Mrs Zeta

no death would very quickly become a major problem.

Why? What problem?

Arrogant much?

Can you suggest a more complex organic creation than the human brain?

Evolution favours survival. So, (specifically referring only to humans) why must we die? What is the point of (Nature, God, whatever) creating the most advanced, most complex organism in the universe and then killing it?

I can understand deaths through random events, predators microscopic and macroscopic, but I fail to see the point of ageing, an unnecessary and cruel process that deliberately leads to death.

I dismiss a priori any replies mentioning death as ‘a necessary means for making room for new generations’, natural selection, and the like. We can also evolve and attain higher levels of fitness by living healthily for many centuries or millennia.

Briefly, I see homosexuality as the beginning of something evolutionarily deeper. I believe that the development of higher levels of intelligence in homo sapiens will lead to the progressive reduction of sexual reproduction, increase of homosexuality (there is no specific reason for this other than the removal of the need for sexual reproduction), and as a consequence, the abolition of human ageing.

Capsaicin in cream form is notoriously useful as a local anaesthetic in cases of arthritis and neuralgia. It acts a s a counter-irritant.

This topic asks an interesting ethical question http://www.sciencefo...765#entry674765

Assuming we can wipe out mosquitoes and have no consequences, should we do it?

Your question cannot be answered logically. There is no reasonable way to be sure that there would be no consequences. There are always some consequences to everything.

This is one of the problems associated with 'Consciousness Uploading'. It MAY work if one's consciousness is uploaded (via an intermediary AI device) to another, younger or healthier version of his/hers own brain, which would have been cloned using DNA from the original body. In this case, the structural element of the brain would be the same as the original, so the thoughts could be interpreted in the the same light as in the original brain. This is an intra-species tranfer. It will not work in cases of inter-species tranfer for the reasons given in the above post.

A small degree of stress (challenge) can upregulate several steps of the immune responce. This is based on the well-established concept of hormesis

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18480142

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21143891

I am not a chemist, but I have always thought that some film producers (for example, science fiction) have been making a fundamental mistake. When a strong acid is poured out of its container and then dissolves everything in its path, why does it not dissolve the container itself in the first place?

I don't know if your posts are tongue-in-cheek but there is a serious (scientific) movement aiming to do this. The idea of Consciousness Uploading (or Mind Uploading, see wikipedia) has been around for several years, perhaps decades. And the idea of cloning a new young body from your own frozen stem cells etc and then downloading your consciousness to your new brain has also been around in scientific circles. It is a well known immortalist subject.

However, it will never happen. Or, if it happens, it will never be of any use to anybody because the digital uploading process lacks one simple notion, that of physical Movement. To be a healthy human is not just to have a functioning mind (consciousness) but it is also to be able to move and interact with your environment. Otherwise, you may just as well be a conscious paraplegic

Some of us are living in a rapidly advancing technological age (the technological singularity). Others are still living in a virtual medieval age. It is quite fragmented and it depends on where you are -geographically.

The concept of 'energy' is not confined to Physics only. What about informational energy (Shannon's concepts). Also biological energy (in the form of ATP etc), and metaphysical notions of energy. But, I suspect, if one goes deep enough, there will be common grounds for any type of energy, a 'thing' that makes stuff happen

This is a case of local inflammation with release of inflammatory compounds like histamine etc. There is no higher input. If that was the case then, in theory, one would be able to control the degree and extend of inflammation after a bite, sprain or injury.

-I am in my first year in faculty of medicine

-and i usually ask myself : "when will the day come ? "

-the day to study hard and be brilliant

-I am intelligent and fast thinker , but i don't like holding a book more than 30 minutes.

-but i admit i don't forget fast.

-so,if any one know the best ways for being motivated, it will be useful to see his or her point of view.

AND THANKS.................

It appears that you already are motivated. Why not try other methods of learning for example from the internet (lay articles, scientific papers, graphics and photographs etc) and self assessment online courses, also via internships (volunteer attendances at a medical centre or clinic) plus book study (30 mins at a time, four times a day), peer discussions by email or Facebook groups. Try to find 2-3 mentors who will support you and guide you. In my days, an innovative way of learning was to take our professor out for a meal!

So, what's the question, exactly? Do I agree with the decision someone in Russia made to offer funds? Do I think the baseline average intelligence of the globe is increasing as a result of the crowd sourcing effect? Do I think the goals of this institute are worthy? Your question is horribly unclear.

My question is to see if there is anyone who is interested in discussing the idea/notion/theory of the Global Brain.

This includes issues like a possible increase of average global intelligence as you put it, a possible decrease of individual intelligence as global intelligence increases, anatomical/biological/structural/social analogies between the human brain and the Global Brain, underlying evolutionary mechanisms that apply to the concept, short and long-term future development scenarios resulting from the co-operation between the human brain and communication technologies, the future of the internet as a means for creating a global superorganism etc.

The Global Brain is not about a supercomputer taking over the world, at the exclusion of humans. It is the total sum of the people plus their computers communicating with each other now, exchanging meaningful information, processing it and modifying their behaviour as a result.

You, reading this now, are a small part of the Global Brain.

Your response or decision not to respond to my comments will influence mine and other readers' behaviour, positively or negatively (just like a neuron in the brain fires or does not fire depending on the degree of input it receives).

Is there anybody who is interested in discussing the Global Brain idea? I am surprised not to see a discussion here, considering that this is one of the most important developments in the history of mankind. Or maybe there was a discussion here already and I missed it?

See this: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/SUPORGLI.html

A Russian billionaire has just given 5 million to a university, in order to set up the first academic Global Brain Institute.

Do you agree with this idea?

Caring what others think is actually a cornerstone for our society's model. Communication and cooperation coupled with high intelligence and opposable thumbs are what gives us mastery of the planet currently.

You can gave communication and co-operation without having 'care'. In a way, computers communicate and co-operate between them but they don't care about anything.....

This is an example of 'self-organisation' but I cannot see why it indicates that viruses were the first forms of life. Self-organisation can be a property of anything, from viruses and bacteria to societies.

To answer your questions in reverse order, yes it is possible to stop caring for others, but this is not the secret of true happiness. The secret is not to see happiness as the main target of your life. The main target is pleasure or satisfaction, not happiness.

Our genes code for the biological basis of our behaviour but the rest is socially acquired. We all try to better ourselves one way or another, and this is because there is a deep ultimate biological reason: to find partners and procreate.

One could argue that the activation of the varicella zoster (Chickenpox) virus that causes herpes zoster (shingles) is a typical example of 'infecting' yourself.

I can actually deal with the idea that sexual stimulation is taxing on your health, what I really find depressing is this : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/yourview/1559672/Does-falling-in-love-damage-your-health.html

 

 

In fact, sexual stimulation can be beneficial (even necessary) for health and longevity. This is based on hormesis. I can send you the relevant text if you are that interested

"Taoist monks believe that sexual abstinence is the key to longevity. "

Yet they keep on dying.

You are mistaken, they don't die. Those who follow the right path and become chsien (immortal) live forever in inaccessible mountains or distant villages. Yes.

Is semen production as taxing on the body as sperm production is? Does ejaculation or even just masturbation/sex trigger more sperm/semen production? Does sexual arousal itself?

 

The production of semen or any other liquid in the body (saliva, tears, etc) is hardly taxing - in the longevity sense. What causes ageing is the inability of the body to repair repeated damage. Increased production of semen etc is not going to make any difference either way. Ditto for the production of sperm.

Taoist monks believe that sexual abstinence is the key to longevity. Every time a man ejaculates, he looses 'energy' so eventually he ages and dies (to my knowledge, tha fate of women is not mentioned in relation to this).

From the evolutionary point of view it is clear that we age because the allocation of resourcers favours the survival of the DNA rather than our body. So, in theory, the virtual abscence of sex/reproduction must be directly related to longevity.

The goal of evolution is not to have as much offspring as possible, but to increase fitness within a certain niche. Modern human's niche is survival within a technological/intelligent society and this does not necessarily fit with having many children, or with having any sex at all. What matters is increase of intelligence, not increase of offspring.