JillSwift

I was speaking informally, but it still seems "much more likely" to me, based on general knowledge. The alternative would be that thought directed the structure of the cranium. It at least sounds more far-fetched.

Well, beware the excluded middle.

An old study of the same phenomenon you describe suggested as mechanism the muscle tensions against the skull from common facial expressions as the person grew up. This would be a good way for "mind" to effect "body".

Interesting idea, but really hard to study. I'm afraid I don't know what became of the idea.

JS: The goal is of course to find meaningful evidence, if it exists. The question of whether I pulled the hypothesis completely out of thin air, or based it on the best informal observations I could make--That's unknown to you, if you haven't performed similar analyses. If what I've claimed to notice was obvious to everyone, I wouldn't need to attempt to illustrate its validity with scientific experimentation, right?

As to causation, I can only assume that the physical would cause the mental, if any such correlation is found. In any case, finding the correlation is priority one.

Assumptions are dangerous. You've already noticed a correlation or you would not be postulating about it. So, priority one is evidencing a meaningful correlation.

Actually evolution at least the way science is telling us, is also a fallacy. You have to assume , that one animal became, over time another. But really there is no proof of that.

Because animals are similar in looks or some of their parts are similar, does not automatically mean they came from this one or that.

Evolution is based on an idea that we do not see now, or has been seen in the past. Science should not be based on assumptions. As for transitional animals they are not found. What we see today are completed animals. There is a great variety in say humans or dogs etc., but we do not see dogs becoming cats.

Woo, one of my favorite straw-man arguments.

I think that was intentional on Mr Skeptic's part, JillSwift

Unless you were being facetious as well.

Yus, I'm a facetist.

#!/bin/bash

echo "Hey there, HelgTours!"

exit 0

A hypothesis must grow from observation. By this definition, any testable hypothesis comes with evidence. (This is why a hypothesys can "transform" into a theory, it's a first attempt to explain facts and observations.)

Applying that to this situation, it appears that the hypothesis is indeed based on observations. As it is also testable, it makes for a scientific hypothesis.

That said, the criticisms leveled against it are not invalidated but this fact. At the moment, the observations are very loosey-goosey and the conclusions that lead to the hypothesis may have some bias, and an important question - correlation or causation - isn't addressed.

As I see it, anyhoo.

Not that it matters. World ends in 2012 anyway.

Your rite, he did make a spelling error.

*winces*

(Right, Jill?)

Nah. (OCD tends to be about tight loops and a sense of order anyway, rather than single-subject obsessions.)

Another facet that may be a genetic predisposition is introversion. The geeky/nerdy set also has an unusually high number of introverts who have otherwise working social skills/instincts but have a predilection for internalizing their decision and learning processes.

Mind also that there are plenty of scientists, researchers, techies, etc. who socialize just like any other neuro-typical human. It's not until the unusual social behavior comes into play that the geek/nerd label is applied. I think that gives the idea of geeks & nerds a serious case of confirmation bias.

Could be.

Have a look here:

http://www.aspergers.com/

Geeky/Nerdy groups have a significantly higher percentage of Asperger's folks. Though it's clear that for many the behaviors are far more environmental or choice based.

Full disclosure: I'm an Aspie.

There are many more. The conclusion is very clear: The movie sounds like it's going to be an absolutely hightech effects amazing hollywood style movie that's based on absolute horse crap and has absolutely no scientific backing whatsoever.

 

Should be an awesome movie, though.

Wouldn't it have been easier just to say "The movie is by Roland Emmerich"?

Ok, so genetic mutation is what causes a new species to emerge. But wouldn't a male and female have to be born at the same time with the same mutation for a new species to begin? Are there any documented instances of this happening or is it just assumed based on comparisons of DNA in different species?

Don't think of species as being a line of absolute demarcation. Taxonomy is a far fuzzier business than most people think.

As the two groups of animals diverge, in the given example, they will eventually reach the point where they can no longer mate and can be considered separate species by that criteria.

This conclusion has been reached by way of the fossil record as well as broad documentation of genomes. I believe there is another class of evidence as well but it escapes me at the moment.

Once people that have learned a little physics realize that a moving magnetic field creates electricity, they think they can make their own perpetual motion machine.

 

Like IA said, the absolute BEST we could do is break-even, and even that is near to impossible. It would require frictionless surfaces and superconductors, and be very very very hard to do.

Given that this stuff is all couched in the larger system of energy available to us - any energy spent in creating the device makes it a net loss to the overall system even if you can manage a subsystem that breaks even.

Well I was conscious and talking through out the entire procedure. If it was a seizure the docs missed it, they gave me a clean bill of health.

Well, I'm not going to second guess 'em ==

The brain sure is an interesting organ. Heh. It's an organ that finds itself interesting.

Hmm.

Does that mean that a neurophysiology researcher is someone with a really bad case of narcissism?

There is a home made working sample of the generator:

http://www.33energy.com/magnetic_generator_atwork_video.html

 

Can anyone explain how and why it works? magic..

First, we need some evidence that it works.

Do the experiment. Build the little booger. I predict you'll find four letters swimming about:

1. H
   
2. O
   
3. A
   
4. X
   

Back to the thread topic, a recent study published by Sam Harris in PLoS ONE:

 

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0007272

I wish his sample size were larger.

I think there are two more things that would illuminate the seats of belief that I hope will get this kind of attention.

Authoritative belief - what's the brain doing when it evaluates new information comming from folks ranging from "just some guy" to someone introduced and showing all common "signs" of being an expert.

Agnostics - and this would need a really large sample. What's going on in a brain that's not quite pinning down a belief. I would speculate a finer balance between hippocampus/parahippocampal gyrus and ventromedial prefrontal cortex activity.

Were the sample size larger - and I expect other studies of a similar nature will eventually give us a substantial sample - I'd call this some of the strongest evidence for religious proclivity.

In a hospital setting, I'd had a seizure and they wanted to see if they could induce one. They couldn't.

I'm not so sure they didn't, if you were seeing things. If they were trying to induce a grand mal, perhaps not. Perhaps something akin to a petit mal. *shrug* I don't know enough about the situation.

I'm madly curious now: What were the conditions under which this EEG and visual stimulation occur, if I may ask?

He's not going to be putting this up for peer review; it's all already been done by others who are actually experts in that area.

Yes, that is so. I was speaking more generically.

Wow.

Edmond Zedo, may you have learned to be much more calm about criticism and disagreement before you offer your first paper for peer review.

To be honest, the folks getting negative rep on subjects that are far more concrete than politics would probably just explode in the politics forum. It is my (not too) humble opinion that things are well set as they are.

I think I'm using 3.0.1.1. This is from the Mint Repository. If I wanted to use v3,5 I'd have to get it from somewhere else as a tar .bz file and deal with it myself, satisfying all dependencies etc, which I'm not savvy enough in Linux to do it...it's not simple like Windows .exe files.! I'd like to do this but there is a learning curve first before I can...or just wait 'til 3.5 is in the Repo'

 

I might post the problem in the Mint Forum.

Actually, Firefox 3.5.3 has few dependencies, and runs right out of the package on Ubuntu 8.04 - so it should be as easy on Mint.

You can get the tar.bz2, unpack it somewhere in your home directory, then make a link to "firefox" on your desktop, allowing you to run ff3.5.3 at will. It will use your current prefs and update your plug-ins.

It's not the best way to go about it, but it works.

It is only viewed as nonsense if there is no science in it. That is, if the mechanisms involved are not approachable by science.

I keep seeing people make this claim that there are "things not approachable by science". What things would these be?

But unapproachability is not a terminal condition. When correlations between things that don't seem like they should have any correlation are noticed, then guesses are made as to the mechanisms involved. Noticing the correlation begs for a theory to explain it. The quess could be wrong, and lead the school in the wrong direction for a while, but the investigation will sprout other guesses, and the weak ones will wither, while another guess might gain strength. Unfortuneatly, when no guess pans out well, the strongest of the weak might be bolstered by some form of mystical involvement.

 

The correlation still begs for a mechanism.

 

Regards, TAR

Correlation is not causation. It may sometimes be suggestive of it, but it is no guarantee.

As such, it proves nothing and as evidence it is weak.

We can seek evidence for a causative link, but if none is found the answer is certainly not to drag in another entity like "mystical involvement". That would be like noticing the correlation between rivers direction of flow and down hill, then attributing it to "river spirits".

If no evidence for a causative link is found, the answer may well be that the correlation is happenstance. If the correlation continues with 1 to 1 certainty and no causative link is evidenced, then new hypotheses are needed, based on evidence gathered. Perhaps the link will not be found, but it will never be because the scientific method failed us, rather because we lack the skill, knowledge, or technology to find it.

I'd love it if we could build a bigger better collider for 2012. Firing it up in December would be awesome.

This made me think of how bad it would be, on a public relations level, if some physicist working on the LHC or other really big collider said: "We'll get this running and producing results this year if it's the last thing we do."

Gotta watch those turns of phrase.