Bio-Hazard

I'm basically a broke mofo, not the brightest guy on the block, but I've got my GPA above 3.7, it's 4.0 right now, but I got a B in my Art class bad teacher.

But besides that I'm pretty much broke. For a person who is caucasian, American, and has divorced parents who've lived in the same house for about 20 years, are at their 50s and are pretty much broke, I'm broke myself.

I have very little way of funding any way of getting an education for myself that is very high, but I really want to go as far as possible.

The caucasian part comes in because I'm not considered a minority, so getting money won't be so easy. I don't really want to get super big loans that are 100,000 USD each. That would just be insane to pay off if they decide to hunt me.

Of course I just want the knowledge, but still they'd make me pay if being found to work and isolated to a city.

So what I'm asking is what the best way to fund my future education is. Lots of people say scholarships and grants, but those things are so all over the U.S. that the chance of getting one must be miniscule for a person like me. My English isn't the best, but I highly believe in transhumanism which makes me a different type of person.

What do you think I should do? I know I'm not going to be able to rake up enough cash, and by the time I graduate being a neurosurgeon I'd be 30.. I don't have a lot of time to play around.

I think the only thing I fear is that problem with AOL back in the day when you would get that screen that said there was a problem with your browser when there was just really a problem with AOL and you had a virus or something and you had to reformat.. ;_; those things strike fear in me, along with anger.

If I remember right, aren't there some certification tests a person can take?

I know with enough electronic experience there are some tests you can take which show you know more than the college students who never get hands on experience.

It reminds me of the computer file system that windows uses, I can't remember which one but I'm thinking of FAT32.

Simply put, the system will look towards a directory of little pieces of data as to where the next piece of data that will lead to the whole program lies.

Computer science and neuroscience in my opinion relate to a very large degree, or atleast in concept, but I'ven't kept up with computer science in a long time. I believe in my last CHECK IT OUT! thread I gave an article that said some stuff about MIT looking into the process of perception with encoding for the brain.

p.s. that might be an English word if tis'nt already. (i'ven't..)

I understand the binding problem to a miniscule degree that it relates to the inability for people to figure out where and how the brain stores tons of information, yet all of it scattered like marbles and there is a process the brain uses to collect all the marbles at a fast rate.

I think my computer science idea is going to be the closest thing to describe my idea of what happens. Just speculation and assumption from previous knowledge obtained how information electrical systems at work.

Wouldn't it be nice if we had access to an MIT Forum that has to do with neuroscience?

Yes, the few things that disturb me.

There is also another theory here which I would choose over both of the previous theories given and think I should also post: Two-Factor theory

It wouldn't be useless at all o.O;

It would help our immune system greatly also prevent scurvy and other sicknesses.

Link to scienceforums.com article

It seems MIT people are working on the visual perception and encoding process of the mind, they discovered a bit more about it.

Discuss.

Eh, I'm going to think it is about the same process as word association that we build up our brain to. I hate you. You suck. Ownage!11

Except when the actual activities happen, we have more of a physiological response.

Perhaps the feeling we have is just a signal to the brain so that we know our body is ready for GO TIME! so we can do what we have to do. Kiss the girl, beat up that guy, save the world.. etc.

To me this is the iffiest topic around neuroscience and A.I. If emotion is truly just a physiological reaction interpreted then we could most likely program it into AI.

I'm going to consider that we modify our own brains and change their connections so that certain psychophysical stimulation allows us to react differently to things. For example, someone is completely socially deprived does not really show emotion.

The interesting thing here is how humans have the ability to smile, yet sometimes completely socially deprived people will not understand something as funny and will not laugh. So the simplest psychophysical stimulation would have to be tickeling them.

James-Lange Theory

However, I think that the extremes of genetically inherited things such as seeing a bear is a little too far. My idea of something is food will make you happy or relived, thus reducing stress on your body and the mind complaining about food hunger.

But then you have the Cannon-bard theory

This makes me think that it's utter crap. Emotions before reactions.. hmm.. You have to learn to fear before you can fear. Children keep hitting people left and right until they notice the bigger people can smack them down.

So.. let me make a hypothesis here..

Our culture and language that we obtain by being an active member of society has an effect on micro-interaction mixed with psychophysical stimulation that eventually alters our way of thinking and our physiological responses to the things we encounter in everyday life.

A lot of emotions such as hate and paranoia can't be obtained and understood well without actually encountering these things socially.

This topic even bothers me. In my opinion, if I were to be pseudoscientific a bit here.. The thing that seems to be a problem here would be how we can actually consciously feel warmth and pain. Feelings that are natural and yet we can't resist. Yet, I don't think of us as living human beings, we are just chemical compositions.. but there's a paradox here. Something is living and controlling all the living. This is when I start saying that chemical structures have a mind of their own, which can be seen through quantum mechanics.

We can't actually explain everything in QM, yet we know it happens. It seems as though electrons themselves have their own behavior, they are lazy. I'm going to assume that chemical structures and other super small particles have a mind of their own which work all together, (which a grey goo nanobot type thing would do) and create an outcome that gives the notice to some supreme leader of them all..

The ability to be immortal, get the hell of this planet and travel space, along with meeting other species.

All this other crap can wait. Matter of fact, the picture perfect human society is where people actually give a damn about science and don't dribble and waste their time in the arts. People who aren't good at science go into the arts. Sadly they are too stupid to understand that your brains ability to do science will deteriate if you do not try hard. Also business majors.. sooner or later people will wise up and actually ask for the same wages, ugh. I don't believe in money these days.

I do my best to understand physics, chemistry, and electronics to create a salvaged recycable land where I macgyver things to survive. Other people, they can't do that. Why? They suck, they waste their life away buying American Eagle and watching the most popular TV shows.

In my opinion, I use to hate black people.

However things changed and my last girlfriend was black, she would say "multicultural" but she was still cute.

Now that only thing that really annoys me is how people become degenerates. Sure, people speak English and act like degenerates in America already, yet it seems that the negro population has a culture mixed with being a degenerate.

The difference here is that there is the average degenerate, and then the degenerate who keeps a culture of being a degenerate or else the probability of succumbing to failure or doom early in life active.

When people keep speaking in double negatives, get pregnant, keep talking about having sex with women in music, then they are building a subculture. I think they need to get rid of this subculture. It's a pointless and unhealthy thing for all people. I don't really remember Run DMC singing to much about drugs, alcohol, and sex being a good thing.

I don't know why people continue to conform to the people around them.. We all already know that the majority of people in America are idiots who can't think for themselves anyways.

I don't mind people being hyper, however I do like the idea of people actually speaking proper English and to stop being sexually active left and right like they are bunnies.

The typical person that needs to be weeded out is the one who won't act American. Even foreigners have a better American attitude than negros who continue to show the bad side of America. It's not about being white, it's about acting as if you are an intelligent human being worth living. Because being a humanist, if you aren't intelligent and doing good in society, I think you need to be destroyed.

In many languages and cultures you've got the sapir-whorf thesis.

Subcultures have slang which effect the way people think which isn't proper.

The culture of people who speak the language the way it was originally inteded to be spoken, or developed to be spoken, actually belive that they are being proper.

I know there is no box, and I know people are going to be idiots. Eh, I hate humans. However, I will say that changing the way you speak into slang will give the personality that you are a dumb, low-class american. Which is a fun disguise so I won't completely dis it , but I do believe the actions people take are not going to advance society.

Simply put: if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

I ride the city bus enough and went to ghetto schools near the projects, so I know what I'm talking about. Maybe I need some refining, but oh well.

However, if people are being taunted for "being too white" I as a teacher would grab that student, throw them across the hall or just smash their head in. Heh, but I don't want to be a grade school teacher. Bad santa basically

Hmm.. Well, if life can still be born using this method, the scientists just won.

IMO screw ethics, except when it comes between: unconventional vs. saddism.

A.K.A. dr. mengele

.. Time To Invest! <-- INTERESTING FORUM FEATURE TAKES AWAY CAPS!!

I was reading up on Vit. C and noticed that it isn't made naturally by us and one may see it as a genetic defect. Seeing how it has implications upon different types of neurotransmitters and hormones I was wondering if there are humans who actually have the ability to create Vitamin C within themselves.

It seems that 1932 marks the date of the acknowledgement of Vitamin C so, it may be true that we haven't come across such humans yet, or else we don't know how to find them.

What do you think would hypothetically happen if our genes allowed us to make Vita. C?

Perhaps "more evolved" was too blunt, and should have said, "have a better chance of survival based on the principles of natural selection." Which in this case is very apparent if one section of the body tires and you are not able to use the opposite symmetrical section efficiently.

My hypothesis is that becoming ambidextrous has more to do with genetics than psychogenesis. This being said there must have been some evolutionary change within the DNA that caused people to become ambidextrous. Perhaps people who are ambidextrous are actually the ones who are evolved.

Bob you stated that the logical right-handers were the more advanced, or am I wrong?

It could simply be that the ambidextrous ones are naturally gifted in using both hemispheres of the brain (logic|creativity) are an example of the next step in human evolution.

However, for this to be valid, I'm sure there would have to be numerous studies to show how the creativity and logic of ambidextrous people compare to right and then left handed people.

I consider a circle to have no sides, except an inside and outside.

Kinda weird feeling comes over knowing that real circles don't exist, they are just composed of other geometrical shapes creating them, yet strangely these geometric shapes will take the form of a circle or sphere.

I can't see it happening anytime soon, if at all. We don't even know half the secrets of the brain, and I don't think that we'll be able to create truly intelligent systems until we do.

Hmm... I think it will be done eventually.. but I don't like the idea of A.I... I mean the reasons humans rule the world is because of their physical adaptability and their intelligence, not to forget communication.

Give robots that chance and they just may take over the world if they see humans as lesser.. but they have no psychobiological drive so I don't see them doing that unless its programmed into them.

I still like my robot badger idea.. gastrobots running off mushrooms and using snakes to attack people.

Would there be possible environmental factors that we could enduce to a quantum mechanical structure to enable it to become spherical and break it's current structure?

I'm sure there probably is some type or somewhere in the future we'll come across it.

Comprehension is understanding and basically' date=' the more you know, the more you will understand. If you bombard someone who doesn't know anything about a particular subject with lots of information on that subject, most of it will 'slide off' because they don't have any 'cognitive hooks' to hang it on.

 

Essentially, learning is a bit like growing a crystal. You need the germ (basic knowledge) in order to be able to expand upon it and allow it to grow. So, the more you know about something, the easier it will be to assimilate new relevant information and the faster your comprehension speed.

[/quote']

 

This would have to do with hands on vs. book reading which is a great example. With such things there are physical implications that are interpreted and you become exposed to. When reading about something you could get a better grasp when reading something such as an origami book or a drawing book. Perhaps more of something in the arts.

 

Another interesting aspect to this would be how a person can instantly feel an emotion and interpret the word bitch as rude and deviant. Did you sense something from it?

 

We as people have been conformed to society, somewhat, to interpret these words and have an emotion to them. So when a person is reading, I hypothesis that they also have a type of emotion that comes with reading.

 

Which makes me wonder about something I've been thinking of lately which is how people who have greater learning rates have a lesser resistance to pain.

Thus, their emotional intensity would be increased drastically.

 

I'm assuming reading has a lot to do with the sapir-whorf thesis with how culture effects language. How our ways of life to our culture can effect how we read something. HATE PAIN DEATH CUTE BUNNY.

 

Such things are societal and environmental. Visual aspects that we've learned over life can help us excel in our ability to interpret something we read by stimulating ourselves with a quick emotional understanding of the world leading to a greater comprehension rate of the text.

 

What gets me more in this situation would be how the brain can instantly interpret words when we look at them. We don't really have to think about the word, we just read it, unless it is foreign.

 

With the word foreign we may even have an emotional and cultural understanding as something different, misunderstood, weird. Leading to a quicker comprehension of the word from our real world interpretation.

 

As for reading speed' date=' I would agree with most people so far - the intake rate is determined by comprehension rate which, I would guess, is affected by familiarity. Sometimes, if im reading a paper which isn't that enthralling I will find that I have continued to read 2 or 3 paragraphs while still thinking about the last reasonably intersesting sentence.

[/quote']

 

Familiarity would most likely be a large part to this because if we are not familiar with something, we can not easily browse through it.

 

Recently I was going through wikipedia and I thought I'd take a stab at speed reading. As I read the article I noticed I comprehended everything at an excellerating rate, the interesting side to this is that I could read the words a lot quicker, but to do so, my cognitive processes of visual information must have been sped up. For instance, when I saw carbon, I had to associate it quickly with things such as graphite, diamond, C12, and it was quickly understood. It seems that to be able to speed-read, one must be able to quickly adapt to the word they are reading along with enhancing the cognitive processes.

 

My assumption to this was that my quick visualization was not involuntary unlike reading a word such as hate. There was a voluntary request for me to excel the associations of what I knew of the word. Does this take extra glucose? Perhaps I have conscious control over brain functions somehow? What chemistry changes that makes the visualization "click in"?

 

Now the thing I'm trying to get out of this thread is the neurological processes and studies on the brain (physical, not psychological) that have been done to show what chemicals and physiological features of the brain exactly change.

 

To tell you the truth, it seems closely related to a psychotic episode to be able to quickly learn and associate.

 

Correlation does not necessarily mean causation' date=' however, so perhaps greater intelligence could correlate with increased reading speed and learning ability.[/quote']

 

I'm thinking by "intelligence" you mean experience. Intelligence is up for debate as to what it is, but I'm not going there. I am simply stating the ability for people to be able to make connections within a text to their current understandings and the ability to adapt their current knowledge allowing them to read quicker, or nonexistant knowledge with the ability to asorb it by assimilating a neurological response to it.

Sure we can idealize the concept of a perfect circle in our mind, a good 360 degrees.

But is there really such a thing as a perfect circle?

Even on computer monitors we will use pixels to create a circular formation which, the pixels are not perfectly circular themselves. When you keep going down to a next level you reach atoms and even atoms are not a sphere or a circle.

They are more of a geometrical shape that is three dimensional with edges, but not a smooth round shape.

Or are there atoms that are actually circular? How can one actually be sure that it is spherical?

The U.S. education consists of grade school, middle school, high school, and then college, university

However, the big difference compared to many different countries is that we spend an extra two years in highschool. However, the whole process is slowed down unlike european children who graduate at 16.

Are you inquiring as to a physical flame that exists such as a flame that comes out of a lighter, but is at such a cold temperature that it couldn't burn you when you touched it?

Being that I have been on it, I think it may have altered my brain chemistry and view on sex because I don't think about sex very often. There is also the antisocial personality that comes with it. You just don't talk to people. It also acts as a nootropic drug.

I've been meaning to get back on it.

The faster you can read and comprehend, the faster you can learn.

But the keypoint here is not using some type of robotic brain addition, but instead using an alternative learning method.

Does more reading show growth in the comprehension process with neurological studies?