Velocity_Boy

Sure, maybe.

 

But I am if the opinion that preventative maintenance is the key here. To preventing type II diabetes, that is. Kids are contracting it in such fact numbers that it's not called what it used to be called.....Adult Onset Diabetes.

 

So, how about education on nutrition? And plain old diet and exercise. Type II is so easily put into remission via that route. Why give Big Pharma more big bucks? I'm sick of them capitalizing on human maladies that are either psychosomatic, or blown way out of proportion by the media, or easily rectified ourselves.

 

Just my dos centavos, amigo.

Hmm..But DO we truly know how the different genres of music effect our minds? I use the word mind here in lieu of your term brain, as I think it more accurate in this case. The mind being what comprises our emotions, while the brain is merely an organ.

 

In any case, I'm not sure we do know. For instance, does everybody get the same emotional affect from Classical? Or heavy metal? I think maybe not. My wife says metal calms her. While some if not most people would say it Ramps them up, so to speak. Our past experiences with certain genres would definitely play a significant factor in this as well. What if a Bach violin concerto was playing when your kitchen caught fire? Would that piece then have the same calming effect on you later when you heard it as it does on many others with no such past connective experience? Again, I think not.

 

So my illustrations here are probably in line with my answer to your basic query. Not all music effects us all in the same way. Further, since music is basically an art form and thus very subjective and personal, how you feel about a particular genre can not be objectively construed as good or bad or right or wrong. So...I think your premise is a no go from the gitgo.

 

Sorry, probably not the answer you were hoping for. But in science we must first validate premises before we can begin to extract hypotheses from them. And in this instance I cannot come close to validating your basic premises.

I'm pretty sure I understand what this means, but want to double check:

If someone in American football says "We're a throwing offense" it means their attack is based on passing, right?

What's the alternative? The QB making a run for it?

Your understanding is perfectly correct. A throwing offense is simply one that relies heavily on its passing attack. Though, not exclusively of course. Even a throwing offense would run the ball at least a dozen times a game. And this running is usually done by a do called running back. They used to be called halfbacks and fullbacks, but not so much nowadays. And often there's only one running back on the field. Who, btw, usually catches passes also.

 

Some QB's run intentionally, as in a called play. But this is fairly uncommon now. Usually when he runs its because he is chased from his passing pocket after he could not find an open receiver.

 

To offer you a bit more on the NFL, that league has itself become a passing league. Never before in its almost 100 year history has passing been so prevalent. Used to be, a team could be successful with a mediocre or even poor passing game. If it's running game and defense were excellent. Such is no longer the case. An effective passing attack is required for success in the NFL. Period.

Wow. Long post, amigo.

 

Sorry, but I had to stop after the part about that Super Brain having three possible conclusions as to the possibility of life after death. If this Brainiac was indeed was programmed with all possible available knowledge and input on the topic.

 

I disagree vehemently. In such a case, only one possible answer could be arrived at by the Brain.

 

And of course the answer is No. Not possible given all received data. It would also tell you that the very term life after death is contradictory. As the robot from Lost in Space would say....Does not compute! LOL

I am also open to the possibility that you are right and death really is final. However, I would like to point out that upon doing some research into the nde research conducted by Pim van Lommel and Sam Parnia, I do at least see a definite potential for the possibility of the soul living on after our physical death. Like I said though, I am undecided and cannot come to any conclusion right now since I am a very open minded person. But there are at least things that add up here such as the fact that the very subtle brain function during the flatline is not sufficient to explain ndes. Experiments have been performed to indicate that the ndes happened during this flatline period since people were able to accurately report the equipment used for their resuscitation.

 

There was a control group who watched resuscitation television programs. These were people who did not have an nde. There was another group who did have ndes. These were people who did not watch resuscitation programs. As it turned out, the nde group reported things much more accurately than the control group. As for peer reviewed research, I know there is some done by Dean Radin. However, I have heard naturalistic scientists such as Sean Carroll state that he doesn't rely on peer review since things are being published in peer review all the time.

 

 

 

 

Let's assume for a moment that it is a widely agreed upon consensus that we don't know what agreed upon decision could be made if all knowledge came into one. Based upon that, how can anyone conclude anything right now with their limited knowledge? If the skeptics who claim death is final wish to claim this as fact, then I think it would have to follow that they would also have to say that all collective knowledge should all agree upon death being final and that it would be irrational and biased to think otherwise.

 

There is absolutely no aspect of alleged experience reported by those who have undergone NDE that cannot be easily and completely explained by Neuroscience.

I think the full moon might be affecting you as well.

Report back when it has passed.

Not so fast. The full moon phenomenon is by no means pure hoakum.

 

Have you not considered the psychosomatic affect? That is, some people see the full moon, are aware of the mythos regarding how it can cause people to act crazily, or outside the normal parameters of accepted behavior, so they subconsciously engage in just that sort of behavior. This, in an indirect way, the full moon is causing this type of behavior as mentioned in the OP.

 

I've known cops and also psych nurses who swear by the validity of the Full Moon phenomenon. It's probably just a case of information bias on their part, but still, it prompts some interesting discussions among people in the mental health field. I myself am not a believer, except for the possibility of my aforementioned psychosomatic Dynamics.

 

But still, I feel you were overly abrupt and dismissive, not to mention a tad rude, in sarcastically shutting down Koti....and with no offered explanation.

Meanwhile I did some googling too and came up with similar results. I think Phi can safely move this thread somewehere where it better belongs. If you could see the eyes of these people though...

Yeah, like I just told Antares, us men of science may not believe in the Full Moon effect, but there has been such a slew of interesting reports and observations of folks engaging in strange behavior during a full moon that I think the first response to your OP was pedantic and overly dismissive. Especially since many of the believers are mental health and law enforcement professionals.

 

Then again this IS The SF. Where outside the box ideas are often dismissed in overly harsh and rapid manner. Witness the fact I'm quite sure I'll receive downvotes for this post. LOL.

 

Thanks for your post. Being a Psych nerd I found it I interesting.

 

http://www.livescience.com/1617-strange-happen-full-moon.html

I did a google search and it seems that many people believe the myth but research says it's false:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2235964/Full-moon-Patient-study-confirms-common-myth-lunar-patterns-driving-mad-false.html

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17256692

 

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2014/398791/

 

As for the cops and medical staff believing more patinents come in during the fool moon, I don't know what to think of it. Possibly selective memory,, small sample size coincidence, etc. Actually, I think the latter is the most likely explanation.

 

http://www.livescience.com/1617-strange-happen-full-moon.html

http://www.livescience.com/1617-strange-happen-full-moon.html

I did a google search and it seems that many people believe the myth but research says it's false:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2235964/Full-moon-Patient-study-confirms-common-myth-lunar-patterns-driving-mad-false.html

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17256692

 

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2014/398791/

 

As for the cops and medical staff believing more patinents come in during the fool moon, I don't know what to think of it. Possibly selective memory,, small sample size coincidence, etc. Actually, I think the latter is the most likely explanation.

I'd go with confirmation bias bring the primary culprit. Those folks who believe just conveniently forget all the times there was a peaceful full moon night, as well as the non full moon nights that were filled with crazies!

Ironically I just came across this old article in a magazine a couple weeks ago. And I just found an online version of it. I think it speaks of this topic very accessible and interestingly. Seems we might finally be getting a handle on what gravity is really comprised of, instead of just having to rely on that old worn placeholder term "gravitrons." Which we really didn't even know what they were comprised of or why or how. Just like we are now with Dark Energy. No clue. Just know it's there. LOL

 

Anyway...you might like this...........

 

https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/measuring-gravity-have-we-finally-cracked-it

In my opinion, questioning the true nature of time offers us no discernible advantages or gains. Unless of course you're a theoretical physicist and that sort of stuff is what you do. But for the layman, well, for everybody, like it or not we humans here on this tiny 3rd rock are constrained (trapped?) into a state of time where it is purely linear. That is, time will progress during your life second by second by minute by hour by day........

 

To us, in the real world, time can never be nothing more than the passing of events. It's actually a continual "slide show" of the present moment. As they each snap in and out of existence. Neither the future nor the past even exist! Except in your own mind. Sure, all this stuff is fun to think about but I do not believe it offers an ounce of applicable value in the real and tangible physical world. Well, except in maybe the way we sometimes calm ourselves after doing something stupid or wrong by telling ourselves "Hey, in five years nobody will even remember this!" LOL

 

Far more useful topics to dwell upon, I believe, or such things as the nature of Existence; or perhaps what constitutes sentience? Awareness? Or intelligence? Is there a soul? Is our entire "self", our personality, our "me" only a collection of chemicals and neurons firing back and forth inside the 3 lb. organ we call our "brain?" As the materialist neurologists tell us? To me, that stuff has some real-world value. But time? Not so much. Indeed, I equate much time travel pondering and such as not a lot more than mental masturbation.

I'm skipping a lot of steps here, but if traveling back in time was actually real, could this simulation happen? (I took these notes on my phone, just gonna copy and paste)

 

There are 2 ways to travel back in time:

(1) Consciousness

(2) Mind and Body (Consciousness and your body)

- When traveling with your mind and body, you only go back temporarily, because you should have an object to get you back to the future. Also, your body would age, so you will be older once you get back. For instance, you go back in time when you're 20, to help your 7 year old self to get age 10. Once you head back, you'd be 23 but it would seem like you left for only an instant, because time will be paused until you get back

- When traveling with only your mind, you're there permanently, because there's no possible way to go back to the future. When you go back as consciousness, your mind will be the same age as you are currently (being 20 and going back in time), but you will be in your 7 year old body (again, this is only an example).

 

This is my notes for now, but I'm trying to simulate what would happen if you went back in time with a partner, but you went back as consciousness and your partner went back as mind and body. If you have any suggestions, or any thoughts, please, explain. I'm eager for knowledge.

 

 

From what I can discern from your examples, going back in time the way you describe above is simply "thinking" you're going back. Imagining it. Maybe even dreaming it. In other words: your physical body is going nowhere, and it's all in your head. Your example reminds me more of claims of "remote viewing" or astral projection than it does true time travel. And, both those phenomena have pretty much been discredited from being possible, as well. Though--please excuse me here if I am straying a wee bit off-topic--the U.S. Government and especially the Army DID spend an amazing amount of time and money exploring Remote Viewing. Some folks might not realize that the very funny movie "Men Who Stare at Goats" was based on many true events from the Army's Stargate Project. All that stuff about would-be "psychic warriors" was true and documented.

 

As far as true physical Time Travel, where, say, you could project your real body to 1939 Nazi Berlin, my personal pet hypothesis on why it is impossible, totally, is that you would have to re-arrange the entire Galaxy--perhaps even the Universe--to the configuration it was in during the time you wish to travel to. This, in view of the fact that the earth, the solar system, and the galaxies, including our own Milky Way, are rotating and moving at speeds of tens of thousands of MPH. Thus the respective positions of all astral entities involved are far different now than they were 70 years ago. Hell, even a week ago!

Did I just read that well-fed kids might grow into people that might have some under-sized internal organs for their body size? Like broiler chicken.

 

Hmm... not entirely senseless if we suppose that evolution optimized our genome for a restricted-diet childhood... But even if so, I guess medicine will find methods to counteract.

 

If so (and I am a complete ignorant in this field and short), I guess that somewhat decreased oxygen supply to cells (under-sized lungs, heart, blood vessels), or decreased cell waste removal, or possible problems with temperature regulation could have effect on DNA damage by reducing cell ability of DNA reparation.

 

 

Uh, no...that's a huge exaggeration, considering that the slightly smaller organ-to-body-size ration would be, percentage-wise, all but negligible. At least insofar as it being enough to cause a significant curtailing in the oxy-delivery mechanism at the cellular level.

 

But after doing a little research on this whole matter I came across an online article published a few years ago in the UK.

 

Here please find an interesting discovery at the genetic level...........

 

 

"Short men will live longer than taller people because they are more likely to carry a gene that protects them from the effects of ageing, scientists have revealed.

The so-called “longevity gene” FOXO3 has been proven to enhance lifespan in animal tests but has never before been linked to variations in height in humans.

A new scientific study, the largest of its kind and involving more than 8,000 aging American-Japanese men in Hawaii, conclusively showed a direct connection between short height and long life.

FOXO3, they found, leads to smaller body size during early development and a longer lifespan overall. Short men were also more likely to have lower blood insulin levels and less likely to get cancer.

“This study shows, for the first time, that body size is linked to this gene,” said co-author and University of Hawaii professor Bradley Willcox.

The scientists split their test subjects into two groups, those 5ft 2ins and shorter and those 5ft 4ins and taller, and found that there was a clear divide in how long each lived.

There was also no clear cut-off point at which point being even taller stopped you living any shorter, or vice versa. Dr Willcox said: “The folks that were 5-2 and shorter lived the longest. The range was seen all the way across from being 5-foot tall to 6-foot tall. The taller you got, the shorter you lived.”

I was talking about toddlers.

 

 

So be it.

 

My answer to you would be the same as my OP. If Evolutionary Psych guys are thinking that we evolved to appreciate the merits and advantages of Altruistic behavior then even toddlers would be imbued with that same "hard wiring." And again, it also depends on their home environment. IOW: its both Nature and Nurture. As it is in most matters regarding human behavior.

 

That said, though I would have offered my same answer had I know you were referring to toddlers, I might have given a more pertinent link.

 

Like this one, perhaps?

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3088085/

Hate is a consequence of cruelty.

 

Snap your fingers and envy won't disappear.

 

If 90% of the population is wealthy and has daily orgies, while the other 10% live in lovelessness and squalor...rest assured, blood will be shed.

Cruelty is not the only thing that can foster hatred.

 

And envy in and of itself is not really a problem. Not nearly as much as its ugly cousin, jealousy.

 

And. Uh, is it me or did you accidently reverse your percentages in your final sentence there? Because the way it reads doesn't make sense. Or were you referring to some specific society in the past?

Put two 12-18 month old children to play together with a few toys, will they share? Kind people are made, selfish is the natural state. This proactive intelligent behaviour modification in our offspring from their 'natural' behaviour is a major part of what defines us a species.

As far as to whether or not those two kids will share....Who knows? You certainly cannot claim with any degree of accuracy that they surely will not share. It depends on their upbringing and previous environment.

 

As far as greed being hardwired. Not so fast. Most psychologists in the area of Evolutionary Psychology have agreed that at some point in our distant past we homo sapiens discovered the benefits of altruistic behavior.

 

 

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-athletes-way/201212/the-evolutionary-biology-altruism

Ever wonder, How Your Brain Powers Your Thoughts? Well, today's your lucky day. That link is to a DNews Seeker video, which describes the process and how a protein (Glut4) in our neurons extract glucose from our bloodstream as we engage thought. Enjoy!

 

Yeah, the brain craves sugar and needs it more than any other organ. It'll use a good 1/5th of the sugar you eat while only comprising around 1/50th of your total body weight.

 

Now then...On the topic of brains and sugar, I learned that whole idea about how little kids get ramped up after ingesting too much sugar is a myth. Repeated observations by impartial observers ..Not parents! ...Show us that little Johnny or Tabitha isn't affected behaviorally by guzzling a large coke and a bag of Twizzlers.

 

Not to say we Americans don't eat too much sugar. I also learned that the average American gobbles....Get this...About 150 lbs. Of sugar every year.

 

And guess how much we are of it back about 150 years ago?

 

Three to five pounds.

 

Or..About 1/40th of today's yearly average.

 

So much for any needed further speculation as to sugar being a prime if not most pernicious culprit for our obesity epidemic, eh?

I think I know how you feel. You just received approval for your MS program from a school you like well enough...Probably the one where you took your Bachelor's? But you also applied to a couple other schools, and truth be told, you would really prefer to attend one of them if you have your druthers. But, alas, you've not heard from them as of yet.

 

Same thing happened to me, and I waited for the one I wanted, and got it, but not in time to slide straight in the following semester after getting my BS. So I lost a full semester in time. Which really was no big deal to me anyway, and in fact it worked out better since I needed time to move. I now attend grad school in Texas after being an undergrad in Arizona.

 

But I really wanted to come here, as I have family and friends. And actually grew up in Austin. If you're not as passionate about relocating, I would advise to employ the advice from the old adage that a bird in hand is worth two in the bush.

You need to provide sources that this the case.

 

 

How about this source?

 

 

http://www.my9nj.com/fox-content-hub/231038610-story

Anyone know?

Anytime a member of a species tried to abnormal height of weight, the chances of DNA damage increase simply because there are more cells in the organisms. Thus more chances for the DNA in any of those additional cells to be damaged.

 

There are also disorders and diseases found in tall people that are exclusive to, well, tall people. Marfan Syndrome comes to mind. As does people with pituitary gland abnormalities. And of course talked people have a much increased chance of orthopedic problems.

 

We need to remember that DNA damage by no means equates to having a disease or other noticeable affliction. Nor does it guarantee poor health. We all have a slew of damaged DNA chains in our bodies. And only a very tiny percentage of us will ever suffer from that of know about it.

 

I also think it would be incredibly difficult to prove that over the years of human development and civilizations, that persons who are below the normal bright at their given era actually enjoyed greater longevity than their taller peers. There would be way too many factors that could be corrolary and not causal.

 

Given all that, there is this......

 

 

 

http://www.my9nj.com/fox-content-hub/231038610-story

I'm very shocked to hear this, but apparently overdose on benzodiazipenes alone is fairly uncommon. I always figured it would lead to severe CNS depression and the person would stop breathing. However, this only happens in conjunction with other drugs being taken at the same time..namely alcohol.

 

My question is, by what mechanism can these drugs NOT kill you? I know that alcohol increases the binding affinity of benzodiazipenes to receptors, thereby enhancing their effect...but still I cant wrap my head around the fact that you can't overdose on 500 mg of benzo's.

 

~EE

Let we you're correct as far as the mild toxicity of benzos making it extremely difficult to overdose fatally on from them alone.

 

But yet, benzos are implicated in a high percentage of suicides. Both accidental and intentional. As when they're mixed with opioids and or alcohol. But with only benzos, the user will pass out before a fatal dose could be invested.

 

People have died, btw, from benzo overdose. Usually from asphyxiation on their vomit.

 

People are more likely to die from cardiac arrest, however, during benzo withdrawal, then from taking an overdose of them.

 

There is a joke among hospital ER staff that the only way to od on benzos is to choke on the pills!

"On a large enough scale, our position is but a wave of probability that never lingers beyond the fractal pattern of relativity."

 

Mark Clayton Beal

On a large scale you should be calling through that chair you're sitting in, given the fact that each of the gazillion atoms that combine to comprises it are 99% empty space.

 

Yet...You sit.

 

Just as. Yet....We are, in all probability...Pardon the pun..Still here.

If the apple didn't fall on Newton's head, could mankind ever get his priceless theory? What would have happened to the present world if Pythagoras never discovered the famous theorem? Could modern trigonometry develop without it? Or, is it more probable that some other person would have invented them? Could modern science be developed without Faradays' experiment or Maxwell's explanations about electromagnetism? It seems that if those legends hadn't been born, our world would have never come to this level.

What do you think about this? Any thoughts or ideas or imaginations?

 

The apple story is thought to be almost certainly apocryphal by most science historians.

 

As far as Mssrs. Pythagoras, Faraday and Maxwell, they were without a doubt sublime scientists.....Some of Mr P's more mystical notions not notwithstanding. But I think that had those three not fathomed their respective momentous theories when they did, then, well, one of their colleagues would have do so within a matter of several years at most. IOW, twas just a matter of time.

 

Not to say folks living during the times of those three men might not have been deprived, had they not made their momentous discoveries. They probably would have. But for those of us both in the middle to latter half of the 20th century, and later, our lives would be no different. The world today would be exactly the same insofar as it's knowledge and progress in the arenas of navigation and math and electrical engineering. We'd just have different names in our text and science books.

 

I think Pythagoras was of the three the one who was most ahead of his time. And he'd be my luck if I had to choose one who would have left the biggest and longest running void had he not existed. I think colleagues of Maxwell and Faraday were pretty much hot on their heels.

Technically, that's not correct. Infinity wouldn't have started. It would still have taken only 0% of infinity to do that.

Technically, you're missing the whole fricking point.

 

But thanks for the pedantry.

Proof is that which serves as evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.

 

 

Such as...."you will be asked to give proof of your identity"

 

 

Some synonyms might be..verification, authentication, confirmation, or even.. validation,

I have the same software and headphones you do in my laptop. And even once had your same problem.

 

What I did to rectify it..

 

....right click on the sound control icon, I get Open Volume Mixer, Playback Devices, Recording Devices, Sounds, and Troubleshoot Sound Problems.

The reasoning behind my posting under the philosophy category rather than as a physics theory was to gain philosophical viewpoints on the theory of a person activity making a decision in the future which may seem negative to their current situation. My two small examples were meant to explain how I have came to such a theory, and thus the philosophical question.

From my personal studies I have found that it is indeed impossible to thoroughly prove such things to the level necessary for scientific validation. The reason for this may be that the burden of proof has a similar effect on results as the aforementioned personal gain effect.

Therefore, rather than producing a catalogue of a lifetime of such experiences, which would be necessary if I were promoting my theory as a fully formed theoretical post. I am much more interested in the plausibility of the psychological reasoning behind the individual choosing at a future point in time, not to use the ability for certain things. Personal gain and/or scientific testing of the ability, etc.

And yes, as I said, the reason I came to this theory was because I could not accept an external influence, due to the reason "how would the universe know". Hence the philosophical question regarding personal future decisions, which may influence the present.

 

But your question as well as your claims are not philosophical ones. They belong squarely in the realm of paranormal and psuedo science. You'd do far better with them in another forum that specializes in those things. I even think there's a paranormal.com open forum. Hell, those guys over there won't even doubt your claims. And they'll give you the attention you want. This is simply just about the worst place for anybody to come with claims of precognition or ESP. You don't have to move the goalposts and defend your claims there as you attempted to do above.

 

Trust me, mate, this is a tough audience.

 

Hope this helps.

Also, ask the professor if he's willing to take last years flu vaccine instead of this years. If not, why not?(ignoring the obvious evasion of "oh, I don't get flu shots" which ignores the central point)[mp][/mp]No, not at all. You're hardly the first and (to my chagrin) won't be the last.

 

Just so you know, many Creationists are okay​ with the idea of evolution within a species. It's the whole microbe to fish to mammal to us deal that they refuse to consider. Thus, a fundie creationist is quite apt to accept the fact that microbes and viruses have evolved. They know about super bugs. I know this is how many of them are since I have several times used the black sooted moth as an argument for Selective inheritance. They were nonplussed and accepted it, just like Darwin's finches. Hey, those wackos have been doing this a long time, man. Perpetuating their mythos, so some of become quite adept at covering their bases. The last one I tried to debate with our museums filled with transitional fossils kept bringing up Piltdown Man, and so all those tran fossils were fakes!

 

Ya almost gotta hand it to them, eh?

 

LOL

Downvoting a post isn't out of pettiness. it is so that young people and visitors to the site that might not really know much about science know that the general belief of the scientists on this site do not support your claims. If you are stating something as a fact that goes against tested theories the neg rep can give an indication to others that you might not actually know what you are talking about with respect to a particular subject and that what you have said should be taken with a pinch of sodium chloride.

 

Would you have people eager to learn real things about science be fooled by someone putting forward a flat earth argument or a claim for a bogus perpetual motion machine? The red rep is there to let people know that we think the arguments are fatally flawed and that the person just isn't listening to respected experts in the field. I sometimes use it to express my disgust at rudeness and wilful ignorance too and I know others do the same.

Yet, as I said before, I've been downvoted for petty reasons such as using valid science to refute time travel. Or offering an opinion that I found something interesting that the downvoted did not. So your claim that such votes only get cast for bad science is, all due respect, simply not true. You need to be careful about defending all downvotes and claiming them valid and objective. It's not the case.

Infinity is at the root of all paradox.

 

 

I personally don't see anything paradoxical about the concept of Infinity.

 

Well, except in an abstract way. In that, it is amazing how often the word is used and what a popular topic of discussion it is among us humans, given the fact that, in reality, our minds have no true grasp of it. That is, we cannot effectively comprehend anything being "infinite." It is a placeholder word. And how could we know? Given our amazingly brief time here, living in a world filled with finite entities; measured time; rules' constructs, and limits. During our evolution there was no reason for the brain to have to learn to grasp the notion of infinity. As, even to understand it, would do us little if any good. Far more valuable was our brain's evolved obsession with seeking patterns in the world. As well as causes.

 

(Alas, the mind does this even when there are NO patterns or causes. So this is why: conspiracy theories; gods; Mother Mary in your morning toast, and the Man in the Moon! LOL)

 

 

I personally don't see anything paradoxical about the concept of Infinity.

 

Well, except in an abstract way. In that, it is amazing how often the word is used and what a popular topic of discussion it is among us humans, given the fact that, in reality, our minds have no true grasp of it. That is, we cannot effectively comprehend anything being "infinite." It is a placeholder word. And how could we know? Given our amazingly brief time here, living in a world filled with finite entities; measured time; rules' constructs, and limits. During our evolution there was no reason for the brain to have to learn to grasp the notion of infinity. As, even to understand it, would do us little if any good. Far more valuable was our brain's evolved obsession with seeking patterns in the world. As well as causes.

 

(Alas, the mind does this even when there are NO patterns or causes. So this is why: conspiracy theories; gods; Mother Mary in your morning toast, and the Man in the Moon! LOL)

 

I must share something that has always been one of my favorite "picture aids", as it deals with trying to grasp the concept of infinity. Sorry, I cannot recall where I first heard this little metaphor, but I think it is delightful......

 

"Infinity? Well, picture this. The Moon is the same size it is, and distance from the Earth, but is comprised of pure, solid iron.

Every year, a butterfly leaves the Earth, flies to this Iron Moon, and as he orbits it he brushes a wing against its surface.

When the gazillion or what-have-you number of wing-brushes the butterfly has mad on the Iron Moon have worn it down to the size of a mere grain of sand...well, my friend, Infinity has just started."

Hi all. I am unable to find answers to these questions after some online research.. Maybe I am not searching for the right keywords. If you can help, I would appreciate it.

 

Is infanticide in some mammals (e.g. lions) an instrument of natural selection? If so, what evolutionary advantages does it offer?

 

Are there any studies on the subject that you can suggest?

 

Thank you.

 

 

Great question!

 

As far as Infanticide by the Males of the species, Delta pretty much nailed it. An online Wiki article (with citations) that I found had this to say on that issue..........

 

"Infanticide caused by sexual conflict has the general theme of the killer (often male) becoming the new sexual partner of the victim's parent, which would otherwise be unavailable. This represents a gain in fitness by the killer, and a loss in fitness by the parents of the offspring killed. This is a type of evolutionary struggle between the two sexes, in which the victim sex may have counter-adaptations that reduce the success of this practice. It may also occur for other reasons, such as the struggle for food between females. In this case individuals may even kill closely related offspring.

Filial infanticide occurs when a parent kills its own offspring. This sometimes involves consumption of the young themselves, which is termed filial cannibalism. The behavior is widespread in fishes, and is seen in terrestrial animals as well. Human infanticide has been recorded in almost every culture. A unique aspect of human infanticide is sex-selective infanticide."

However, I think what you were really interested in--and to me is also the more interesting question--regards what is called "Filial Infanticide" where, not a rival Male, but the very Mother of the offspring will commit the act. And sometimes, in a case known as "Filial Cannabilism." go so far as to consume their young. This latter act is done not uncommonly, and almost exclusively, among species of Fish.

The same online article had THIS to say about filial infanticide..............

"This form of infanticide represents a struggle between the sexes, where one sex exploits the other, much to the latter's disadvantage. It is usually the male who benefits from this behavior, though in cases where males play similar roles to females in parental care the victim and perpetrator may be reversed (see Bateman's principle for discussion of this asymmetry)."

Which, I took to mean that in cases of Filial infanticide the mother is doing it pretty much to please and acquiesce to the preferences of the male. So he can father more offspring, which is ANY living creature's #1 priority.

Lastly, this topic begs us to wonder about human acts of Infanticide. From what I know and have researched, it has been known in most cultures, and by far the most common reason for it is due to "sexual preferences for offspring." Meaning of course that the parents were not happy with the sex of the infant, so decided to cut their "losses" and diffuse resource consumption to the unwanted baby and try again. The second leading cause of human infanticide is for the same reason as we saw above with zoological filial infanticide, in that it is done to acquiesce the male's wishes.

Hey,

So in my forensics science course I'm taking at my school we were doing some activities which involved our fingerprints. Wasn't until now that I realized my fingers are scarred up. I compared with other students, and their fingers were more or less smooth. Looking up close I have them on every finger. Where did these come from, and why don't the other students have them (or at least the amount that I have)?

 

Note:

I can provide a picture if you need a better idea of what I am getting at.

You're asking us how you scarred up your fingers?

 

Uh, I think you would have a much better chance than us figuring that out. Just think back to the sorts of physical activities you've done in the past that involved extensive hand usage. Did you play with fire or chemicals as a kid? LOL. Grow up on a farm, maybe? Rock climbing, perhaps.

 

But hey, I got that beat. I tore the entire top two layers of skin off my left hand...On the palm side, and including all four fingers, in a motorcycle racing accident about six years ago. Layed down a Suzuki GSXR Hayabusa doing 70 on a slick curve on a Texas blacktop. I have no fingerprints on that hand, except a partial thumb print. And, yeah, it stung a might. Serious road rash, amigo.

So if I ever decide to do crime i only need wear one glove!

 

Yeah...show us a pic. I can tell from the scar tissue the nature of the causal incident. I think.