Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by ahmet

  1. hi, this is presumably different than my prediction but I shall ask though.

    are you asking about IPSP and EPSP?

    as I remember summation was a different subject or I might have confused.

    I think that tetanus might be also different in comparison all of these. 

    because in tetanus , when I pay attention to description of the illness, the contractile case is (presumably) continuous. 

    Thus action potentials are also continuous. 

    according to my knowledge an action potential definitely exists or does not exist. But not between these two probabilities.(I mean its existence was certain)

    on the other hand yes summation is also a case, but how,I do not remember very well :)

  2. hi, 

    I was working  and I have almost always drunk water regularly in my room (I use an open tip cerafe for this but generally drink much water as doctors recommend) in the past for a long time I could not realise a detail but one day I was again drinking water, I directly tried to drink water from that cerafe and realised that something was moving over the surface of water.

    I realised or still suppose so , that it was one of flies (larva). I presume they release their eggs,(spawning) (go) through inside of water. 

    but I wonder how the mother flies could understand where my cerafe is?

    how can they do that?


  3. this question is important in fact. And to me,it shows some realities. Here ,in turkey there are many professors who have many scientific publications or known so, but do not have any invention. 


    an another reply maybe like this:

    Science is not a legacy for any specific community or nation or anyone and not inherited.

    simply, someone find or invent but other ones or that une uses it or takes the efficacies of science.

  4. to me, none of those expressions/words are same with "door".

    but with one notification: I am not native english.

    within this, I would also remind you that british english and usa and canadian english also australian english are different (but british is really different, they almost nowhere use "t" in words (e.g. they do not say "get" ,they use "ge!" instead. for instance they do not say "I have got wet" ,they say "I 'v go we!" (assuming that there was a "t" but not being read, only exclamational tongue is used)

  5. 20 hours ago, Daniel Waxman said:

    Most people aren't experts in any particular thing, and if they are then their competence is limited to a specific area. Yet we have a need to make decisions related to many subjects we do not fully understand, and in those cases we often rely upon authoritative people and organizations to guide us in that process. But how can we decide who we should trust? Governments have been malevolent and dishonest in the past, and scientists have gotten things tragically wrong. How should we as laymen decide where to place our faith? Because that's what trusting an authority ultimately is, faith.

    this style of writing,I felt myself like reading an abstract of article.

    should I reply to the topic, while The thing (now I will say) I do is a common manner that almost everyone does,I think it is not a unique way.

    "generally assisstance from people that we knew them and samely those people who had experience in that specific subject  is requested " 

  6. 47 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

    It is easy to make something go wrong, but difficult to repair it.
    Especially when the thing is so complex that you do not know how it works.

    definitely right!

    but at the same time, I was thinking this one: if we know the cause ,then we might solve problem,too. 

    as far as I know, dopamine is responsible of course for some disease ,specifically for shizophrenia. Nonetheless, again according to my knowledge (as I tried to mention/imply in a nother thread) there are some shizophrenic patients but do not have hallucination. )

    of course,I am not a medical doctor (I had learned some (basic) medicine but..) and presumably or with very high potentiality i am failing with my logic approach (if we know the cause/reason,then we could ..because I did think much directly so the idea might not provide solution)

    ,while at one side, good schizophrenic patients exist, (or I do not know exactly where this idea comes from, maybe I read it from somewhere) psychiatrists cannot say that they could clear all of patients' hallucination up.)

    one job assigned to me and I need to go by now. Thank to all participants to ensure me learn a point even if it seems simple.


    Good evening.

  7. 17 minutes ago, Area54 said:

    You may think it should be incorrect, but the evidence clearly shows otherwise.

    "It cannot be generalised". That is precisely what is noted in the link I provided.

    that link,was embeded to the text so I have not realised that,sorry. reading the article, but probably you know that (this is a common case in mathematics and is rule) examplifying is not a proof of any proposition/theorem (unless it is an example that clearly refutes the proposition/theorem)

    20 minutes ago, Area54 said:

    I chose the 80 hours as an example. I'm sorry that was not clear. My point was a simple one. You apparently doubted the possibility that drugs might induce hallucinations. I noted that drugs were not necessary.

    I meant not all of bodies have same immune system and not all of them reflecting everything.

    there will of course be a limit but not 80 hours. 

    22 minutes ago, Area54 said:

    I would point out that I do not offer any medical advice or clinical methods, other than - "don't deliberately deprive yourself of sleep".

    no. I do not do that. But not even that, I was just thinking examplfying or giving too much embodiment to the ideas/propositions or to the issue might affect someone (other people,reading here)



  8. 2 minutes ago, iNow said:

    Lack of sleep for long periods leads to hallucinations, whether or not the 80 hour threshold is crossed 

    I think I have found similar article , or this article mentions same experiment 

    reading:  https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-can-humans-stay/#:~:text=The easy experimental answer to,hours (about 11 days).


    yes,the surname of that researcher was Gardner. I remember it.

    but this article presumably states that Gardner was dyad. maybe I do not remember clearly :( 

  9. a comment: I asked the core particle of question to one of my old hodja's (professor) and she confirmed the information but did not specify any source. 

    (she confirmed that graded potential could not cause "consciousness/perception" (but I do not remember which one consciousness or perception. )

    maybe it is better to revise the question as in: "can graded potentials ensure anyone perceive anything" OR " are action potentials mandatory to perceive anything?

  10. 33 minutes ago, Area54 said:

    Drugs are not necessary. Try remaining awake for 80 hours and I shall be surprised if you do not hallucinate. See this, for example.

    Warning: remaining awake for 80 hours can be (seriously) damaging to your health.

    This should be incorrect or cannot be generalised. I am sure that I had read a paper and there was specific experiment and observation.I of course do not remember the whole of paper, but one result was saying that the time for that (max. time to be able to remain "awake") was changing from one by another one.but surely I also remember that that author was stating that he had an experiment on himself/herself and could remain awake 7 days,which is definitely not equal to 80 hours.once again I would point out that I do not ask any medical advice or clinical methods to try on anyone. (Thus,I request you to concentrate on the question and be abstract as much as possible.)Thanks for your understandings. 




  11. 3 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

    Yes, there are many drugs that can cause hallucinations.


    I give the potentiality to be not same for these situations: but again I am asking.

    why while  we can obtain (artificial) hallucinations, we can't clear it up?

    I was thinking that dopamine was not just one responsible thing of hallucination. But maybe I am failing.

  12. On 10/9/2020 at 1:48 AM, wvbig said:

    I recently saw a documentary about a serial killer who claimed his stomach would be tied in knots and he'd be very fidgety until he killed someone. Is there any documented mental illness that causes such physical symptoms?

    first, not all of patients that have had same "disease" are same.

    for instance, you can find some schizophrenic patients that have more qualified life and also achievements than even normal/natural people. 

    also, there are some types of patients that are really dangerous.But I think or the doctors I know reporting that there would be no correlation between diseases and events/achievements (of the those patients have relevant ilnesses)

    but one detail might make everything confused, psychiatrists here saying "there are many undetected patients among the folks"

  13. I remember one of my doctor friend (he was hardworking ,so probably a good doctor)

    was saying, "ahmet, do you know ,any psychiatrist can ensure you to see hallucination via giving you a drug."

    I wonder  here whether hallucination can occur artificially by taking drugs,is this really possible??

    (I mean only "normal/natural" persons and all of them (do not have any psychiatric or any else illness in the past) under assumption)




  14. I consider a plan ,moving to india for a while for next summer.

    I hope or think that I would have sufficient time and money. because I am a teacher.

    but interestingly the corporations that I see their ads on such a popular musics videos have no webpages. I cannot reach them.

    these are such samples:

    1) elsen pro production

    2) geet 


    any idea?


  15. I was almost sure that this man would change his status (increasing) because I had seen his desire at his first music video at "ya lili , ya lila"



    I can't understand or even spell well this arabic ..


    -but mid / low quality -


    high/mid quality,I give 8 points of 10.



    maybe it bwould be good to visit india instead romania. 

    cheaper and same or better quality.

    but I do not know whether the musics appearing above produced in india.





  16. 5 hours ago, MSC said:

    For example; Causation.

    How can causation be non-linear?


    mathematically; (as I remember)

    [math] \alpha [/math] and [math] \beta[/math] are constants and x and y are vectors/variables.

    if ;

    [math] f(\alpha. x + \beta .y) = \alpha . f(x) + \beta.f(y)  [/math] then f is linear. (if not,normally f is non-linear)







  17. even though anything requires to be stressed (i.e. difficult) it does not mean that it won't be achieved.

    and defining it as "stressful" is relative. to whom is it stressful?


    in turkish there is one word ,that might succintly express a solution for the case.

    "(there is no problem about how the mountain is high),  even if it is too much high, the way passes over it/mountain.

    mm one another sentence  is (being said that the owner of this sentence was originally Albert Einstein is) that : "Difficult does not exist ,(but), to be unready does exist".



  18. 31 minutes ago, joigus said:

    Sorry, I don't understand. Interferrable?

    some physicists state or divide the time roughly to three parts.

    its surface...past and future (or I understood so). some other physicists describe more complex things on the issue.

    but nothing happens as all I can see.

    I am almost sure about these: 

    1) travelling past times (leaving the existing time) is not possible. 

    2) mentioning "time travel machine" is not only far away,but is also impossible. it is utopic.

    3) all in all some sources that we could have consist of only belief about thats and state that travelling future was not as same as travelling to past times and was possible.

    but if you ask my own idea: I don't believe the possibility of such things.


    (i.e. there are many void or valueless papers!)








  19. 17 minutes ago, joigus said:

    It started with "the universe is a C-infinity differentiable manifold, dense, simply connected and boundary-less" --something like that.

    yes this expression contains mathematcal keywords.

    but to me, very mixed. What do you mean by "universe" ?

    I could not understood well C-infinity?

    dense set is any set when that set's closure is equal to itself as I remember.

    I think I have not currently improved my geometry skills yet,so not commenting on manifolds.

    but differantiability is simply multidimensional derivation (has its fromula and criteria) (e.g. all of partial derivations should exist and should be continuous)

    mmm,I am not sure on wheher the rest of forums will reflect to my post negatively about an idea,thus I prefer to be silent. (It is not about you, a general manner across science and almost huge amount of scientists)

    but I shall try to create good projects.

    anyway,I have not read the paper but...I have a question: as a phsicist or phsicists "do you believe that time was really interferrable?" 

    I ask this because  I know and saw in the past and still there have been many debates, unfortunately (to me) big amount of those debates have been  void. (>95% roughly)


  20. 23 hours ago, joigus said:

    The paper is highly mathematical

    :) :) :) 

    maybe it would be good to wait @HallsofIvy 's assessment, but to me ; hearing "highly" word only reminiscents my romantism or colors rather than mathematics.

    surely,it is not a mathematical expression :):):) I am highly romantic hahah ha :) 

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.