dslc1000

Thanks for the replies. I'm thinking of parasites that are too small to be visible; that can't be removed by simple washing. Interesting points Mokele: the one about reptiles; and about how many parasites in other organisms can actually survive in humans. But aren't there cases where the parasites clearly do survive in the human host - such as tapeworms? In general, I would have thought that, with the biological similarities between mammals, there would be a huge number of parasites that could survive in both humans and their beef, pork, veal, lamb, whatever. Feel free to enlighten me though.

Hi, Haven't posted here in a while ... hope all is well! I've been considering various arguments in favour of a plant-based diet recently. Not being particularly competent in the field of biology however, I don't fully understand some of the health-related arguments - from either side! To be honest, the more I think about it, the more a plant-based diet does seem like the healthy option to me. And to cut to the chase, I was wondering if the 'generalisation' that: The more complex an organism is, the more likely it is to be a host for other organisms, such as malignant bacteria and parasites is true, in your opinions. In other words, aren't animals, in general, more 'bacteria and parasite -ridden' than plants? After all, isn't this is the reason emphasis is placed on the importance of refrigerating meat and dairy products, and then cooking them at high temperatures (in attempts to kill any remaining harmful organisms) - while fruit and vegetables can be left for considerable periods at room temperature?

ok thanks for the info.

Yeah, good point. Do you mind me asking where you got the monitor - over the net? The cheapest prices I've seen are in the US, and I'm not sure if they'd ship to my country. But, as you suggested, I think I'll be waiting a while anyway.

Will do, once I have a chance. LCD monitors are very expensive it turns out - I've seen prices as high as $1,800 for (I think) a 17" (lowest I found was about $420). Would it be worth the investment? Hmmm..I suspect not. But I'll have to think about it. Cheers!

Are fan-less PCs much more energy-efficient than 'fanned' PCs? I've also read that LCD monitors are considerably more consume less energy. So, I'm thinking of getting myself an energy-efficient PC (also contemplating switching to the Linux OS - but that's a separate issue). Can anyone give me some advice? I've noticed that some people on these forums have built their own computer. I suspect that the initial investment for an energy-efficient PC might be higher than it would be otherwise, but I think the savings would be worth it in the long run. So, are fanless PCs much more expensive? And LCD monitors? Thanks in advance.

Hi. Can anyone explain to me the basics of how retinal imaging works, or maybe provide a link to a page that explains the basic process? Cheers!

Glider seems to have answered your question Blike. That's interesting info Glider - I'll have to go away and have a think about it. Before I do though, I guess the proponents of the James-Lange theory would offer the counter-argument that: strip away the phsiological changes associated with, say, anger, such as tensed muscles etc. and it's hard to imagine actually being angry. I've tried it myself, and I have to say, it's a good point. If I try to become angry without actually allowing my muscles to tense etc., I don't experience what I would actually consider the emotion of anger. P.S. My computer is crashing at the mo, so it might take a while for me to get back to you.

The James-Lange theory states that we experience emotion in response to physiological changes in our body. For example, we feel sad because we cry. The Cannon-Bard theory of emotion on the other hand, says basically the opposite: that we cry because we are sad. I've just discovered a new theory: Schacter’s Two-Factor Theory. These are actually all explained on this page. I myself am exploring the hypothesis that there are two components to an emotion (i.e. two things which constitute an emotion): (i) the physiological changes, and (ii) the thoughts (imagined sensations - words, pictures) which accompany these physiological changes. (..similar to the Schacter's Two Factor Theory?) I'd like to hear your opinion on which of these theories is correct. Also, can anyone tell me what the most widely-accepted one in the scientific community is?

Good point Skye. It would seem to make alot of sense to test whether or not retinal has photon-emitting capabilities in vitro rather than in vivo. Unfortunately I don't have access to the apparatus which would enable me to do this. I'm not sure if you're asking me or skye that question Neurocomp2003, but I can assure I have no intention of doing either of those things. Maybe I'll try simply lifting up people's eyelids, and looking at their pupils myself. I don't know if many people would be willing subjects for that experiment however, especially if there was a risk they could be woken up. I also hope that actually lifting the eyelids - and thereby allowing any external light to enter the eye - would not disrupt any photon-emitting activity that might be going on at the retina (a dark room would quite possibly help I think).

Hi Pinch (if you don't mind me calling you that). In one of my previous threads (HERE), I explained why I believe that photons of light are actually required for vision to take place. Now, as far as I know, no light actually reaches the inside of the brain, and it doesn't have a means of generating light that I know of either. One of the things I want to determine in this experiment is whether or not the molecules of retinal in the photoreceptors at the back of the eye have this ability. It is already known that they absorb photons of light; I am suggesting that they might also emit it as well. The devising of the experiment is encouraged by my discovery three days ago that there are actually nerves which travel from inside the brain to the retina. THIS article (section: 5. Centrifugal fibers in mammalian retinas) explains that centrifugal fibers (coming from inside the brain) have been traced as far as the inner nuclear layer of the retina, where they disappear. This is the layer directly beside the photoreceptors themselves. And note: the fibers disappear here; they don't necessarily end here. This is mainly speculation as of yet, but I certainly think its worth pursuing. neurocomp2003: Yeah, I suspect that your doubts are well-founded. And, yeah, damaging tissue is another thing I'm afraid of. To answer your question (I think), I want to test the hypothesis that this (the retina and the rest of eyeball) is: (i) where the images we see while dreaming are actually constructed, and (ii) where we 'actually see' when dreaming.

I want to devise an experiment which has the following purpose: To determine whether or not photons of light are being emitted at the retina during R.E.M. sleep (i.e. dreaming). I'm thinking of using photographic film, or some other photochemical material, which I would place over the cornea - part directly over pupil - of the subject (with their permission of course). Can anyone help me devise such an experiment? Some possible difficulties I can think of: (i) the rapid eye movement could make it difficult to keep the film in place. (ii) photographic film might need to be very sensitive. One of my textbooks states: "The truth is that retinas don't radiate light" ('Neuroscience: Exploring the Brain' - 2nd Edition; Bear, Connors & Paradiso; p. 367). I suspect that this hasn't been confirmed however, and that they were just presuming this to be the case. Having said that, if anyone can tell me definitively that light can not be emitted by the molecules of retinal in the photoreceptors, and refer me to literature to back up their assertion, I would appreciate if they did so - to save me wasting my time. Thanks!

Hi Ice_Phoenix87. I hope you don't think I'm hijacking this thread - maybe it's not the kind of experiment you're looking for - but I devised a visual experiment a while ago, outlined here, which challenges the prevailling theory of visual awareness. If you or anyone else could carry it out and let me know if you get the same results as myself, I'd greatly appreciate it. Just a long shot!

Thanks for the tip! I'd actually enquired/searched on two other sites already, but didn't get any response, so decided to post here. I haven't been to http://www.phpbuilder.com before though.

Ah, I've found the error of my ways! All I need do is replace: $parts=explode("\",$file); $first=$parts[0]; $second=$parts[1]; $whole=$first.$second; with: $whole=stripslashes($file); This doesn't cause a problem, while the other one does for some reason. Fingers crossed that it won't! I was a bit too hasty with my post!

Hi. I have been using something similar to the following code, and it works fine. $file = $HTTP_GET_VARS['file']; header("Content-type: audio/x-mp3"); header("Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=$file.mp3"); readfile("$file.mp3"); But when I change it to this it doesn't work, because there is other output before header() is called. (The reason I want to remove the "\"s from $file is because strings with apostrophes inherit them for some reason, and the files I'm trying to read aren't found as a consequence.) $file = $HTTP_GET_VARS['file']; //This part causes the problem because it's before header() is called $parts=explode("\",$file); $first=$parts[0]; $second=$parts[1]; $whole=$first.$second; header("Content-type: audio/x-mp3");//This is the line I get a parse error on header("Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=$whole.mp3"); readfile("$whole.mp3"); Can ob_start and ob_end_flush be used to get around this. I've tried a few things, but it's not working. Can anyone help me?

According to some, the ‘adaptation’ which follows the initial disorientation after a few days in the inverting goggles experiment might be no more than an adaptation of their brains ability to make decisions based on the visual information it receives (e.g. visuo-motor adaptation). In other words, it seems that they continue to see their world upside-down. I personally find the notion that ‘what they actually see’ could re-invert itself implausible for two reasons. Firstly, if the re-inversion was sudden, i.e. occurred in an instant, surely it would be perfectly manifest to those actually wearing the goggles. On the other hand, if the re-inversion was gradual, there would have to be a stage when the visual field was neither upright nor upside-down. This, which sounds very bizarre, I think also ought to perfectly manifest to the observers, no matter what it actually looked like. So, along with a certain number of others (http://faculty.smu.edu/bthompso/spatialcontent.html - paragraphs 4-7 under section ‘Experiments with Inverting Goggles’) , I think the adaptation referred to is merely an adaptation in the brains ability to make decisions based on what the observer sees.

Aman: First of all, hands up! I acknowledge (and acknowledged from the beginning) that the phenomenon of dreaming can't be explained by what I've said. I also acknowledge that, although I've suggested that its photons we actually see in non-dreaming situations, that the inside of the brain - where dreaming seemingly occurs - receives little or no light. I'm just trying to interpret things as I see them. Perhaps the two phenomena use different mechanisms. But to try and answer your question (in a roundabout way): There is an experiment known as the 'double-slit' experiment used to highlight the strange behaviour of photons and other quantum entities. It illustrates how photons actually exist in a superposition of different states at the same time. This superposition doesn't collapse - i.e. the photon doesn't become a single, real photon - until a measurement is carried out on the photon. What actually qualifies as a measurement is a topic of debate. Some people feel that only observation by a conscious mind actually qualifies as a measurement. Anyway, you might know this already. I mention it because, what I have suggested is that the observation/measurement necessary to collapse the superposition of quantum states in such experiments is the same observation/measurement that takes place when we open our eyes and look at a photon! If this is correct, well, how the brain actually does it is another matter.

Yes, what I've asserted does have strange implications, but I stand by it nonetheless. I don't see any other explanation for the different results of the experiments. At the moment, I'm looking into whether double-vision can be explained by my theory. One of the reasons I thought it was a good idea to share my ideas here was so anyone could point out flaws in my theory, before I continue to develop it further - so I can be more sure I'm not wasting my time. If you think what I'm saying is logical, great! Anyone else, feel free to offer your opinions. Please just don't be derisive!

Caps'n'Refsmatt: Yes, that is what I'm asserting. But that is only one aspect of what I've written. That merely deals with where the act of seeing takes place. The other aspect of what I've written deals with what is necessary for the act of seeing to take place. This is of course the registration of the visual information collected by the retinal photoreceptors in V1, V2 etc.. And I think that this registration might qualify as the measurement necessary to collapse the superposition of states of what we are actually seeing, i.e. photons. Pinch Paxton: I'm glad you've expressed an interest in what I've said, but I can by no means agree with you if you were implying (maybe you weren't - but I just want to clarify in case) that I am taking a 'joyride with science' and 'disposing of everything'. What I am doing is challenging an existing theory, but my approach is perfectly logical and rational (as far as I can see). In relation to your ideas on how we actually see, maybe you're right in proposing that the observer sends out his own signal. But you're wrong in your suggestion that the photon could be 'faster than light', as they are the same thing, i.e. photons are light! But, again, thanks for expressing an interest!

This post is a furthering of the ideas I discussed in an earlier post - http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2700. After thinking some more, and reading up on an ‘inverting goggles ’ experiment* which Sayonara referred me to (my acknowledgements to him), I’m confident enough to make explicit ideas which were merely implied in that post. In the 1st experiment (outlined in my previous post - looking at an object underwater), one sees the object upright . In the 2nd experiment (using inverting goggles, but not underwater), one sees the object inverted. In both cases, however, the image on the retina is upright**. So, why is what we see different in each case? As I see it, this is directly related to where the act of seeing actually takes place . Let’s consider the possibilities. It is common knowledge that it does not take place at the retina, as, in normal circumstances, the image formed there is upside-down, while we actually see things the right way up. This led people to conclude that the act of seeing always takes place somewhere inside the brain, after the brain has somehow reinverted the image. And it is this that is the prevailing theory. I, however, assert that it is incorrect, for the simple fact that, if it were correct, the results of the above-mentioned experiments would be the same. But they aren’t the same; in as much as the results of an experiment possibly can differ, these results do. In one experiment the observer sees the visual field upside-down ; in the other experiment the observer sees the visual-field upright . While in both cases the image formed on the retina is the same. The logical thing to do is to look where the images actually still differ. And where is this? Well, by the time the images reach the retina, and from that stage onwards, they are the same - i.e. upright. So we have to look to the stage(s) before the light rays of the image reach the retina. It is logical to conclude that this is where the act of seeing actually takes place. Now, hold your horses! I want to make clear at this point what I am asserting, and what I am not asserting. What I am asserting is that the act of seeing (with, it seems, the exception of lucid dreaming and possibly other visual phenomena) does not take place in the brain. I am by no means asserting, however, that transmission of the visual information from the retina to striate cortex and beyond is not necessary for the act of seeing to take place. I am merely dealing with where the act takes place; I am not dealing with what is necessary for it to take place. In fact, I think the acknowledgement that ‘registration of the visual information in the striate cortex and beyond is necessary’ is a very important one. Let me explain. Let’s go back to my assertion that the act of seeing takes place at some stage before the light rays from an image reach the retina. What use is this information? Well, it drops a huge hint as to what we might actually be seeing, i.e. photons . Yes, I am suggesting that what we see might actually be photons, the quanta of light. Even if you find it hard to swallow the notion that we actually see photons, you will agree that it is photons that at least (indirectly) elicit the phenomenon of ‘seeing’. But let’s go a step further and hypothesize that it is photons we actually see . Ok. So, what are photons? Well, they are quantum entities. And, being quantum entities, they will exist in a superposition of quantum states until their superpostiton is collapsed during an observation/measurement***. Basically, a photon, like any other quantum entity, doesn’t become real until it is measured. What I would like to alert people to (along with my earlier assertion) is the possibility that the collapse of the superposition is intrinsically linked with the phenomenon of vision (the measurement necessary for the collapse in this case being the registration of the visual information in striate cortex and beyond-i.e. V2,V3 etc.). So, my theory consists of two components: (i) The act of seeing in normal circumstances (excluding phenomena such as dreaming) does not take place in the brain. It takes place at some stage before light from an image reaches the retina. (ii) The phenomenon of ‘seeing’ occurs when the superposition of states of the quantum entities being observed - in this case photons - collapses. And the cause of this collapse is the measurement/registration of the visual information in striate cortex (i.e. visual cortex) and beyond (i.e. V2, V3, V4 etc.). I would also consider these (if correct, which I think they are – the first one at least) to be a solid basis for investigating whether or not the same principles apply to the other senses, viz. hearing, gustation, olfaction and the tactile senses; with the semblance that the act of perception occurs in the mind being accounted for by the fact that, while perception can actually take place outside the brain, registration by the brain of information from sensory receptors is needed for it to take place. I’m only suggesting that it might account for some aspects, not all. Phantom pain, dreaming, synesthesia – and I’m sure no shortage of other phenomena – seem to demand that this qualification be made. Feedback welcome, and wanted actually - positive or negative. As long as its not derisive. If you think I’m crazy, please just skip on to another thread, or else limit your criticism to a revealing of flaws/deficincies in my logic, or possible errors/oversights. I just don’t see how one can possibly account for the difference in the results of the two experiments other than by accepting my first assertion. If they can account for it, I’ll reconsider my views. ---------- *In 1897, George Stratton, a Californian psychologist, carried out an often-cited ‘inverting goggles’ experiment. His experiment, and others since, have indeed confirmed that people do ‘see’ upside-down when wearing the special goggles, at least in the first few days of wearing them. **I don’t expect you to take my word for it. Go carry out the experiment yourself if you feel like it (absurd and bizarre though it may sound). It’s very simple! ***Some feel that only observation by a conscious mind qualifies as a measurement. ---------- (The theory shared in this post is the author's own)

I've just copied it from the Notepad attachment on to the body of the post. I should have done that in the first place - sorry! (...oops...)

I absolutely wasn't trying to knock what you were saying Sayonara - I hope it didn't come across that way (sorry if it did!) I am grateful that you made the point, as it seems to be very relevant.

Sayonara: Whatever about the brain adjusting its behaviour over a period of days - the notion that it can do so in an instant (as would need to be the case to disprove the above experiment) is very tenuous. In fact, your citation of this example consolidates the validity of the experiment, as it demonstrates just how long the brain needs to adjust its behaviour. Cap'n Refsmmat: I think perhaps you didn't understand what I was saying in my initial post. I can read upside-down too, but that has nothing to do with my point. In the experiment, its not that the brain merely makes decisions based on the visual information as if the object in the water is upright (as it does with the visual information from a book you are reading, even if it is upside down); You actually see the image upright.

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying Sayonara - brain is a bit tired at the moment! That goggles help invert the image makes sense to me, as they restore the air-cornea interface, but let me stress...the experiment above is not to be carried out wearing goggles (...if anyone actually has the time or inclination to carry it out that is...). Nor was I wearing goggles when I carried it out myself.