BrainMan

Humans are biological creatures. Humans are (or can be) moral. Ergo, biology is not completely immoral. And don't give me that "culture" crap, because culture is a biological phenomenon like any other...

BTW- The tiny bones in the ear used to be part of a jaw (if memory serves), and sensitiviy to vibrations turned out to be useful. Happy hunting!

Given that biologists still have jobs, not every question you can formulate will have an answer. But there are more than enough interesting findings to keep you going. What you have to remember though is that each detail you want to know about (for, say, humans) will eventually take you far from human biology and lead to a whole new game with entirely different questions. That said... The problem is that much of what is known is spread out in scientific journals. But a good overview necessary for understanding the evolutionary acomplishments would be Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution by Carroll, R. L. Humans are really just a twist on the same basic design of other vertebrates... This, along with a textbook on vertebrate physiology, and a text on human physiology, would seem to be what you are asking for... although some questions will only be answered in passing or not at all, which means digging into the references- digging into the scineitific journals. At that point, you will have reached the limits of knowledge aside from visiting and talking to the research facilities conducting current work on the subjects. And then, after doing that, you will know what is known, and you will know how to go about discovering (or at least searching for) answers to questions that are not yet known. Then you could write your own book, and you might realize that the best way to convey what you know to others without your knowledge would be to structure the book entirely differently from what you seem to have in mind here. But I digress...

Here is a site that has a program to make you hallucinate! Try it. http://www.ebaumsworld.com/optical.html How does this work, exactly? And why?

I had it bang its head into the wall. lol

Kevin- I think you misunderstood. The site did not say that we only use 10% of our brains, it said that only 10% of it is conscious. I agree that the number is made up, but you seem to attack something that the site was not really claiming. The idea of hypnosis dealing with a person's unconscious is simply that people won't be able to consicously remember what happened during hypnosis and won't know, consciously, why they are acting the way they do with respect to post-hypnotic suggestions. In fact, you can give people explicit instructions that conflict with the post-hypnotic suggestions, and actually see the conflict between the two when you look at the data (compared to controls). Hypnosis, then, has unconscious influences. But this does not mean that people are unconscious while hypnotised (they aren't) or that there is some kind of "direct link" being established with the unconscious mind.

err...

You wouldn't believe how many of those symbols simply didn't show up for me when I entered the thread. Upon leaving and re-entering, they started to pop up on the screen properly, but it took a good few times. Sin never did show up. Anyone know why?

Could someone demonstrate to me that significant toxic effects occur at the level of usage of an average marijuana consumer? By "significant", I mean capable of having real effects on memory. That means you must demonstrate the link between cell loss and memory loss, showing that average usage causes such effects. If you cannot, then I must declare these pronouncements premature. Nowhere in the cited paper did it say that neurotoxicity leads to memory loss. What it said is that it "may" be a contributing factor or cause. Why should I take such non-commital language seriously, and why are YOU taking it seriously?

Yes, there are these benefits- neuroprotective effects, lower rate of Alzheimer's, and so on.- likely due to nicotine's effects on the acetylcholine systems of the brain (these neurons that nicotine acts upon are the neurons that are most effected by Alzheimer’s). The interesting part is that lower rates of Alzheimer's disease are found in people that used to smoke but have quit, as well as people that continued to smoke. You might tell your friends that quitting now will not stop the beneficial actions. Besides, as others already pointed out, the risks outweigh the potential benefits by orders of magnitude.

Could the ant have been too small for the microwaves to effect it?

It can be neurotoxic, yes... but marijuana is also a neuroprotective agent. It just depends where you look and why.

Despite what used to be thought, it is now known that there are new neurons being generated throughout the lifespan in many areas of the brain- the hippocampus, for example. Nonetheless, the number of neurons decline over time.

It says the file is damaged. I cant even try!

Ah, now I actually do see the problem! Wolfson is correct.

Yes, I see it. I says: X Im not sure there is anything to solve though. That's a variable dude, not a problem.

Im laughing so hard I am crying!

A genious is technically defined as anyone that knows aproximately as much as I do, and can solve approximately as many problems. If lower than me, then the person is not a genious. If apparently significantly higher than me, then the person is obviously faking it as so is only a fake genious. And actually, those close to me are really only pseudogeniouses, because they do not actually match me. Proof: A = A. Let us define me as A. You are clearly not A. I am a genious, so you are clearly not. Any attempt to deny this is a contradiction, for you would be claiming that A != A, which anyone can see is clearly false.

Diseases: 1) Yes 1A) I think they are retarded. Disagree. 2) How the f**k should I know!? 2A) No. 2a) No. Medicine: 1) I suppose so. 1A) Yes. 1B) No. 2) No. 2A) No. 3) Yes. Crops/livestock 1) Yes, certainly. 1A) Definitely not! 1B) Not really, no. 2) No. 2A) Why would I? 3) Absolutely! 3A) Yes- super cows would be really cool to have and look at. People would pay money to see cows with giant heads, for example. This is both psychologically saticfying for the observers, and beneficial in terms of profit for the owners. 3B) There is no agreed upon definition of "God", so I must declare your question to be meaningless. I am a drug dealer. No, I am currently looking for new customers to help with my cash flow.

If science cannot understand it, then I think you answered your own question...

ahem...well...I was talking about physics, but I see now that the first thread was about psychics.

Although this is not quite what you seem to have in mind... reduction is about reducing one theory (pr set of theories) to another. If we could, using modern neuroscience, explain the exact mechanisms and processes at work during the formulation and development of all theories in physics, we could effectively reduce physics to neuroscience. Given that neuroscience is supposed to reduce to physics, I think this is a bit of a problem.

I appologize, I was out of line. I have been in a bad mood as of late...

You were using the wrong equations in your program.

I think you are deeply confused Kevin Conti. Your understanding of evolutionary psychology is mediocore at best.