tmx3

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

I’ve reread your posts. You appear to be saying free will exists because of some stuff in the Bible that you won’t cite and the fact that a parasite can take control of the mind of certain organisms. The idea being that control by a parasite wouldn’t be possible if the will of the controlled weren’t first free  

Is that correct? If not, please restate the position you’re asking me to address, ideally without all the attitude and invective.

I suspect I’ve already covered whatever point you’re making in this free will thread or in the many others in which I’ve participated, but perhaps I’ve not and I’m happy to continue the discussion... civilly. 

Last I checked, it was sunny and you're with your kids. What business do you have writing to me now?

And here's the last message you get. I'm deleting my account with this useless, worthless site full of pompous arrogant pseudointellectuals like yourself who want to belittle the opinions of others who come from a perspective of faith, who have genuine interest in helping others, all because you think you're "smarter than thou".  Please, take a seat. 
 

Your knowledge came from your teachers who settled to get paid $15/hour to support their families if it means feeding minds like yours bullshit theory after another bullshit theory.  And you'd believe it.  But come to the idea of God, and everybody wants to act like we're talking about santa claus.

I'm done disrespecting myself by entertaining this bullshit argument with you. I call you out on your lack of civility. Now you want to wear a mask and fake being civil. Get out of here

1 minute ago, iNow said:

Tmx3 - Thank you for all the negative reps and abusive comments on my profile wall, but the weather is nice here and I’m spending time outdoors with my kids. If there’s a specific question you’d like me to address, kindly please summarize it here and perhaps I’ll consider returning to it later. All the best. 

Nice acting you do. Here's some advice. The next time you want to belittle someone's genuine opinions when they sought to help OP who seemed to be having an existential crisis, do not come across as an arrogant, self righteous know it all.

Don't "all the best" me with your fake self. Humble your arrogant ass self.

22 minutes ago, zapatos said:

You are ASSUMING free will exists. Your example does nothing to PROVE it. You can make the same argument without the parasite even being present by simply saying that by running away from the cat, the rat exhibits free will.

The parasite example is an example of the lack of free will, not the other way around. Proof of activity "X" does not simultaneously prove the opposite of activity "X".

Okay. So the rat running away from the cat proves free will. And the parasite inhibiting the rat from running away proves the parasite inhibits the rat's free will.

And, even using your example... if a gun is pointed at someone, their will is manipulated by the gunman. They give up money, not wanting to--doing something against their will. In some cases, when given the chance, one would fight back. In BOTH cases, free will is exhibited--one, where it is imposed upon and limited, and the other in which it is acted upon.

9 minutes ago, iNow said:

Then you should’ve PM’d him, but you didn’t. You entered open discourse here which means your ideas will be scrutinized and picked apart by members just like any other. 

LOL. I recommend you dial it back a bit and focus more on making better arguments than on making personal attacks on the people who dissect them. 

I quoted him--it's directly to him. Open for all, yes, but directed towards him. And I welcome all comments--just lose the attitude. 

LOL. I recommend you try harder to prove me wrong. You can't, keyboard warrior. You just want to sit there and act like you have a point, but you don't. Funny how when I tell you to stop throwing words you learned in writing class at me, you have a lot less to say.

Just now, zapatos said:

So if I make you give me your money at the point of a gun, that is an example of free will? Wouldn't you refusing to give me your money at the risk of being shot, be a better example?

You pointing a gun at me to take my money is an example of you imposing your will and LIMITING MY FREE WILL by making me do something I would otherwise choose to not do (unless of course you were homeless or needed the money, then I would).

A better example? Maybe. But it's not the only way of showing free will exists.

Then again, this could be another scenario. 

A parasite making the rat do something that it would otherwise choose to not do, is an example of free will on the rat's part. It's that simple.

@zapatos 

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Unless you’re citing the Bible as evidence of human gullibility, willingness to accept as true internally inconsistent and contradictory messages, or the idea that popular fictions existed even thousands of years ago, then no. It’s not the type of “evidence” that belongs anywhere near a scientific discussion. 
 

Unless you’re saying humans would be somehow immune to this type of parasite, then this example actually speaks to the absence of free will, not the existence of it.  It’s directly counter to the conclusion at which you’ve arrived for seemingly religious reasons. 

My message is for OP. Not you. Keep your attitude to a zero or don't bother messaging me with your disgusting self. You're superior to no one for you to go on typing on a keyboard like you have all the answers. I'm giving my input and perspective to OP. Allow me to do that without you coming at me like a disgusting, attitude filled narcissistic pretentious know it all.

The fact that there is absence of free will, means there is free will to begin with. Try to use common sense and not a whole bunch of words you learned from your writing class that you want to throw at me, okay? Okay.

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

I was thinking the same thing as I read the post. At least if the cat had run away while infected with the parasite, or if the cat had stayed while free of the parasite, it would have been an example that might indicate a free will.

That doesn't even make sense. Who in their right mind would even want to put themselves into harm's way? Inherently, we want to do the right thing, the thing healthiest for us, be at peace and in harmony with other beings. Why would anyone willingly choose some disaster to befall them? Clearly it was the neuroparasite manipulating the rat's will to do itself any good, by forcing it to go into a situation where it would do itself harm (get killed, get eaten). Its free will is being affected. Its will is being imposed upon by the will of another. That is the whole point.

On 12/15/2019 at 8:34 PM, NonScientist said:

Okay, so I’m new here. Hi everyone.

So I’m not sure why this is affecting me this severely, but I recently discovered the whole “free will vs. determinism” question, and I’ve realized quickly that I should’ve never been introduced to this idea, because I’m finding it almost impossible to deal with the notion of not having free will. It has sent my mind into this state of extreme shock, agony, and despair that almost seems insurmountable. It’s like my whole world and everything I believed has been flipped on its head. I’m serious in saying that this has sent me into a straight panic and shock. I feel like I’m having this nervous breakdown. It’s an overwhelming feeling.

 I’m trying to keep myself calm and just relax, but this has really messed me up. 

Does anyone here believe in free will? Or can offer any good defenses or arguments for free will? I feel like I need to be reassured that there is free will or else I won’t be able to deal with it. The idea that everything is predetermined, and I’m just robot with no agency or ability to do otherwise is more than my psyche can handle. I’m sort of in this crisis.

I completely believe we have free will.  I would give an example from the Holy Bible but refrained since I'm not sure if that's the kind of evidence you'd want to hear. Let me know if you do, and I'll give you my perspective on it.

From a more scientific point of view, you'll find this interesting... Look up this disease called Toxoplasma gondii, research it a little.     You'll find that it's a parasite wanting to live and reproduce in the intestines/stomach of cats but can only enter the cat through an intermediary host (like a bird or rat) as it needs an intermediary to morph into the form which can then travel within a cat's body.

For a while, people noticed a strange type of "bravery" occurring in rats, where these rats would jump at cats instead of running away from them.  When these rats were taken into the lab for testing, they were found to have this same parasite living in them, and these parasites were essentially manipulating the rat's normal behavior (which would be to run away from cats) and instead were a cause for the rats to be appearing brave and jumping toward the cats--basically doing what they would otherwise choose to not do.    

The goal of this neuroparasite is to have its intermediary host ingested by the cat, so that the parasites can then make their way to the stomach/intestines of the cat, which is where they reproduce. 

Look at it this way... a parasite was able to alter the way a rat would normally behave, so that the rat would specifically have itself killed and eaten by a cat, which is where the parasite was trying to go... 

It still blows my mind thinking about it, but, yes, free will does exist. That's half my take on it; the other half I'm leaving out to avoid the type of talk people these days run from.

 @Strange @studiot thanks I'll see if it helps

@hypervalent_iodine I see. But my question is, why is matter considered particulate rather than elemental? And how does ratios of matter disprove elementalism, if matter is of that element?

For example... CO is gas, a type of air. That (being gaseous)  is its element (air). How does comparing the ratio of oxygen to carbon in first carbon monoxide and then carbon dioxide, and then making a ratio out of those two ratios, support the idea of the particulate nature of matter versus the elemental nature of it? What does that have to do with elementalism? Isn't matter both particulate and elemental? 

I'm asking from a philosophical perspective. Why can we no longer say that matter is elemental? Why do we have to agree with a "particulate" or particle-nature view of matter?

@hypervalent_iodine I'm talking about Aristotle's elementalism.

This is a topic that I've been thinking about, but before I ask my question, I just want to give some background info.:

In 1804, John Dalton published his law of multiple proportions, which states:  When two elements (call them A and B) form two different compounds the masses of element B that combine with 1 gram of element A can be expressed as a ratio of small whole numbers.
So, carbon monoxide, CO, has a ratio of 1.33 when we divide the mass of Oxygen with 1 gram of Carbon (Carbon equalling 12.01 g or 12.01 amu in 1g of Carbon).
And, carbon dioxide, CO₂ has a ratio of 2.66 when we divide the mass of Oxygen with 1 gram of Carbon (again, Carbon equalling 12.01 g or 12.01 amu in 1g of Carbon).
The ratio of these two...ratios?...will give a small, whole number: 2.66 / 1.33 = 2 

Dalton was able to overcome a 2000-year-old perspective (elementalism) and push his view that matter is particulate instead of elemental by using the weights of samples of matter, and by demonstrating that matter pairs up in ratios.

Elementalism implies that, basically, matter of one nature or type is different than that of another...so, think: air, fire, water, earth... That sort of thing (not really sure how to explain it).

My thinking is this... carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide are two different gases. From an elemental perspective, they are different in nature (one is more poisonous than the other), though they are both gases. And, even though they are different than each other, they are still gases...and they are still of an "air" element or type.

So, here is the question... Why is it that comparing 1g of an element to another unknown amount, is a determinant for whether or not matter is particulate in nature instead of elemental? 
I mean, if you take 1g of whatever, and then keep adding more and more of another type of whatever, won't it be just a whole lot of whatevers trying to bond with each other?

What if you take 1g Carbon and then oversaturate it with Oxygen? Different types of gases will form, won't they? If different types of gases continue to form, how is that not indicative of the elemental view of matter?

The way I see it...Dalton just published a paper about how elements combine in ratios, and that that is more than enough proof that matter is particulate instead of elemental. But, the way I see it, we're just observing different kinds of matter in the sense that, when we look at gases we're observing some different type of gas but of an air element, or when we look at minerals or salts or metals we're just looking at different earth-like elements... 

And I really don't understand the significance of ratios here. I mean, how does a ratio prove something like the nature of a substance, and furthermore, how does it prove that matter is not elemental?

On 7/11/2019 at 10:11 PM, Mrenrisco said:

Hi guys,

so I started my PCR last week, I'm analysing capsicum species using RAPD markers, but I'm a little confuse of how should I procede with my PCR.

First of all, my professor said that I couldn't make the mix all at once and then distribute to micro tubes with my DNA samples, she said that I should prepare the mix separately. Well that's quite annoying, because I have a lot of samples and I must amplify each primer 3 times. Is it really necessary prepare the mix for each sample?

Second, for my project my professor selected 20 primers to analyze the polimorphism and etc. will each primer have its own temperature of annealing, desnaturation etc. or should I configure my termocycler once and use the same program for all primers?

and last but not least, this was my first electrophoresys of a PCR:

this was just a test, I used 11 samples: some of them amplified, some of them not... but I'm not actually worried about that, I want to know why those wich amplified didn't show clear bands, and why my blank (the sample right before the ladder) stained.

 

 

Oh, I used the primer OPA 020 for this first test

Thanks for your question. Just as this is your first gel electrophoresis of PCR, this is my first time reflecting on PCR in quite a few years, so don't take my word for it completely but I'm going based on memory here to try to help you/answer your question since I see no one else has yet. Hopefully someone else chimes in and corrects me where I'm wrong.

1.- The impression I'm getting from your professor, since she's asking you to do them separately, is that she wants you to retain how to make the mix and also she wants you to be careful/not wasteful of the products.

It's a tedious process, and the best way to learn is by repetition. The fact that your professor's asking you to repetitively go through the protocol shows me she really wants you to learn and perfect your method of PCR.

More importantly, I think your professor doesn't want you to affect the quality of the outcome of PCR. Perhaps making a larger batch could cause you to dilute the primers more than what they should be, which with one mistake the whole batch would be ruined. From what I recall (years ago), primers are expensive so she also probably doesn't want you to waste the whole thing in one go.

Instead, if you work on them one at a time, it'll help for keeping the outcome consistent with minimal/negligent errors. So, although I don't think it's a necessary measure, I do feel it would be the smarter thing to do if you really want to ingrain PCR technique and also take precautionary measures as well as keep the outcome consistent.

Also, it could be the case that one of the primers may require a different step which cannot be applied to other primers.

2.- Primer = DNA piece that will be basically copied/recreated. DNA is molecular compound which means having the DNA of one species of bell pepper should be similar to another species of bell pepper. This means the environment in which DNA reproduces should be the same. So, no I don't believe each primer will have temperatures different than one another's but perhaps there may be additional steps required to produce a certain result you're looking for (one of the species).

3.- Blank is supposed to stain so that you have an independent/standard component to compare the rest of your strands with. The ones that didn't show either weren't dyed or something may have gone wrong – most probably a forgotten ingredient (which is probably the reason why your professor wants you to repetitively make the batches), or something may have gone wrong.

This link may help with that: https://www.fws.gov/aah/PDF/PCRTS1_NoBand.pdf

Try troubleshooting using that.

Hope this helps!

Chess. Lol. Wanted something short and sweet to login and play chess online with people. Yup. 

College is where you go for undergraduate studies in a certain concentration of a subject (examples of studies that you would major in, in a college are: anthropology, biology, chemistry, math, physics, english, linguistics...just google any college/university and search through “undergraduate programs”).

Graduate programs are an even more specific course of studies that you undergo after completing a bachelors degree at a college/university. 

MCAT is an exam taken for medical schools.

GRE is an exam taken for graduate schools.

Are you looking to find a way into medical school or graduate school? 

24 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I would say yes but when you consider there is only 1/400th of a carcinogenic dose in a cup, having it how you like it anyway, the potential benefit is negligible to the point of stupid. This coffee thing is just the latest in a long line of unfounded scare stories. I would say nearly everything we eat has some dangerous substances in it but they need to be at the right dose. You also need to dig into the research to see what dosages were applied to the test subjects to observe the effect and are they realistic in how much a person would be exposed in real terms.  You can do a quick checkup on a substance by looking up its Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) or SDS. That will give you the hazards associated with a substance. Here's its MSDS:

http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9927422

The other thing you can look up is the Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) - the dose that will kill 50% of test subjects. For acrylamide: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp203-c3.pdf . Note this for the pure substance. Looking up these two areas you can get a ballpark idea of the relative toxicity of a substance.

 

Definitely agree with you and thanks so much for the additional post!!! Really appreciate you taking the time you do to answer all of it!

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

Most of the acrylamide is produced during the early steps of the roast (couple of minutes actually). Longer exposure to heat leads to some degree of breakdown.

If longer exposure of heat leads to breakdown, does it lead to breakdown of that chemical to make it safer to drink or no?

1 minute ago, StringJunky said:

Trump is pro-whatever-gets-him-where-he wants-to-be, so I wouldn't think for a second he's passionately committed either way. As you note, arming teachers is jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.... a mental illness or episode  can strike anyone at any time.

Exactly! I just don’t understand how the thought of arming teachers was seriously considered—even if it was momentarily so—as a reasonable solution to school shootings... How? I just don’t get it. 

6 minutes ago, koti said:

Don’t bother too much with my post, its irrelevant to your case - I didn’t catch that the photo was taken with a phone, there aren’t any camera phones with ultrasonic motors, only lenses for SLR/DSLR cameras have these (the big pro lenses for the big pro cameras) Read CharonY’s post again instead, the explanation is there. 

I just caught this, too!—which is why I tend to read posts a good few times before responding. 

Big oops!

If they arm teachers, we’re going to hear about it on the news one day of this teacher who was “mentally ill” and attacked children. 

It’s a horrible idea. And I hate to emphasize this but it’s starting to seem more and more like a govt run conspiracy to dismantle the public. 

If you don’t believe me, just check Trump. What rules hasn’t he broken? And yet he’s still in office. He should have long since been impeached, but he’s not. And I hope for goodness’ sake there’s no one out there thinking Trump has anyone’s best interest at heart except his own. He’d run to take up the opportunity of dismantling the people and becoming a tyrant. They want YOU to choose to let go of your own arms. 

And to be honest for a long time I supported gun control, but the conniving ways of Trump and the government have proved that this issue could be an insider thing. 

I don’t know what the question was, I got too passionate about this. It’s just downright upsetting!!!

40 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Click image to enlarge. Short version: 

Safe daily intake level of acrylamide before carcinogenic levels was estimated to be 2.6μg/kg per day (42).

To put this into perspective, this would be equivalent of 182μg safe daily intake of acrylamide for a 70kg person.

This person would need to drink 404 cups or 64 liters of roasted coffee brew in a day to reach carcinogenic levels. We can’t even drink that much water in a day.

You need to drink 64 liters of roasted coffee brew a day to reach carcinogenic levels.

 

https://www.authoritydiet.com/acrylamide-coffee-cancer-heart-disease-risk/

Thank you! Thank you!! Thank you!!! This made my day! 

29 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

It is good to see you have the insight to see when you are holding a conviction.

Thanks! Yeah I mean without having that little bit of insight I’d be incredibly bull-headed for no reason. I resent that quality—would hate to be unreasonably stubborn. 

30 minutes ago, Bender said:

I think there is no point persuing the bat thing. CharonY gave you the answer. Just Google "banding camera" and you will see plenty of pictures exactly like yours.

Sometimes a coincidence is just a coincidence.

I’ll definitely look it up. Yeah, after reading CharonY’s first post about twenty times it made more sense to me that that was most probably it. Kind of ruined that magic I felt about the bat. Sigh. 

30 minutes ago, koti said:

I don’t know if this helps but lots of camera lenses use ultrasonic motors. Theorerically it might be possible that a bat might interfere with the lens operation giving artifacts in photos.

But CharonY’s banding explanation seems a lot more plausible. I photographed a bunch of bats in Haiti once with my 70-200 f4 L IS which has ultrasonic motors and never saw any artifacts. Hundreds of them were flying in close proximity to me.  

Edit: It was on a coast of Angola not in Haiti.

I see... Thanks for this post! I’m a little confused again though so I’ll definitely read your post a few more times and compare it to previous ones... 

First, it could have been the light in my room, emitting heat that could have interrupted the way my camera processed a photograph... But then, it could have been the bat’s effect on the lamplight and ultimately the way the photograph was captured... Yet, the bat had little to nothing to do with it, and so it had to be the camera itself with the way it takes photos... But it could also be— so much regret for not taking more photos. I’ve yet to look back on them and find them. 

15 minutes ago, CharonY said:

 

Cell phones do not have lens motors. Also, if you mess with it, you will affect focus, not light transmission.

Again, shutter speed is the culprit. The reproducibility  is issue is based on the fact that most cell phones do not allow fine controls of shutter speed, nor is it often clear what they used. I assume you could check exif data to see whether it changed between banding and non-banding images. However, there is also software trickery that tries to circumvent it so that it only shows up (or becomes more visible) in certain situations. This includes e.g. closeup with little light, where shutter speed are non-ideal and iso is high.

A very simple experiment, which does not require you to get an actual camera with controls is to take a picture in horizontal mode. The banding should also become horizontal as it is related to the sequential readout from CMOS sensors (i.e. the integration issues that you see column by column, will should row-by-row). Unless, of course there is some weird technology in cell phones not seen in cameras (which I doubt).

From this, I got shutter speed... Thanks again CharonY, I’ll definitely try this. 

Exif data? 

I’ll be in touch 

13 hours ago, mad_scientist said:

Well, if all your family are of a particular ethnic group and you marry someone from another ethnic group, in-laws may not be able to get along with each other or not as well as if the person was from a similar background.

If you have any children and they are mixed race it will be harder for them to find a compatible donor should they require a bone marrow transplant or possibly other transplants I don't know about.

The children may also not completely belong to either paternal or maternal families through lack of cultural awareness and language abilities in either language to communicate well enough with either sides of the family.

Mixed race children/third culture kids may find it lonely being who they are and may find it harder to find a future spouse of their own when they grow up due to their unique upbringing making it harder for someone else to completely understand them and why they are the way they are if they have travelled a lot and have been accepted by both extended maternal and paternal family members.

 

In-laws not getting along is their problem. That has nothing to do with the couple’s personal life.

“Siblings are much more likely to be matched than parents but only about 30 per cent of people needing a transplant will have a compatibly matched sibling.“ What about the other 70%? From strangers not even living in the same country (see article). Seems as if, regardless of whether or not one marries outside their gene pool, transplants are simply hard matches to come by as they are—even amongst family members...so it’s not that great of a reason to avoid an interracial relationship. 

Now we’re getting into the semantics of this notion of “belonging”. You belong when you are acknowledged, appreciated and loved. Do you have any pets, maybe a dog? They don’t communicate in the same language as you, let alone participate in the same cultural customs and traditions as you, but I bet you you’ll definitely feel a sense of “belonging” when you’re with your pet... How sad is that? The people you surround yourself with (certain family members, I assume)  won’t allow you or your of-a-different-race spouse or interracial children to feel a sense of belonging just because they “can’t communicate in the same language”. Try hugs? Kisses? ...The idea that a dog can love better than most humans is just sad. 

As for your last point, I’ll speak from experience: I’m a “mixed race, third culture” person who grew up not feeling lonely and in fact have a beautiful interracial relationship with a Hungarian man who understands me completely. It’s a soulful union, and as different as he and I may often be, we complete each other. I will add, I’ve never spent much time with neither my paternal grandparents nor my father’s side of the family, but it hasn’t impacted my life even in the slightest. 

When love happens between two people, it happens. Let it happen. Interracial, opposite religions, whatever it may be, when it happens, let it happen. It’s a kind of experience that can’t be measured by your “weighing of pros and cons”... 

14 hours ago, Sensei said:

1) make more photos.. 10+... Various angles.. various distances.

2) make videos... move slowly during making them.

3) try different smartphone and/or regular camera to see whether effect is appearing with them or not.

4) does it appear in preview on screen?

 

On photo there is visible paper box, and center of image in nearly at the corner of this box, and bars looks like interference pattern.

 

 

On this video you can see how sound can affect water:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tI6S5CS-6JI

 

I just saw this, thank you.

It seems though as if everyone’s set on the fact that it’s the camera...but that didn’t happen when I was further away from the bat. Only when I was near... That’s why I held the thought in my mind like a conviction that the bat must be emitting something that was causing my camera to take unclear photos...

I’ll try anything at this point though. Thanks for the suggestions

I just had mine, black, with no regrets—and I plan on having at least four more by the end of the night. 

Any thoughts on this? 

Is there any molecular biologist, geneticist, chemist, or whoever, who wants to chime in on that news article and explain why or why not the California judge’s ruling is harsher than it should be? Was it reasonable, or does it seem that there’s a motive behind passing the law that was passed (Proposition 65)?

The dr in the article says odds aren’t likely that someone would develop cancer from drinking coffee (I guess because of this negative feedback effect—is it?—that coffee has on the liver as it detoxifies the liver after it’s worked long and hard to clean up the body’s toxins, protecting the liver from cancer despite potentially being carcinogenic itself)...but do the consequences of consuming large amounts of coffee depend on a specific diet—aka the “average american diet” that goes something like 3-5 meals a day, mostly meat, bad cholesterol, carbs, hardly ever much fiber, etc., or is it worse when following a vegetarian lifestyle? Is that possibly why the law was passed? 

If the law was passed for coffee, why not for other foods, as the article mentions (example: french fries)? 

Specifically, isn’t it the case that not only heated foods but also some nonheated foods have cancerous effects on the body? 

Your thoughts? 

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

 

It’s obviously because of the places the stars and planets happened to be when I slid through my moms birth canal

Made me laugh so hard. U r an astrological genius #Level10