a "Limiting Case" that doesn't seem to take in dimensional potentials. (Same OP, different thread)
silivros
Joined:
10/16/2006
Msg:
26 (
view
)
Could it be that hallucinogens allow Holographic Quantum resonances in the Synaptic Field ?
Posted: 7/28/2009 1:03:17 AM
^Sure it's a real term but it's not whether or or not it's real , it's whether or not it needs to be used.
From your previous quote your implication was that the "verbosity" should "serve as part of a primer for those wanting to know when they're dealing with junk-science and "new age" nonsense."
How could anyone infer whether or not it should be used by your statement? Your statement implys that it is "new age nonsense", not whether it is real or not.
It doesn't.
How would it not?
The area in question is where neuro-synapsis occurs and therefore a pivitol componet of biological cognition. To imply that it is not relavent shows you might not understand the question.
Here's a little something else to chew on.
What causes a change in neuro-chemistry?
silivros
Joined:
10/16/2006
Msg:
106 (
view
)
Evolution.
Posted: 7/27/2009 10:41:37 PM
yes, life was inevitable, was the answer I sermised
Speculation is what that inevitability amounts to. There is no proof.
As far as evolution of lifeforms on this planet. Sure looks like it happens
silivros
Joined:
10/16/2006
Msg:
24 (
view
)
Could it be that hallucinogens allow Holographic Quantum resonances in the Synaptic Field ?
Posted: 7/27/2009 8:50:08 PM
Synaptic field ?
This sort of verbosity should serve as part of a primer for those wanting to know when they're dealing with junk-science and "new age" nonsense.
The terminology is appropriate. The area within the influence of the chemical reactions of the synaptic cleft is generally refered to as the synaptic field.
A simple google search would suffice.
silivros
Joined:
10/16/2006
Msg:
18 (
view
)
Quantum Reality
Posted: 7/24/2009 10:33:16 PM
We still have no understanding at a fundamental level of what electricity, gravity, electromagnetism or even matter are composed of. We just have some good theories that fit observations
Well said !
Matter though, as I understand it, Is coagulated energy so to speak. Energy that has slowed down it's vibratory frequecy.
silivros
Joined:
10/16/2006
Msg:
8 (
view
)
A Timestream Bifurcation Theory ...
Posted: 7/24/2009 5:38:17 PM
The boffins here might feel offended that its too entertaining. It sounded a lot like m-theory with a religious twist though.
I agree a very entertaining read and well written, but what is a boffin, and does it have anything to do with trite, contestuals that usually troll these waters?
silivros
Joined:
10/16/2006
Msg:
48 (
view
)
How do you know that you know?
Posted: 7/19/2009 12:08:33 PM
The basis of the question is irrelevant
The basis of the question is very relevant, and you would know this if you understood Buddhist philosophy.
There was nothing profound about that question.
The profundity of the question is relevant individually. Not to you, apparently, from your mathematical confines, but perhaps from a logical perspective you might gain an understanding.
silivros
Joined:
10/16/2006
Msg:
16 (
view
)
Raised by media, and what to do about it now.
Posted: 7/17/2009 12:28:16 AM
Ali oop
Great post. I know a couple of people like that, in fact I think one of them posts here.
silivros
Joined:
10/16/2006
Msg:
26 (
view
)
How do you know that you know?
Posted: 7/16/2009 10:06:54 PM
Really? It's straightforward.
Not so straight forward abelian, but Spoken like a true mathematician. Reject the Null, don't reject the Null, but I like your straight forwardness.
The OP's query has its basis in Buddhist philosophy and is anything but straight forward.
silivros
Joined:
10/16/2006
Msg:
16 (
view
)
How do you know that you know?
Posted: 7/16/2009 12:25:15 AM
If we judge an experience would we see is as it is? Can we judge an experience and still gain insight?
A moral issue is a judgment of an action. Is it then without insight?
Is there peace of mind when we have made a moral judgment?
What is the purpose of emotions?
Oh the tangled web those Buddhist weave :-)
silivros
Joined:
10/16/2006
Msg:
82 (
view
)
How can you loose your salvation.
Posted: 7/9/2009 6:28:21 PM
Hiya Junk
here's how ya do it
[ box end parenthesis, then put your quote in. close quote with /]
that should do it
silivros
Joined:
10/16/2006
Msg:
22 (
view
)
How can you loose your salvation.
Posted: 7/6/2009 5:03:16 PM
Here's a thought:
Take this kind of off-topic carp to the Religion forum.
I know, I know... crazy thought.
Rhino, are you sitting down?
I approve of this message.
If you want to go to the super secret hidden domain of The Religion Threads then go to Thread search, type in Religion and you'll get a results page that will have threads from the relgion forum. Click on any topic under the religion forum and vuala ! You are in the religion forum.
There is probably some eaisier way to get there, and I'm sure some savvy POFer can show you how, but that will work.
silivros
Joined:
10/16/2006
Msg:
88 (
view
)
How do you think it will happen?
Posted: 7/6/2009 4:01:02 PM
The OP wanted our opinions on how we thought the world would end.
Sagan says this, Nostradamus says that, the bible says something else. Everybody can have an opinion. That's the cool thing 'bout this site.
Here's mine!
It won't. Not while I'm living on it.
P.S.
Rhino, Gotta - so glad to see you two have hooked up. This should be fun.
edit
All right! You two kissed and made up. Sweet.
silivros
Joined:
10/16/2006
Msg:
7 (
view
)
The true nature of gravity
Posted: 6/16/2009 11:53:04 AM
Oh man. You'd think that after a while, at least those trying to post scientific ideas in a science forum would eventually figure out the difference between a theory, a hypothesis, and just something you yanked out of your posterior.
How might you assist the OP in this endeavor rhino, other than a condenscending remark?
He asks some interesting questions. While he might not have a strong understanding of the current THEORIES on astrophysics and matter, none the less, what he is questioning is worthy of considerate discourse.
If we shut down everyone that shares a sincere opinion, we'd be a pretty boring lot.
engage the process.
silivros
Joined:
10/16/2006
Msg:
87 (
view
)
Are we our body or our mind?
Posted: 6/16/2009 11:33:08 AM
Hey Robinson
I'm with ya there. Consciousness is not physicial.
What we call Mind is the direct result of consciousness on the brain. Mind is the biological function as a result of consciousness on the brain. I see the brain as a receiver and the functional mechanism by which reality can be explained is through a quantum understanding of atomic structure and its interaction with consciousness on the brain.
How 'bout consciousness collapsing the wave fuction into potential realities as a start.
I like where you're going with this.
silivros
Joined:
10/16/2006
Msg:
66 (
view
)
HOME (Earth)
Posted: 6/16/2009 12:02:17 AM
I'm not following your little scawble, but here goes nothin - - -
A simple google search.
***http://www.prisonplanet.com/scientist-predicts-ice-age-within-10-years.html
Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera of the Institute of Geophysics at the University of Mexico states that “In about ten years the Earth will enter a “little ice age” which will last from 60 to 80 years and may be caused by the decrease in solar activity,” according to a report in the major Mexican newspaper Milenio Diario
That's a scientist and he is claiming 10 years. Do I win something? I think I should win something.
Of course Victor here is claiming this 10 year thing will be caused by a decrease in solar activity. But really I wasn't responding to the 10 year thing in the first place was I.
No, I was only commenting that I have never seen those that cry foul with regard to human impact to global warming discuss the human impact that causes acid rain. Of course you didn't notice that did you?
silivros
Joined:
10/16/2006
Msg:
19 (
view
)
How do you stop crying?
Posted: 6/15/2009 10:41:38 PM
Crying is a neuro-chemical response to a perception of a thought based on an associative memory pattern created in the brain from previous experiences. OUCH!
Crying is the emotional result of a programmed neuro-pattern in the brain.
The simple answer as pinkribbon stated
YOU CHANGE THE PATTERN IN THE BRAIN
We do this throughout our lives. As we evolve we change the way we feel about experiences and with some things we no longer feel emotionally as strong as we once did, Therefore we don't cry over them. We have changed the patterns in our brains.
We can be conditioned to not show our emotions and in fact, most men are. As little boys we have been conditioned not to cry. That is a different can of worms, but basically that is the gist of it.
silivros
Joined:
10/16/2006
Msg:
64 (
view
)
HOME (Earth)
Posted: 6/15/2009 10:26:33 PM
I can't help but wonder when I see the discussions on these threads with regard to global warming.
Sure the Earth goes through cycles of higher concetrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. And what seems to be the arguments of the Non-global warming group is that the earth is experiencing one of these higher cycles.
Yet I can't help feeling that the Non-global group is ignoring the impact that humans have on the weather on smaller scales. For instance; Acid rain. If mankind can have a regional impact such as acid rain, could it not be possible that we could also impact the earth on a larger scale?
Great "Appeal to Authority" opener. Which scientists? Got cites?
Hiya Gotta, welcome back! I see you're up to your old tricks. Good to see ya.
silivros
Joined:
10/16/2006
Msg:
85 (
view
)
Are we our body or our mind?
Posted: 6/15/2009 10:09:57 PM
Really? Can you show me where it says that
Obviously Crystal has been doing a little reading, something that can not be said about many POFer's.
If you want to rag on her about something, try asking her to speak slower and use smaller words.
She took a bit of a leap by expecting many POFer's to have actually read the research, but before we criticise perhaps we could actually do a little research for ourselves. Instead of having it spoon feed to us. I got these sites in less than five minutes.
***http://www.neuroacoustic.com/epsilon.html
***http://www.project-meditation.org/community/learn-how-you-can-benefit-project-meditation/29-scientific-research-brainwave-entrainment.html
***http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/8503
like, on Science Daily? Cause I read it every day, and I missed that.
Ask and you shall receive.
Here is your Science daily reference. NOTE the related links. Then maybe you might get up to speed with what she is talking about.
***http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090426175653.htm
have fun
silivros
Joined:
10/16/2006
Msg:
19 (
view
)
Race and intoxication...
Posted: 6/14/2009 8:43:27 PM
I don't think it has to do with race or genetic disposition.
more likely it has to do with tolerance form their own bodies, built up because of their upbringing.
Yup, built up over thousands of generations causing a change in genetic expression.
The human body adapts to environmental influences and when the influence occurs over thousands of generations the adaptation can become a genetic trait. (Think skin color, eye color {in some cases}, hair type) These and many more physical traits are the result of our ability to adapt by altering our genetic expression.
In contrast if there is little or no contact with an environmental influence, say alcohol for instance, within a geneological line then it stands to reason then that the genetic line will not have developed a strong tolorance toward alcohol.
Again - there are other factors to consider with regard to alcohol tolerance beside genetic factors. Overall health, gender, age, and diet should be considered as well.
silivros
Joined:
10/16/2006
Msg:
27 (
view
)
Proud of your own humility?
Posted: 6/14/2009 11:43:01 AM
Ohhhhh Lord its hard to be humble,
when you're perfect in ev-er-y-way
I can't wait to look in the mirror
I get better lookin each day!
To know me is to love me
I must be one hell of a man
Oh Lord its hard to be humble
but I'm doing the best that I can
I don't remember who wrote that song, (Jerry Reed? maybe)
Pride and humility - opposite sides of the same coin - from a dualistic perspective, how can you know one without the other?
silivros
Joined:
10/16/2006
Msg:
15 (
view
)
Race and intoxication...
Posted: 6/14/2009 11:33:32 AM
Some cultures / races have a deficiency of the low-Km aldehyde dehydrogenase (ALDH2) isoenzyme. This deficiency results from inheritance of mutant ALDH2*2 allele.
This affects your bodies ability to metabolize alcohol.
YES!!!! Give this man a gold star!
Each "Race" has genetic similarities within it's population. This not to say that every person of a particular race will be alcohol intolerant or be more likely to become addicted. None the less, genetics play a role in a every person's ability to metabolize alcohol.
silivros
Joined:
10/16/2006
Msg:
4 (
view
)
Race and intoxication...
Posted: 6/14/2009 1:19:27 AM
There are many factors involved in a persons susceptability to alcohol, biological genetics being one of them.
Yes certain races have been known to have strong reactions to alcohol and there are genetic factors involved. For instance, many Asian races have a greater percentage of the population that show adverse effects to alcohol. Studies suggest that up to 50% of the population in certain Asian races have a very low tolerance to alcohol and that there are genetic markers that indicate this.
But!
There are many variables to determining any individual persons tolerance to alcohol; gender, age, health, diet and race are some of them. To make a blanket statement that certain races are more susceptable is a bit of a generalization, although there is some truth to it.
Certain genetic factors impact the way the body metabolizes alcohol, which may result in a person having a low tolerance or a greater susceptability to becoming addicted and these qualities vary within a population.
The long answer would require much more of this thread, which I'm not inclined to do, Maybe someone else could expand upon this.
The short answer is yes, Race (genetics) can factor into alcohol tolerance and or susceptability to alcohol addiction.
silivros
Joined:
10/16/2006
Msg:
19 (
view
)
Predicting Natural Selection ?/?
Posted: 6/11/2009 10:29:53 AM
The modern human animal doesn't fit readily into this paradigm of natural selection.
We make choices outside that of a chemical response mechanism. We don't always eat when we are hungry, we don't always breed when we ovulate. Etc.
The dynamics by which we facilitate the occurances of reproduction is not usually governed by influences in the natural world.
Just like the TOE, humans do not fit into the same mold.
Show ALL Forums