Royston

As far as I'm concerned' date=' creationism and evolutionism are on-par with each other in terms of the amount of proof each contain...which is very little..[/quote']

 

Evolution has little proof ? I knew it carbon-dating is a conspiracy !!!

Well I'll say that

MAN IS A SOCIAL ANIMAL

what say??

I guess, but apes (especially chimps) display social and anti-social behaviour...grooming each other et.c Chimps have been know to murder rival 'gang' members if they've wandered into the wrong territory albeit we are descended from apes. Don't dolphins display social behaviour ?

However I've never seen chimps donning smoking jackets and laughing at satirical comedy.

Sense of humour is definitely a trait that seperates us from animals...but I agree with most of the above...biologically speaking we are definitely animals.

Very good point. I'll have to have a browse to see what's responsible in the brain for producing mental images as opposed to visual input from the eyes...I guess it's a combination of lot's of neural responses, as you said like memory et.c

In the mean time check this out...slightly off topic, but still in the same vein when it comes to transposing thoughts to an external source. The research is in it's early days but very interesting, and also raises questions about the ethical side of such technology. Tell me what you think.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4472355.stm

I found this yestarday. Although the research is quite old now they've successfully reconstructed spatiotemporal scenes from the responses of visual neurons.

In essence they have recorded the visual input of a cat and rendered the data so it can be viewed. The implications are that when the research is ready for human subjects it will be possible to record and playback our dreams!

What would this look like though ? If you think about the images in your head when you think or dream, to me they are an incomplete mish mash of mental pictures and scenes, where 'you' are the only one that can decipher them into something of meaning.

It would be really interesting how a computer would interpret such images...could be quite scary as well.

http://www.mindpixel.com/chris/2005/06/extracting-video-from-cat-brains.html

In one experiment he recited pi to 20' date='000 decimal places ![/quote']

 

Erm. that might of been 2000, but still very impressive.

I saw a programme recently where following an epileptic seizure this guy developed synaesthesia. He was also midly autistic but still retained good social skills.

He interpreted images into numbers. When asked (particularly hard) maths equations he would see shapes that specified certain numbers and when the shapes came together he could tell you the answer.

In one experiment he recited pi to 20,000 decimal places !

I'm fascinated by this condition, especially where it can be used to an advantage.

http://www.educ.cam.ac.uk/synaesthesia/links.html

Stephen Hawkings latest findings predict that black holes can hold information. Instead of forming a singularity, information becomes an entanglement and later spewed out.

Maybe this could create multiverses. If the entanglement is so great maybe it could create universes that abide by completely different laws of physics to our own.

Time to brush up on GR.

This may be a very silly and simple to answer question, but it's kind of bugging me.

When I was 12 I thought of the idea of infinite universes to try and get round the whole boundary of the universe problem. I found out later on in life I wasn't the only one that thought this could be possible.

However supposing the big bang was at the start of the universe, and for the possibility of infinite universes being created, wouldn't the rate of expansion have to be infinite ? If the rate of expansion is infinite, how would matter have time to cool and create uniformed bodies such as planets ? Wouldn't the highly disordered state at the beginning of the universe stay in that state due to the infinite rate of expansion.

If the rate of expansion isn't infinite, does this mean there is only one universe and the boundaries can be explained in some other way, maybe a vacuum (that's just an example of the top of my head).

I'm probably going to get a grilling for posting this, so be gentle I've got a screaming hangover.

In your opinion, which field of science has the potential to figure out conciousness? And what are some of the fields to look into?

 

 

I'd say neuroscience is your best bet, though obviously not conclusive. I would keep a breast on all the latest neurological breakthroughs by regularly searching through google.

 

Consciousness has the tendency to fall into the pseudoscience category, so check out some of the posts there (with a pinch of salt) but you may find some useful links. Make sure the sources are viable, I for one look for anything that appears to be a breakthrough, or musings that raise more philosophical questions to conscious thought.

 

I have embarrassed myself a number of times by posting threads and ranting to my friends about consciousness, so try and consider all the facts (and sources) before writing essays on the subject. Hope this helps.

I agree with all of the above. In retrospect the experiment is flawed as the tests should of been tested on a subject with no meditation experience or previous contact with the 'healer'.

I labelled the post 'EEG readings could prove et.c' in hope that someone may have links to further studies, or if the phenomenon has been dissproved, and also to attract people who do believe in distant healing (it's always good to get both sides of the argument, and why I was unsure where to place the thread.)

The experiment is a rather tenuous attempt to keep people guessing.

I stumbled across this when looking for info on Alpha wave activity in the brain. I find it quite startling, especially as I've found little or no scientific evidence to back up so called 'spiritual healing'. What are your thoughts, is there a flaw to this experiment ? Could we be on the brink of closing the gap between science and spirituality ?

I wasn't sure where to post this, but I thought it would be more appropriate in the neuroscience category as it involves a controlled experiment using an EEG.

http://www.dhyanapeetam.org/WorldTourMar2005_7.asp

I'm not condoning anyone try this out as an experiment but I had a discussion with a friend about withdrawal from a psychoactive drug.

His argument was, that it was impossible to feel good from a withdrawal because the brain has a lack of seratonin / dopamine et.c, the brain has no capacity to feel good as it depends on these chemicals to induce well being. I don't want to go into too many specifics but this mainly concerns recreational mood enhancing drugs.

However (due to some research) I'm well aware when the withdrawal starts taking place and if I feel any change in my mood, my brain instantly thinks that it's just the withdrawal of the chemical and there is no rational reason why I should feel bad. There is nothing different from the day of withdrawal to the day before, there is nothing different in my situation to any other day, so I feel good, and I do feel 'good'.

Now what on earth is that ? How is it possible to always see 'outside' the way you feel when the very thing that constitutes your mood is completely diminished. You always hear phrases 'it's just the way you look at things' but if the very chemicals that govern a positive outlook are depleted significantly then surely you don't have the capacity to feel positive.

If the brain and all it's processes are what make you 'you', then what am I if I can cheat what my brain should be dictating. I'm not the only one I know who can do this successfully.

And I say it again I do not condone or encourage experimenting with chemicals, this is purely for debate.

28/m/UK

Thanks everyone, the reason I felt jealous was due to an ex-girlfriend visiting. Although I've been enjoying my independance and concentrating on starting a company and writing music, I was bombarded by these old feelings I had for her. Our body language towards each other is mixed, and confusing but there is definitely chemistry (for want of a better word) in the air.

As the frustration of not being able to express these feelings through fear of driving her away it changed into jealousy, and this seemed to grow when she left. I guess I wanted a scientific explanation to see how irrational I was being, which is a topic I'm going to go further into on another thread (not specifically concerning jealousy though.)

I find it interesting that people are still bound by such primitive instincts despite how informed they are about these instincts. And no, I certainly wouldn't take a pill to diminish these feelings, I think their much better dealt with by tackling the problems head on. And yes, I've talked to my friends about the root cause, but they also came to the same conclusions, that it's quite a primitive response attributed to a number of biological reactions. None of my friends are neurologists, which motivated me to find a more neurological explanation...ug.

Is there a neurological explanation as to why people feel jealous. Is it down to a specific chemical in the brain such as endorphin's being released when someone is happy, or is there just a psychological explanation maybe having low self esteem. It seems quite a specific feeling which is why I was wondering if it was down to one chemical.

I read a while ago they synthesized a pill that could eradicate the feeling of guilt. It was mainly for people who had taken someones life in an accident. Is it possible for jealousy to be treated in the same way, maybe it could help in relationships.

And yes I am feeling a little jealous at the moment, but I can't seem to attribute it to a low self esteem, I feel really quite good...until I think about it !

We are progressively becoming more informed (I believe with a lot of help from the internet), and stories lacking 'shock value' are just not news-worthy.

However sick it may seem to use tragedies as a means to make money for the media, it spurs on charities and groups to help combat such problems. I believe a level of detail is necessary to get the whole story.

With the story you're referring to it's almost impossible to explain the events without it being upsetting.

No one is forcing you to watch the news, surely if a story is becoming upsetting then turn the channel over.

I used to experience sleep paralysis in my late teens and was usually brought on by afternoon naps, or sleep outside my regular sleeping patterns.

I would feel myself slowly drift off, then I would paralyse, and find it exceptionally hard to breath properly. I could see the room I was in as though I was awake, but figures would appear in the room. One experience that is vivid and I can still remember in detail, is when (while trying to take an afternnoon nap), my body paralysed and my nephew appeared on the end of my bed.

Although I was intrigued by the fact that my nephew somehow materialised on the end of my bed, the panic that I couldn't breath properly affected what I was seeing. My nephew mutated into a devil like figure and went to bite my face. I then used my usual method of trying to wake up.

I would usually concentrate on moving my arm and try to call for help. Something would 'click' and I would wake up. I found by concentrating on a particular body part and trying to move it, I would eventually wake up.

For a short period I would try and induce the experience (I was more fascinated than scared). I found it was eaiser to induce by being fatigued (say through exercise) and trying to sleep (as I've said) outside my normal sleeping times. I managed to learn to relax while paralysed despite the fact I couldn't breath properly...I knew now through experience that I would wake up.

The visuals that I could induce while still having my eyes open were intense and quite chaotic, though they seemed to always involve other people / figures. I believe this is quite subjective though, I'm not implying they are 'so called' spirits, but I'm sure some people would argue with me on that.

I cannot access your questionaire, but feel free to use my comments for your project. I no longer experience sleep paralysis due to a more demanding lifestyle.

I would say the general trend of all human thinking is a movement to solve all of human knowledge as a singular, unified system. As the persistency and communicability of knowledge increases, the rate at which we approach a singular, unified system increases.

Only a few specialists would understand the mechanics behind unified theories, and as such, theories are dumbed down to be understood by the masses. It's obvious that people take or leave such theories. Whatever form this information is fed to the public, our brains are individual, so they will digest and reject any information that doesn't agree with their ideals and you will still have scepticism, so I'm not convinced a universal link between our minds is that close.

Ok that makes no sense, as the previous post has been deleted.

Human rights are sufficiently infringed by national databases, telephone monitoring and regular checks on the internet, and the controversial (but not yet in place) i.d cards.

You cannot stop the progress of technology, or who has control over said technology, and it's really up to the individual how they wish to use such a device.

A book can shape the way you 'think' which is just as intrusive as any other type of input. So called 'self help' books are highly manipulative, and unfortunately if you do not have the intelligence to question such material that's your own problem.

Can you really imagine the majority of the population being inserted with chips and the government controlling our very thoughts...I think someone would realise something's a miss. There would have to be a level of ignorance for that to work, and as this only works on the memory, you can still forget the information, or question it's validity...you're aware that you're being fed the information using this method.

Whoever supports such advancements there is always the contrast of institutions that are against, and so the public will be aware and can make their own choice in the matter.

Although the Hippocampus has not yet been fully understood, this is how some neurologists interpret it's functionality...

"Some researchers prefer to think of the hippocampus as part of a larger medial temporal lobe memory system responsible for general declarative memory (memories which can be explicitly verbalized—these would include, for example, memory for facts in addition to episodic memory)." from wordspider

If input is coming from an external source in the same format, I presume the effect would be instantaneous. You would 'know' just as though you read and understood a book on quantum physics, because all the facts explaining and rationalising the facts would also be stored in your memory, therefore you would 'understand' your new found knowledge. I guess the sytem would be so finely tuned that anyone could understand the input.

If you were fed a bunch of equations without any explanation as to their content and meaning, then the memory would be useless.

Quote 'have you bothered to use our SEARCH ENGINE at all?

if you had have done you`de find this has been done before!'

Oops, will do in future. Thanks for pointing that out.

I read this interesting article (albeit no conclusion) on why yawning is contagious on the 'world-science.net' web site.

Does anyone have any theories on this strange behaviour.

I'm wondering if it is a reaction that has mutated from primitive man or primates. A group reaction that is no longer needed so has mutated into something that seems nonsensical.

My other theory is that if someone is sucking a bit too much air from their immediate vacinity, the other person yawns to compensate for the sudden lack of air. ;-)

Isn't the point of this technology is that it's akin to neuro networks ?

There would be no learning process you would just 'know'. Current communication is the downfall of proper understanding, so in order to get past this obstacle the information will be directly mapped as a memory. You can choose the information that you wish to have access to, and use it to your own ends.

Eventually we would become Gods because there would be no limit to your understanding, which is why it's so important that there is very strict boundaries on what can be accessed, and how it's used. It's a far more advanced learning tool than say the internet.