Area54

I considered that, but the specific mention of the fuel that is specifically not necessary led me to (specifically) reject that possiblity. I hope Janus will comment either way.

One of us has missed the point. I'm not sure which one, but I have my biases. I have no problem with the word illusion because I understand its intent to be the same intent, in the context of consciousness, as is convyed by the word interpretation. I regret the word was chosen since it seems to confuse one group of people who do not understand the mutiplicity of meanings a word may carry (e.g. tar) and provides another group with ammunition to condemn the theory it is related to (e.g. apparently yourself in some of your posts) and righteously offends another group because they allow themselves to be distracted by the other meanings that could have been intended. (e.g. yourself in this quoted post.) All that said, illusion is the word we have and everyone engaged here, apart from tar, appears to have a broadly similar understanding of its meaning, if not its consequences. So, I for one intend to return to matters of more substance. Also, as far as I am concerned, the broad definition of consciousness you favour is too vague to be of much value for anything other than generating silly arguments, so I'm hopefully done with that one too. I shall return in my next post to addressing your claim regarding the linking of evolution and consciousness. As you have presented it to date it appears to be nonsense. Feel free to respond after I have posted my reasoning.

Fuel can be derived from the asteroid, either as volatiles, or simply reaction mass for a railgun "Stone chucker".

Of equal, or greater importance is the fact that falling mortality rates are typically associated with increasing education and affluence. The former tends to encourage greater application of contraception, the latter does the same because parents would rather spend their money on flat screen TVs than on more children.

@tar , if the word used had been "interpretation" rather than "illusion" would you have the same objections?

I've passed the time allowed to edit my previous post. The penultimate sentence should read " Are you seriously disputing that there is not a genetic component to IQ?" The "not" was missing. You are assuming that a high IQ is the only important genetic factor in determining evolutionary fitness. Intelligence is not the product of a single gene. Genes that contribute to low IQ's may contribute to other aspects of fitness, today or tomorrow. Eliminate those genes and the population may have a higher IQ, but be less likely to successfully reproduce. (And since when was a high IQ an assured root to success?)

Is this entirely true? I understood that the reason for proposing the aether was that those waves of which we then had knowledge required a medium through which to propagate. It was therefore logical to suspect that there must be some medium through which light propagated. An argument that could be used at the time might have run like, "All the waves we are aware of propagate through a medium. What evidence do you have that light is an exception to this established rule?" None of this in any way supports the continued argument for an aether, but it seems to me it was, for a time, valid and reasonable to suspect one existed. The alternative appears to be an implicit assertion that Michelson and Morely were fools or pseudoscientists for attempting to demonstrate the motion of the Earth through the aether. I may well be mistaken in this perception, but I cannot presently see where.

Evolution is about populations, not individuals.

You are not providing any citations to support your statements. It would be helpful if you did.

It was practised by individuals who had trained as scientists or doctors and identified themselves as scientists or doctors, doctors being specialists in medical science. The term eugenics was coined by Galton and he was instrumental in developing the concept. He was a notable scientist and, incidentally, a cousin of Darwin. An apropriate catchphrase for the eugenics movement could have been "Survival of the fittest", penned by Herbert Spencer, another notable scientist, to capture the heart of Natural Selection. Instead it became associated with Social Darwinism. If Survival of the Fittest represent Natural Selection, eugenics can readily be seen as a direct form of Artificial Selection. In short, eugenics may be bad science, it may be ethically unacceptable, but its origins and arguments relied upon scientific principles. You chose not to answer me previously, so I'll ask again. Are you seriously disputing that there is a genetic component to IQ? Do you doubt that intelligence impacts upon academic achievement?

Hi xhiuang, like StringJunky (but unlike Zapatos) my concern was that you might be thinking of experimenting with various mixes in an attempt to solve a problem. As String and I have noted this could be risky. I'm delighted to hear you were merely curious about the biochemical aspects, in general. Good luck with your studies.

If you lie flat on the table and engage the serendipity switch on your mobile phone so that the table lands in a precisely horizontal attitude, then the collapse of the legs will provide a decceleration that will significantly reduce the magnitude of the impact. (Don't try this at home!)

No problem. I believe you are asking the wrong question, for two reasons. Firstly, the vast majority of Earth environments (surface and upper crust) that exist today are substantially different at the time prebiotic material was likely to have been produced. A more measured question would be "Are we aware of any natural (non-biological) environments on the primeval Earth in which nucleotides could have been produced?" Secondly, as I pointed out in my original reply, restricting the origin of prebiotic molecules to the Earth is an uneccessary and unwarranted restriction. An even better question would have been, for the sugars, "Are we aware of any natural (non-biological) environments on the primeval Earth in which sugars could have been produced, or of any mechansim by which they could be delivered from space?" The answer, as I gave, is yes. In regard to the sugars, what do you find unsatisfactory about an extraterrestrial origin? Note: In the original thread someone else suggested, I think, that the Miller-Urey experiment yielded nucleotides. I'm pretty sure it generated gunk and several amino acids, but no nucleotides. I stand ready to be corrected on that point.

I don't think we ever need a reason to question assumptions.

Christmas arrived unexpectedly early that year and there was much rejoicing.

Good one. I missed that. I'm now frantically and pointlessly searching google to find if camels evolved before Antarctica split and moved too far south!

True, but if we question those assumptions then the extrapolation is no longer logical. (Which opens up even more ground for 'fun speculating')

I disagree. It is essential. I was equally confused by Mootanman's excursion into the definition of sodomy. Your observations delinking dogs smelling other dogs rear ends implictly recognised the standard definition.

And this new knowledge didn't phase you?

Camels are not native to Australia, which, unlike all the other continents, they were not native too. Use of any technology, in this case domesticated camels, in a novel environment is expensive, unproven and cutting edge. As we move into space permanently much of it will be achieved through the reapplication of existing "camels". Forgive my directnesss, but you are too narrow-minded on this one. (Please don't take the hump.)

You know the background of your workmate. You know how they are likely to use the information you give them. We do not know the background of the OP. The responsible thing to do is to sound a note of caution. I did that. It took less than a minute. The irresponsible thing to do is to argue that it really doesn't matter, because its only about antacids. (And when has acid reflux ever been a problem, or diarrhoea? ) It turns out this takes considerably longer than a minute. I've stated my position. I've understood yours. Feel free to have the last word.

The side effects of antacids as they relate to health. i.e. a medical question.

You say you can derive all the rules of physics from your process. You have not demonstrated that you can, despite enormous patient questioning from Strange, therefore your thesis is speculative.

I don't think there is a "basic thing" out of which all attitudes develop, not unless you play high and fast with logic, rhetoric and evidence. (Which I won't) So, what do you assert it to be?

@Anonymous Participant You still have not defined what you mean by intelligence. Perhaps you have had limited exposure to it.