NavajoEverclear

Science of mind is what brings that which cannot be named, because structure hinders the studier from comprehending the mind in it's true state, as opposed to a bag of satsumas.5 kilos and assorted nuts and bolts which only hinders Anna Kournikova from showing her true fiendish, but perfectly shaped flask containing Ethyl Alcohol. Therefore, the only reason Weetabix lacks a certain resonance is because MUTANT TUNA FISH

But that would have to be a common ancestor species (or, more likely, family) for all sexual organisms that have ever lived.

that's what i thought, I was guessing it would be something microscopic, and i think it must still be around today because it would be a long process of evolving (how or why hasn't yet been addressed), and small early organisms never die out. Well yeah it is possible, but bacteria have survived everything everything else hasn't, there would have to be a pretty total crisis to whipe them out.

Like YT said, i'm wondering about transitional species.

Skye- that lizard thing is interesting, so are all the lizards like clones of each other? Actually i'm interested, i'm going to look it up on google.

Well we wouldn't really be female besides as far as is structuraly detectable, because we carry our full genome in every cell of our body (right?) so every particle (cellular) of any female speciman, is strictly female, as it has no Y chromosomes, any male is definately male because it only has one X, then the Y.

I like your view Gene, accept that thing about us all turning into homosexuals, because that wouldn't happen. It would super severely suck if it did though. I infinately enjoy being heterosexual, girls are so freakin awesome (especially my favorite one).

So about that protist thing---- if thats possible there must be links in the chain, and i would think that some of those links should still exist today, because there must have been a huge amount of evolution between acomplishing the final masterpiece of a refined male/female system. So i guess what i want to know is what is the most primitive form of genetillia, because thats where the huge difference is. How did some organism begin to have two different types of itself that fit together specifically (as in the male can only mate with a female)?

That hermaphodite theory is almost plausible, but in an asexual organism, what would be the point of developing sex organs? I don't see why it would happen. I mean obviously i see that it would be beneficial, but things don't happen just because it would be great if it did. It would be hugely beneficial if we could fly, but evolution being blind, is not working us any closer to that objective. I understand mutations may accidentally work out, but such thing's as orderly as sexuality cannot be put together by sudden random mutation.

Hey its been a while since i was here. I'm working on revising my mentality to not be such a time waster. Anyhow i was wondering this just a moment ago, and a feel like asking so here i ask.

How could sexes have evolved (not saying that as in that i lean to it not being true, just as in a way as we were not there so all we can really say is what COULD have happened). I may guess that someone will say something about gradual mutations that had better chance of survival, became more common, then kept evolving. But that wouldn't satisfy me. PRECISELY why did there become different sexes (maybe it started with bacteria?) when did there actually become male and female? Er, i guess thats sort of the same question but I know there are bacteria that sexually reproduce, but they only call it that because there are two parents to produce offspring, neither is male or female.

so, how, when and why is it proposed that male/female things began, and what are some basic steps in the evolution of them to become what it is today?

whats up with this? why is my post on the top? who is screwing with my reality?!!

and this one appears under the last one? i think i will now short circuit is that that that how you spell cricuitw bzzzzzzzz-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------systemfailure-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I want some of that microbe, sounds fun

is there such thing (as far as we know) as a microbe engineer?

Will there be some day? Perhaps one day there will be a computer that is attached to a machine with all the chemicals needed to create life--- and on the computer you can design amino acid stuff or whatever and then the machine will build it----- somehow. Sounds cool.

Rad Ed--- fafalone clarified he did not mean what i interpreted so what you are replying to is out of effect, but i still don't agree with you.

I'm tired of arguing, it acomplishes nothing. What we should explore is WHY you believe like you do. I refuse to say it has much to do with the evidence that leans one way or another, there are other reasons. Maybe not faulted reasons ( i tend to may be faulted in some way, but we'll ignore that since its clear i have bias), but ones i do not understand. What would be the experiment would be look at two people who start from a common place, and discover where they diverge and why. Because of my belief that nothing can be proven, psychology is about the most important field of science to me.

Sorry, what does that mean? Does that mean it is or isn't a matter of perspecitve---- what do you say about the space ball concept?

Mish- I could see it as you see it, i too often make choices out of mere habit. So at times life is just as it is--- but i believe we constantly have choice to change how it is. It is possible to make decisions that will positively impact the future. I have a hard time expressing the concept because i am not near a perfect example of it.

I don't mean diss your way of life, i don't know you, maybe its whats best for you. But i do know there are other perspectives the precise one you harbor.

I think you should try to see life as people having control over it--- and you way of seeing this does not have to be like others. Don't try to see it like everyone else sees, because it won't work exactly for you.

ML- i see what your saying but i still think its 50/50, because it either is or isn't. I guess i cant really elaborate, so maybe i do believe in that just because it makes me feel creative or something. It's a dumb point anyway, i'm wasting my time.

But another way it is 50/50 as far as is scientific, is we do not know all the factors involved---- one---- we may be dreaming life. In the case of the dream, we can prove nothing---- that way it either is or isn't---- theres no way to proove which is more likely.

I understand you may admit that science is always changing, science admits it may know nothing, but we work with what appears to be the most probable, well in the case that we do not know what we know (as far as can be universally verifiable) i say science is as worthy a choice as any, including religion. Which is what i think is the fault with science: you claim to be very distinctly different from religion. You may base your choices on different scales, but you are not differen't from religion. You think so because most religions are so similar--- there is little alternatives (yet popularized or even created) that either blend that line, or exist on entirely different dimensions or styles of thought.

I see everything is about faith, and i think it is ignorance to close your mind to science. I know we aren't near as hard on religion, though there exists there so much more bigotry in many instances---- just because your ignorance is in much lesser degree than many of those, does not justify the degree i see you still hold.

MishMish said in post #11 :

 

Most seem to come down is just a matter that for practical purposes any god is either so unlikely or so trivial is not a matter worthy of consideration

I don't know what the purpose is in me saying this, but---- God as far as is scientifically proovable is 50/50 chance, him being unlikely is not true as far as can be prooven. This is because proof cannot be prooven, i have redundantly said much too much on the subject so i will say no more here, if you care to see my nausiating elaborations, go ahead(find the older threads).

Everything is matter of choice, as far as i can proove it is just as possible that choice does not exist, as it does, so its really a pointless circle in the case that free will does not exist. I do not believe that, but i have no way to proove it. You have no way to proove what you believe.

I think you should reconsider whatever outlooks you've determined in life, and venture to calculate the possible combination of decisions that will make life meaningful. You say you don't want to do this because you don't want to delude yourself? You cant delude yourself, you are only a chemical reaction.---- think about this, if you freedom, identity and such are only illusions---- what you choose to do doesn't matter--- how about you choose to take the freedom you have, incase life does have a purpose. Scientifically you will never know, there is no good excuse ignorance.

Apologies, i doubt there was any purpose in that post, i doubt by it anyone will choose to change. If i want to change things, this is not the efficient way to come about it, but i am addicted to posting, so there you are. (i'm trying to quit------- i wonder if there is a patch i can get . . . .)

Sounds like a really interesting project, i cant think of any advice, i'd really like to hear the results when you finish. What exactly are you going to see if the electricity effects? Like-- low level electricity speeds growth and preserves from death (i don't know if it does, just an idea)-------- what would looking for in your experiment?

if you became published i would, and if its a significant breakthrough you wont be hard to find.

Maybe i'm missunderstanding you-- i do agree that emotion inherently effects the cognitive process, but there are different ways to respond to certain emotions percieved. I think it just clicked to me that you mean the emotional being more powerful seemingly, the cognitive cant change it---- i don't know if anything could change the emotions or if you'd want to, certainly varying intellects/personalities and such have different emotions, but its not the point to change whatever the emotions are. The emotions are telling you something, and the cognitive can decide what do with them. Emotions have already calculated conflicts that the conscious mind isn't aware of---- if we knew how to read our own emotions we could find out what the problem is faster.

And knowing more exactly what the problem is, how to solve it.

Thats what i think emotions may be--- solution to the answer, if you know how to interpret it.

Maybe an example of what i mean----- you get depressed, you may just continue to be depressed or you can figure out what makes you depressed and in all you power change those things that impede your efficiency in life (thats what depression is, sense that you are not functioning well enough basically--- there are of coarse other emotions that are problems, but not nearly so blatantly). The application of the idea would be to find the scientific connection emotions have to things the higher brain levels have not reckoned with yet. Emotions don't control you, you decide what to do when you feel a certain thing, and what you do results in more emotions.

There are many mild emotions you have constantly that you don't think about---- they are there for a reason, i think we would have great advantage to know exactly what those reasons are.

^thats stupid.

I don't know what to say about euthenesia, i could definately agree with passive euthenesia, but active doesn't feel right. Largley due to my religous beliefs, which i don't think are wrong.

At the same time, certain conditions would really suck to be in, i'm not sure what i'd want if it was me.

Thats interesting

Is that to do with lack of the nutrient, or lack of ability to digest the nutrient? Are there cases of people being naturally unable to use the nutrients they for brain function---- of coarse there are such cases for nutrients affecting other functions, i think it would be interesting to find that a problem in the head is caused by a problem in the stomach (not that their diet is missing nutrients, but they are unable to utilize certain nutrients).

Well i do respect you makings sure its sound and all before releasing it, but like i said, i'm impatient, i guess i might as well stop worrying about it since theres nothing i can do. Sounds cool. I'll just forget about it for 5 years and if you get famous i'll brag to all my friends that i talked to you before.

i have a comment about darksmeeshes signature--- if you feel it, it must be caused by something, what you decide the feeling is caused by may be false, but SOMETHING is causing you to feel, so it is real, the only problem may be misinterpreting what IT is.

Is that the radiohead song blikes refering to? I don't listen to them so i don't know. I think i'll go check out some clips on Amazon now.

I think YT just answered my question, but i was going to ask---- couldn't these types of smoke detectors cause cancer?

Now that i'm thinking about cancer, what exactly is it in cell phones that can cause cancer? Could my computer cause cancer? (what does a cellphone got that a computer hasn't?, and a computer is biggger!)

Whose seen the movie based on the work of Oliver Sacks? Really neat stuff, i know their problem (something to do with encephilitis and a form of parkinsons) is different from other ones with similar appearance (such as Catatonia), but couldn't the same or some type of drug awaken these patients as well? What is Catatonia caused by? Its a a psychological sickness, nothing physically wrong usually right? Well yeah the brain is a physical organ, but which of its functions cant be altered by certain chemicals? My only guess why a drug wouldn't work is if it would kill them for some reason because they don't know how to activate it precisely or something.

Another question to do with the brain--- the brain runs off of certain chemicals beside oxygen and water--- these chemicals come from food--- so is it possible that some people could have or develop a neurological illness if they had a lack of the certain enzymes that process the chemicals important to brain function?

what is singularity? The word implies something simple but i don't know what you guys mean. I've seen it before too, it must be important to science, but i've never learned what it means, so educate me. Please.

to the cognitive are stronger and better developed than the reverse, our emotional states are more likely to intefere with or affect the cognitive than the cognitive to affect the emotional

is that saying that emotions get in the way of congnitive process? I think that could be changed if we were trained to recognize exactly what causes an emotion, exactly what an emotion is, and what to do about it. (well perhaps not exactly, that sounds too perfectionist, so to a more comprehensive degree anyway)

Kedas-- i am impatient, when will your theory be done? Or you worrying about getting it copyrighted first? I think its pretty easy to get things copyrighted, getting published is the only hard part (so i've heard, but i think theres even websites where you can copyright stuff for cheap)

I want to know your theory, or what ever it is that you are developing. I believe that emotions if read right (which i believe our society is vastly not designed to support consistently) could be very precise calculations that would give an individual great advantage (in about any application) to be able to communicate the semi-unconscious senses and decide how to apply to the rest of the brain consciously. Did that make sense? Basically i think emotions are much quicker at analyzing information, but since we have not learned to establish a stable connection between that and the parts of the brain that can respond and send calculated instructions out, the information emotions are results of are often wasted. I'd say there are many factors that place a filter to blind us from these senses, thus greatly impeding potential progression. I hope science can help in figuring out just how to solve this problem.

Is that at all similar to what you are investigating? I haven't really done any study on it myself, so my version is just in hypothesis stage.

but better yet advice---- if you actually do think my last was good advice, don't use me as any model of mentality you could use to make those things possible. I need to learn to stop labelling myself, but i am not really in position to be giving other people advice. I have lots of work to do with my life and me, and yet i know certain things that i do not understand. But thats not to say i don't see why these things are good, i have a way i feel i can imagine understanding, though the actuallity of the understanding is not manifestly set into my personality.

Oh, now i've got the best advice--- meet someone (perhaps a lovely lady(thats who gives me most of my good advice)) who can help you. A woman who has mastered herself, who is comfortable with herself, who has it together. Well i hope you can figure out who that is.

And an advice about my advice--- dont follow it all to the letter, do what's right (which likely does not follow my ideals to the letter, but includes them somehow).

I wish i had something valuable to say, but i would just be babbling. What is the purpose of defining real? Its a near impossible thing to do anyway. If you've had a healthy dose of matrix i'm sure you understand that. What if the universe is made of one particle moving at infininate speed to simulate everything that exists? Things could suddenly dissapear, appear, multiply, any laws of physics could be broken. I've realized its really pointless to say. But as i said i felt i should reply something. So thats the best i can think up--- i think this project is barren and profitless. The best thing you can do is to get married to a wife you love, and have children you love. Of coarse many other things will put structure to your life but those should be your greatest joy, which you would give everything else for.

I know that seemed off the subject, i thought if i was going to tell you the project was useless, that i should tell you something that isn't useless, toward which means may replace uselessness.

Ziddlezathmophu----- in those words are all the words language cannot supply for my reply.

I guess its not really that big of a deal, or if it is my means of approaching it are profitless. I think the beginning does matter (not that you said it didn't), or should matter to the world of science, you got a good point-- theres not really any application for it.

I spend too much time here, and its not really productive. I need to go reprioritizize my life. Seeyall later.

A question about how we know the universe is expanding--- how in our short life span (not only as individuals, but as science, or even the span of the existence of our race) can we detect and, propperly determine what means, matters of the universe which is incomprehensibly larger than us? Hubble (or the next hubble) doesn't even reach that far. A guy in my neighborhood is on the engineering project of the next hubble (i don't know how high up he is, but he's doin something with it), and says that though it will be ten times stronger than hubble, its not near as strong as they could make it, due to lack of funding.

How can we, from our small reference point on earth know that the movement we detect means expansion. Maybe things are just moving around.

Ok maybe this was a dumb post. Reply to the other one first, it has more relevant and valid questions.