barfbag

@ Opening Poster, It would be fun if you gave us an update after the assignment is over and let us know what the intended meaning turned out to be. I'm curious now. Cheers.

Red (maybe white) Helium balloon with 4 feet of white string attached to it with a ketchup stain on the string near the bottom. I say this because if you've ever lost a balloon outside on a sunny day it vanishes the way you said, and popping out of view could be it vanishing from sight or literally popping out of existence. Red balloons are also known to be spotted more frequently on clear sunny days then on rainy days. Weather balloon was taken.... The best judge would be you. You know yourself. If you have no mental illnesses or are up on your meds then it probably was something explainable. Satellite answer seemed fun. If it was a UFO sighting it sounds like a disappointing one. Many good (cough) ones on Youtube. People should be quicker on the camera. A Youtube monetized video that gets a million hits gets you a free $4000, and you could go to disneyland.

@ Boxy Brown, I went on a road trip in my twenties where I delivered Pizza in Edmonton, Alberta., on my second day there. There was no need to learn streets because the entire city is a grid. Addresses were all like , "11325 124st.". Streets went one way, avenues another. @ OP, The first time I tried your link it was not broadcasting. Now the ISS camera I have fullscreen quite often. It makes a relaxing background in the room like fine art. who knows, maybe I'll discover Aliens. It is beautiful on fullscreen. Thanks for posting this thread.

@ JohnC, You say, http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+Maimonides+ESP-dream+studies.-a014527221 (see link above) No need to because not only was everything recorded on film but extensive writing has been done discussing this. (see link above). If you want to submit it to James Randi however you can just send him the book (see link below.). http://www.espresearch.com/dreamtelepathy/ http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/Sherwood2003MetaDreamESP.pdf Even a Trillion to one odds is not proof of something and could be described as luck. Without a measurement tool (aside from humans), there can never be proof. Maybe you missed my own comment about James Randi in what you just quoted, Odds are not proof by any standards. I think you may also have missed this part, because I had said this, So.. Jest all you like. Anybody with serious inquiries or who wish to discuss can or could PM me. I think it is fairly simple to prove this too yourself if you get enough responses that are like I am at the point I simply feel sorry for those I feel have missed out on seeing enough evidence of this sort of thing in their lifetime. They must think death is a blank state of nothingness, and that is just for starters. Anybody with serious inquiries or who wish to discuss can or could PM me. Cheers,

@ Strange, I disagree that my argument came even close to that. Although I went into more detail in the preceding posts, my argument is that even the most sophisticated AI we currently have today in Chess programs or Video Games or for any application when put under a microscope dissects into nothing more than a sophisticated flowchart of If/Then statements. The electricity will follow the same pathways under the same circumstances every single time. The Brain can visualize and create its own pathways and will never follow the same pathways under the same circumstances. A metaphor I have used is that the Brain is like a car that can go down any road it chooses, but a computer is like a train that can only follow the track that it has been placed upon. You argue that our own brains are deterministic and lack no free will. I think thiis is just saying we are also on a track even though we do not realize it. That is a unique argument. Normally people who think AI is possible argue based upon seeing programs play chess and "outsmarting" humans. I said at the bottom of post 32,

The edit function vanished on my previous post, but here is some LENR out of Russia, http://coldfusionnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Tsyganov-Dubna-Talk.pdf

Well. Maybe it is making its way here although it took its sweet time. Maybe there is a science project for a budding food chemist here after all. This was interesting, but I think i'm done with this thread for now. If I do buy that again perhaps I will list the ingredients and taste the juice and pulp separately. Cheers.

@ previous posters, From one of my last posts, I am interested if there are any programmers who feel a computer could really think, but I am not going to attempt explanations any more. As I said in several posts. I tried explaining as best I can. Good luck

@ prometheus, First; do you use this Moniker on another Forum? Some of the maths have been calculated in one particular sleep telepathy study as 75 000 000:1 odds in favour of telepathy. Because of my involvement in the field I was privy to some film (they used film back then) of the experiments and they were often "uncanny". They were also double blind. The sender was locked in a room before opening the picture to be broadcast. You said, I was skeptical and an atheist growing up. Too be quite honest i feel the only real convincing method to a skeptic is by trying telepathy (particularly dream telepathy) yourself and noting how weird and effective the results are. Imagine you contacted someone you had not spoken to in over a year via telepathy and encouraged them to call and then they called you the next morning. Of course it could be chance. You'd never win any James Randi money for it. What if you did this a dozen times and it worked half the time (I think hitting REM sleep is important, but not always feasible). Keep in mind that there is no such thing as unwitnessed telepathy. It always requires at least two people so results are not likely to simply be in your head. , but I will also give you the Skeptics Dictionary version of the same events. http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=23300 so you have the skeptic version. I am not overly interested in pursuing this topic here. Skepticism is a healthy outlook, I just feel I have been involved in too many experiments with results best described as "Uncanny" to return to the skeptic stances. I am not a rookie in the field nor am I overly gullible. I have a variety of hobbies Power of the mind, Street magic (Fake street magic), Sailing, writing, and more. If I see a trick I do not understand I try to learn how it is done. I did ran a paranormal website and developed a method of measuring subconscious thought using repetitive questioning with answers hidden subliminally in the pictures. This is the only method to date that does not rely on ideomotor reflexes, unlike pendulums, Ouija boards, etc. Yes. That would seem silly. I have been researching this as a hobby and part time profession for over 20 years. I am a Soil Engineer and have many science interests that are normal science and require no PSI beliefs. I would prefer to stick to those topics in this forum, but I wanted to input into this thread for another poster. Concerning religion, you said, Here is a bit from that all pulled from same link actually. I did not go into many known quotations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_in_Buddhism Faith arises out of listening to Dharma, and this listening is [itself] grounded in faith. Maybe all the experiments I have participated in over decades have been simple incredulous luck. Maybe. I think you would think differently though had you seen what I have under that topic. This post feels more like piecemeal than one of my better arguments, but I am not much willing to argue the point this morning and am in a hurry to go shoot some film for one of my Youtube Channels. I apologize for that. I am more than happy to discuss this topic if you have serious questions. I find these types of threads are often policed by skeptics who just want to feel satisfaction by stating obvious facts that point to PSI as hogwash. I am very happy to discuss or answer questions even if in PM if you are serious, but not so much if I am just walking into a set up troll. I think the distinctions are obvious enough and am not accusing anybody here of anything, it is just what I have come to expect when airing this topic publicly.

I don't want to sound like an old fuddy duddy as I am only middle aged, but science is all around us in nature, and even sailing or camping trips can be mentally rewarding. Albeit I am somewhat pressed to think of what sort of natural activities would suit your desire for Organic Chemistry aside from the fact that nature itself is your subject of choice. Perhaps just thinking where you want to go might make your specialty clear. If you opt for sailing over camping then the majority of marine science related chemistry would fall under organic chemistry. Adventuring can build character and give you reasons to apply things you have learned. Youth is wasted on the young - George Bernard Shaw

@ strange, My last post was addressed to someone else and the views must be taken into consideration with previous postings. I tried my best here and have moved on. If you wish to hear my views start here http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/81185-could-the-internet-become-a-conscious-mind/?p=812042 and not with last post

For any wondering, I did respond to above poster via PM. I understand SF.net is mostly a non-prophet organization. Some of the topics I addressed were private in nature, but I did not leave that poster hanging without a response. (if this appears as a double post i apologize, I appear to have trouble posting it. I'll try a few more times and then I give up.. Thank god for copy/paste).

md65536, I see where you are going with this, And then when humans finally realize the Internet has become self aware it is too late so we try to shut it down. But the machine does not want to die so starts a war against mankind. I remember that movie... You described the plot for the Terminator series in your last posting. Maybe you have a talent for fiction. I have heard some stranger theories about consciousness. Some have argued that all matter is self aware, and that it pops in and out of existence as part of our holographic collective consciousness, but again we would need to attribute similar traits to our toasters. I think if you took up a little programming as a side hobby (It's not that hard, all programming is mostly If/Then statements remember), you might start to lose a little of the romance concerning AI. I can see where talk of AI, and shows such as "Person of Interest" can make people wonder about the possibilities. Here is a simple little program... 5 LET S = 0 10 MAT INPUT V 20 LET N = NUM 30 IF N = 0 THEN 99 40 FOR I = 1 TO N 45 LET S = S + V(I) 50 NEXT I 60 PRINT S/N 70 GO TO 5 99 END or 10 INPUT "What is your name: ", U$ 20 PRINT "Hello "; U$ 30 INPUT "How many stars do you want: ", N 40 S$ = "" 50 FOR I = 1 TO N 60 S$ = S$ + "*" 70 NEXT I 80 PRINT S$ 90 INPUT "Do you want more stars? ", A$ 100 IF LEN(A$) = 0 THEN GOTO 90 110 A$ = LEFT$(A$, 1) 120 IF A$ = "Y" OR A$ = "y" THEN GOTO 30 130 PRINT "Goodbye "; U$ 140 END Notice how tiny both programs are, yet they both contain IF/Then statements. I am not trying to burst bubbles, or hurt your imagination. "Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Albert Einstein. Good luck. My opinion on the matter is fairly fixed, but who knows. Maybe you are right and I am wrong.

Okay. I see my mistake there. I still have not been able to identify ingredients. at 5 calories per cup I'll take my chances. This makes sense. So the sweet "chunks" would need to be insoluble to some extent or added late as you suggest below. I am not very familiar with Asian drinks aside from green tea or bubble tea. This "Vera by OFC" drink is made in South Korea. The taste is pretty sweet. I have a Pop Machine and was even thinking it might make a nice pop if I carbonized it. Maybe I'll try that someday. I cannot add much more to this until I get more of it and taste test the various parts of it and see the ingredients. I feel like walking intp Coca Cola and throwing a bottle on the CEO's desk saying, "Why can't you do something as simple as this". It puts most diet drinks to shame. So floating sweet chunks is what we are after... Maybe you could simply dice up a piece of fruit such as pineapple for similar effect. I must admit I was fairly blown away by the taste and concept. I've even thought about adding a video to my Youtube Channel, but I don't have enough information still. Maybe some day. Thanks for your input.

md65536, Computer AI is directly related to Internet and machine consciousness. If you feel there is a flowchart or program in existence that is more than a mix of IF/Then statements and Action directives I would be ecstatic with Joy (honestly). I'd be happy with the simplest of examples. ydoaPs, AI's don't really learn. That's personifying it and is misleading. They can change variables and measure your actions, but again, this is all done through if/then statements. ie. if the game checks (via if/then statements constantly) and sees your characters strategy is to run more than X amount of the time (If run > 75% of the time THEN go to dog subroutine) perhaps it will go to a subroutine villain that is quicker like dogs. Discussing computer AI is directly related to internet consciousness because it is a connection of programs that run on the internet in the exact same fashion. While the cursor in front of you is blinking, it is constantly checking the keyboard for key strokes. If A location equals pressed then print the letter A in that location and move cursor one space to right. If B location equals pressed THEN print the letter B in that location and move cursor one space to right, etc... For the entire keyboard (example only). In an online game the program can PEEK (peek locations in basic) at your keyboard to see if a certain key or arrow or space bar is pressed. Anyways.. Good luck. I tried to explain as best I could.

md65536, I did say biological methods may be possible in the future, but currently a program or AI can only make yes or no decisions one at a time. Example. If you run your character past a line in the game it will trigger the villain to appear. In an effort to make these characters seem intelligent sometimes dozens or hundreds of IF/Then statements are applied (in computer language of choice). , In the game development there would be many such instances we call glitches or bugs. Eventually your Computer AI's will seem intelligent, but they cannot think in tangents. They are only following yes or no decisions. just look at your character walking. This is obviously a set of pictures that are used depending on the angle you are viewing him. the step is in motion like a cartoon would be with different perspectives. The cartoon sequences only appear after a long set of If/then statements including asking itself if you are within x number of "feet". It will run an if/then loop to slow the character down enough so he appears lifelike. It will ask if a shot has been fired by you then (if/then) statement show the shot at its desired location, etc. After amassing hundreds of if then statements the image in front of you might appear life like. This basic AI chart simplifies it (understating a lot), as a real AI flowchart would be massive and would not fit in a post. Notice every comparison must have either yes or no. There is no fancy algorithm around this. Math can be involved, but all programming (presently) must boil down to comparing or actions (actions means turning parts of the screen Blue, green, white, red, etc., ).. This again is a simplification, but AI is very simple in its building blocks. ydoaPs, If you connect the dots in a kids book. Is that thinking or following a path? If you are on a roller coaster, does it think about where it needs to turn? No. It follows the same path each and every time. If you added a second path for the roller coaster to split off and change directions then a yes or no decision is required by some input mechanism or randomized data to compare in the decision. If the dice roll is above 3 then roller coaster goes straight, if dice roll is less than 4 roller coaster turns. Is the roller coaster thinking because now it has a computer chip randomizing numbers between one and six and comparing the values. So is it now alive and thinking? no. Look at a simple computer.. A coffeemaker. There is a clock on the front panel. There is also a looped program running inside of it that recorded the time you want to have the coffee brewed in the morning. You set it to start at 8am. So inside it asks itself. Is the time on the clock equal to 8am? no. Okay. Go back to start of program. Is the time on the clock equal to 8am?no. Okay. Go back to start of program, Is the time on the clock equal to 8am? no. Okay. Go back to start of program. Is the time on the clock equal to 8am?no. Okay. Go back to start of program, Is the time on the clock equal to 8am? no. Okay. Go back to start of program. Is the time on the clock equal to 8am?no. Okay. Go back to start of program, Is the time on the clock equal to 8am? no. Okay. Go back to start of program. Is the time on the clock equal to 8am?no. Okay. Go back to start of program, Is the time on the clock equal to 8am? no. Okay. Go back to start of program. Is the time on the clock equal to 8am?no. Okay. Go back to start of program, Is the time on the clock equal to 8am? no. Okay. Go back to start of program. Is the time on the clock equal to 8am?no. Okay. Go back to start of program, Is the time on the clock equal to 8am? no. Okay. Go back to start of program. Is the time on the clock equal to 8am?no. Okay. Go back to start of program, Is the time on the clock equal to 8am? no. Okay. Go back to start of program. Is the time on the clock equal to 8am?no. Okay. Go back to start of program, Is the time on the clock equal to 8am? no. Okay. Go back to start of program. Is the time on the clock equal to 8am?no. Okay. Go back to start of program, Is the time on the clock equal to 8am? no. Okay. Go back to start of program. Is the time on the clock equal to 8am?no. Okay. Go back to start of program, Is the time on the clock equal to 8am? no. Okay. Go back to start of program. Is the time on the clock equal to 8am?no. Okay. Go back to start of program, Is the time on the clock equal to 8am? no. Okay. Go back to start of program. Is the time on the clock equal to 8am?no. Okay. Go back to start of program, meanwhile..... Eventually after it compares times a few hundred thousand times over the course of the night 8am comes along. Is the time on the clock equal to 8am? Yes... So flick on switch on and end program. Does that seem like a very intelligent coffee machine/computer (it is a computer if it is programmable)? No.. It only knows to ask itself the same question over and over and over until the answer changes. This is the heart of programming and even though I made it look dumb here, it might seem awfully clever to you when you wake up and find it has not forgotten to brew your coffee. I may not respond here further unless a different line of thinking/questions develops. I cannot explain this idea much better than I have.

Deleted. Off topic post.

@ YdoaPs, Because I program and know what commands are used in programming. If you are suggesting that the computer has an alternate personality outside all of the IF/Then decision statements, then the same personality should be attributed to your toaster. As I said in my last post. Programming is ALL - "If this is true do that, and if that is true do this" comparing variables, followed by either an action or another If/then comparison yes or no decision. We can follow the route of the process very easily and under the same circumstances the program will always react in the same way.

Perhaps I did not explain it very well. It was a Aloe Vera Health drink high in Vitamin C. It said there were no artificial sweeteners, so I'm assuming that included your list. This is the drink here. I just found it after typing out a reply here and have added photo as an edit. I suppose I can check the ingredients for artificial sweeteners, I cannot recall seeing any in the label when I drank it. I am still intrigued by the idea of putting tiny floating flavour packets in a drink instead of sweetening the entire drink. Whether in a pulpy or bubble or string type form. --------------------------- So let's pretend for now that we are looking for a water additive that will register sweetness on the tongue, but was only a small percentage of the drink itself. Bubble teas are an example of drink additives where the bubbles hold a unique flavour. The floating Bubble/pulpy parts in your drink should mix well in water at least when shaken as opposed to just staying at the bottom. Drinkers could save the sweet bubble flavours until the end or shake the bottle of water until every sip brings a small packet of flavour. Maybe this is what the company has already done, but I view it more as a new type of drink. I was hoping this might inspire some young student interested in food chemistry to design such a thing. Maybe take into consideration the length of pulp compared to taste bud receptivity and so forth. Some people dislike pulpy drinks, but it would be a small price to pay to satisfy a sweet tooth while drinking healthy and low cal juice. Any experts on tongues and/or food chemistry out there? I will look at ingredients of the "vera" drink above before I comment further. I hope there is no artificial sweeteners, and I normally check but cannot recall.

Many non programmers look at how marvelously video games can make their soldiers and villains seem intelligent. Currently there are only 2 types of commands in all computer code. A) There are commands that make the computer do actions. B) Decisions, which are currently all a simple yes or no answer. If you were to design a flowchart the actions would be squares and the decisions would be diamonds. Programming is mostly about the IF/ElSE statements. If your Character opens door then show new room. If the mouse is released start calculations to shoot an angry bird, etc. There is no thinking. Even when a program has a built in timer it will often start counting at the number zero and then ask itself , "does X = 1000, if not add 1 to X and then go back and recheck if X = 1000, if not add 1 to X and then go back and recheck if X = 1000, if not add 1 to X and then go back and recheck if X = 1000, if not add 1 to X and then go back and recheck if X = 1000, if not add 1 to X and then go back and recheck if X = 1000, etc., etc., etc., until x eventually does equal 1000 sometime later. This is a far cry from how a human would pause for a minute. It is amazing how programmers have developed the use of IF/Then statements to emulate intelligence, but it should not give hope that computers will ever think. For a computer to think it seems it would need to be a life form (organic, biological machine) and would need to learn in the same way as humans. It would not accept programming. Since it would not accept programming it would have limited use and likely not become a replacement for your Playstation. Computer Intelligence is a clever illusion.

I just want to interject how much visual information we already have on our planet. If you have not experienced Google Earth then you are truly missing out. You can type in any address almost and find a picture of your current house or childhood home from above. Not only that, but if you zoom in close enough it will switch to a street view where you can read the license plates of the cars in your driveway. This is done with Google vehicles which are constantly filming panoramic viewpoints along roadways and they have covered a surprisingly large amount of cities and areas. Imagine you wanted to contact a childhood friend, but forgot their address and they lived far away. You could go on Google Earth and walk to their house and look at the street name on the signs and the house number on their mailbox (provided you knew how to walk to their house, and they still lived there). I had to mention this here because it is surprising the amount of people who do not even realize this is possible. I also use it for work as I am required to investigate properties, and this is an excellent tool for locating problematic areas like previous train tracks, etc. Did you live or vacation 1000 miles away. Zoom in to street level there and take a stroll down memory lane. Look at your old schools, etc. Anyways.. Back to the space station, but I hope this makes someone download Google Earth and have some fun with it.

After post 25 by JohnC, I looked up the definition of knowledge which actually seems to be in contention itself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge As long as the word itself is in contention, there can be no legitimate answer to this thread, that much seems clear. JohnC suggests Which is a possible definition I suppose. I think there is knowledge to be discovered and uncovered. I think the term knowledge is fit to apply to knowledge they will have in 10 000 years from now. What else would we call it? Yet that knowledge is not yet known and by JohnC definition (above) is not knowledge. So I would say that the contents of a cave on mars contains knowledge that we have not yet learned. We do not know if the stones in that cave are red or yellow, but investigation will lead to our knowledge of the caves contents. Is it not knowledge even if it is undiscovered? Anyways all these points are moot because the definition of the word "knowledge" itself remains in contention. If I had to define knowledge I might say It includes everything that can be learned. Who can say?

Recently I had a drink but cannot recall the name. What made it interesting is that it was very sweet with no artificial sweeteners, and yet had only 5 calories per cup. The contents had a pulpy type substance that was not pulp. I suppose I could compare it somewhat to bubble tea but the pulpy stuff was more stringy. What separated this drink from others is I believe the pulpy type stuff delivers the sweet sensation by landing on the tongue while most of the other contents were likely water. I would say it was a sweet as pop or juice in taste. I half think this belongs in Chemistry and half think it belongs in Biology, so I placed it here. Maybe one of you young chemists interested in food chemistry might appreciate this post and invent something designed to do what that drink did accidentally (maybe by design). The stringy pulp like substances would need to be long enough to trip up on your tongue and deliver a sweet flavour, while the water contents are left more or less sugar free. I shall endeavor to find the name of this juice ("Neva" possibly), and if I find it again I will add a photo here. I am not a biology major or an expert on food chemistry so I am not sure how exactly it worked, but I could drink that stuff all day and it would be a great mix. It was somewhat lemony in taste. 5 calories for a health drink that tastes as sweet as juice with no artificial sweeteners. I wouldn't know where to begin trying to make a pulp like substance that was sweet in taste. If someone did develop the idea they could package the pulp type stuff as an additive to bottled water maybe. Anyways. I will try to come up with name and photo, but I thought I'd throw the idea out there before my memory fails me and I forget to mention it.

@ John C, http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/19/how-many-people-own-guns-in-america-and-is-gun-ownership-actually-declining/ While it is unknown the percentage of homes that have firearms, it would seem unlikely that even most gun ownership was for security work purposes. @ everyone else, I think if you are going to have a gun you should get a big Tattoo on your forehead, but at least open carry would let everyone see the extent of the danger they are in. If I meet any Americans at work or elsewhere I simply assume they are armed. I know this is not just me as it comes up many times when people are discussing where to travel. The world has a lot of people with mental disorders, but if they don't get a criminal record they can own a gun. When firearms became a civil right the were not much more than muskets which were slower in loading and not as accurate. Most muskets did not have hollow point bullets in them either. I'm sure that if their forefathers could see children being murdered in gang crossfire they might have stepped back a bit and thought some more. Perhaps someone could challenge the second amendment based on that fact. The definition of "arms" has certainly changed drastically enough. Let people use muskets or at the most .22 cal guns in their homes if they insist upon protection. This would be more in line with the intention of the amendment. Maybe such a lawsuit is the key.

@ Arete, No. A Straw Man argument would be if that was not the opinion of several heavy contributors to this thread. In fact; someone had stated (and was backed up), "Why are we even discussing this still", and "why would we carry on talking about something else which is never going to work?" I did NOT enter this thread with any ideas or notions. I entered this thread because someone was saying statements like above and basically suggesting there is no reason to even discuss this topic because no solution can ever be found. One proposal in the second post said creating Ozone on the ground and transporting it up (despite it's inherent instability) would be the only real method to do this and was not cost effective. It would help if you followed the conversation instead of getting this recap. Then I said just dropping a mirror on the ground would reflect UV and thus create a miniscule amount of O3. I Also said encouraging GW is beneficial to the Ozone. If you think my Seaweed solution was impractical take a stab at those. No. That was theexact opposite of Straw Man, because if you read the thread through the first and second page my standpoint was suppressing discussion just because someone assumed they were clever enough to know no solution could be reached was akin to censorship. I stand by my previous statement, however I will exclude your opinion from the consensus seen thus far. @ Arete still, To simplify things I invite you to read post 12 (linked below) which was my first posting in this thread. That should clarify things for you. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83661-can-we-add-ozone-to-the-ozone-layer/?p=811136 Maybe, but the repair is not even expected to start for another 20 years. We are just watching the decline of cfc's at the moment. An paper in Nature Magazine suggested GW may shift the hole towards the tropics which would really cause havoc. I will cite it if requested.