foodchain

Being this is a public forum I do not think anyone really wants to engage in any debate about the issue. I am playing on the devils advocate side as some others happen to be, and I am not saying no one is trying here. What I would like to think though is that the subject matter of the debate is to heavy to really allow for an open analysis to take place for what people could do if they wanted to in regards to the debate. No one wants that social image, as I encountered this one time doing devils advocate for bestiality, most the time instead of debating the issue you simply got replies that made you feel as if the opposition was just saying "you crazy" and that was about it.

We have managed to avoid any flaming so far, which could have easily occurred. Its a shame that social factors basically kills what could be a good debate.

I don't think anyone is arguing for any form of actual change to existing laws surrounding CP, I might be wrong but I seriously doubt it.

I still lack a response on my earlier foray into the topic about it being legal would mean everyone would suddenly want it, as if we are all repressed sexually from true desires or something, maybe its a bit insulting I dunno, I am just trying as I see this argument used so many times surrounding issues like this, that if we allow for something the world will end basically, though you never find much anything attached to that line beyond that.

Liquids cannot expand to fill a volume like gases, due to strong intermolecular forces holding them near each other. The pressure they exert is because of their weight, pressure = density * gravitational acceleration * height. Temperature is not a factor in this, other than that high temperatures tend to slightly reduce density.

Why do gas laws have a temperature variable then? Like pv=nrt?

Bio is an exception to the stereotype! I should have stated that beforehand, my apologies.

 

Where have your experiences taken you with engineering and biology? I'm definitely interested in bio as well. Hell, I wasn't offered much chem and physics in high-school, but I got a high dose of bio, and I find molecular and cellular biology to be fascinating.

I think I can understand where you are coming from. I am apathetic at this point to most majors simply because I cant decide. Typically I am just making a decisions based on what I think I could do for a career, as in day in and out over years. TO me that seems the best criteria as going through years of college to find out you hate whats on the other end for a job would just suck.

A quick point here to mention (I'll make other points and give details when I have time, but seeing that similar points to this have been brought up a number of times already) is a connection between demand and supply. Simply put, if child pornography in games is not censored and can legally be sold, the financial incentives as described by economic theories of demand and supply will encourage increased production of child pornography which would harm children.

Yes, and I would agree but by that logic if we remove laws on crack cocaine we should see a massive spike in crack addiction. My basic premise is twofold. We make an assumption that denying certain liberties will curtail that behavior, which is questionable, and more so that it will in this cause reduce bulk offenses, which giving murder seems dubious at best. The next chunk is that is also states to a certain extent that without such laws so many people would be doing this, that is without murder laws a great deal of people in the now would actually be murderers, or crack addicts for instance. I have a hard time accepting that notion overall, as I think its to simplistic and or does not actually grasp the reality behind something like this.

If crack cocaine were suddenly legal I would feel no more compelled to begin using it then if it were illegal for example. So it in general makes the assumption that a large extent of our populous is actually interested in X but does not do it simply on law which is then coupled to a supply and demand argument.

At certain energy levels forces are supposed to take on symmetry and sort of become the same, like the electroweak for example. As I understand this its basically a mechanism that is to aid science understand time leading out from the big bang to possible into it, if not "past" it in some sense. Now I am sure this is to include extant physical theories like QM and relativity. So giving the nature of it all, why would anyone expect the same forces or particles to "cascade" out on symmetry breaking. Does our current universe exclude the possibility of that in some experiment on earth. Such as when we do make an electroweak force, why does it not break down to something strange?

I am basically wondering if quantum entanglement may be at work here, or why the universal wave function is even possible to think about, or for that matter why we assume physical laws are homogeneous the universe over. I guess it would be because of the big bang that we have a like universe, but then again why does symmetry breaking in experiments not yield something bizarre?

My basic thoughts on the issue is that the universe as it is now dictates what can be "born" into it from a quantum mechanical viewpoint. That when this stuff is occurring, these interactions, they are occurring in a spacetime already fashioned, with matter that is already fashioned, and that for it to exist means it has to be observable, or can interact, and that it has energy has to come into a form that can satisfy such requirements, or that the stuff can be conserved even while its in a sense transforming from something or breaking or gaining symmetry. Could entanglement be a mechanism to explain how energy embedds itself in the existing universe thus stays similar or homogeneous?

Just to explore another angle of the "anti" argument, I think it may be worth considering the "regulated substance" view instead of the "freedom of speech" view. When it comes to freedom of speech, we do allow for censorship of phrases that include threats against someone's life, and direct statements telling people to commit crimes.

 

I think it's worth arguing that child pornography is a type of "regulated substance" that, while not a drug, causes suffering to society on par (per capita) to that of hard drugs. By that I mean, if the number of people who used heroin viewed child pornography you could expect sexually based assaults on children to be comparable to crime funded drug habits.

 

 

I could own heroin for non-consumption purposes, either to collect, or some non-narcotic use. Maybe I just like the powder to use to grit the path with when it snows. When you think about it - what crime would I be committing? I would not be selling it, distributing it, and not using it... but it's a controlled substance and I could be put in jail for possessing it. I can understand the logic - I probably shouldn't be allowed to own weapons grade plutonium either, even if I have no malicious use for it planned. My individual case does not trump society's right to make blanket regulations due to it's inherently dangerous nature.

 

In the same way, child pornography can be considered a dangerous material. Even if you overlooked the harm to the child, the product is dangerous. You could choose to debate whether the dangers are overplayed - both with child porn and drugs - but that is an aside to the fact that society has deemed it dangerous and chosen to regulate it.

It is tricky because it overlaps the "freedom of speech" issue, and regulating information as a dangerous material is dangerous in itself and open to abuse. However, we already to regulate freedom of speech with regards words spoken to hire hitmen and prostitutes among other things. Plus, the possibility of abuse does not affect the pure abstract intent of such regulation.

 

I don't think it should be criminal to unwittingly view child pornography anymore than it is a crime to be involuntarily drugged. From my understanding of the law it can be overly harsh, but I don't think the basis itself is flawed.

 

 

Now, the other issue - synthetic child porn - through CGI/airbrushing to make photo realistic child pornography that does not actually ever harm a child.... I have to say I consider this still open to regulation. If a new chemical was discovered that had the exact same effects as heroin but was synthetic it would be legal at first but quickly become regulated in the same way as heroin. That's why I break it down into two crimes: the first being the production of child pornography (the provider) and second the distribution or consumption as a controlled material. The synthetic stuff is just as likely to "feed the habit" of pedophiles as the real deal... it just didn't hurt a child to produce. Regardless of your own benign intentions for possessing such materials, you can't really argue you should be a special case unless you think heroin and plutonium should be unregulated for "well intentioned" use.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Just a side note on the more direct OP topic:

 

Learning tools in the form of games, or situational simulators are on the rise - would a pediatric computer program be considered "peddling kiddie porn" if it included child anatomy? Should it be strictly controlled and only be allowed in the hands of doctors? Is it conceivable that a parent may wish to have access to such information to better know warning signs of ailments and know when their child's health is in danger? I don't know of any conditions off the top of my head that would require "kiddie porn" equivalent photography but it's certainly conceivable. Such access to information would help children - but how would it's use be regulated to ensure it wasn't employed as kiddie porn?

Yes but on an off angle lets look at automobiles. How many people yearly all over the world die via cars for instance. Yet this as acceptable and why, is it some form of sacrifice for progress of some kind, and what kind of progress, do you think cars are used by people who make kiddie porn along with the internet? So when it comes down to the crime itself society by in large does not look to reduce enablers if you will, or for that matter attempt to design a system that is as safe as possible.

You could even look upon medicine and say it enables people to do all kinds of stupid things they might not if they knew no medical attention would be giving to them in the aftermath, so medicine enables stupidity?

Saying that making child porn legal will increase the amount of child porn produced has the subtle or hidden tone that people, or the amount of, will seek to purchase such, why is that? It’s like the argument I find against homosexuality at times. That if we don’t fight it we will all become homosexuals, to me that whole premise sounds false because no one can prescribe a mechanism as to why that would occur. I want to know why making something legal will increase its base of consumption, not just the token that it will.

Plus it sounds scary to think that bulks of people would be downloading that material if not law was against it. Then again there is a step penalty for illegally downloading pirated material. In fact a 15 year old girl got charged, or her family did, 750$ per track at a few hundred tracks. So did the law work there, or is it more or less the social aspect of this crime which is more potent to stop the crime then say the police and laws like that. Sociology has terms for this I just fail to remember them.

Now dont get me confused as to think I am arguing for the topic at hand to be legal, I don’t care for it, its more or less the logic behind the argument I am after like iNow.

It seemed the only sane thing to do.

My problem with global warming is the idea so so human orientated. Every thing seems to center around keeping the planet just like it is or was or should be or some other rather arbitrary idea.

 

The Earth changes, are we at least one of the engines of the current change? Almost certainly. Could there be other factors involved? Almost certainly. Will the Earth and it's ecology survive global warming? Almost certainly. Would it be better for the Earth to change slower? Almost certainly.

 

If the evidence we have is any indication much of the history of complex life on Earth has been on a much warmer earth than we see now. Will humans get the shitty end of the stick from climate change? Almost certainly. We will have to adapt, maybe actually do some things different, make choices that are less than self centered, or maybe even make choices that even more self centered.

 

One thing is sure, change is coming, at this point who done it, isn't as important as how do we make sure humanity survives, grows, and learns from what is happening.

If that is even possible. What if food systems begin to collapse in a few hundred years from it. Sure you will be dead, but would you in the now what to be responsible for all of that death, human and otherwise?

Rapid environmental change is never really a good thing for life. Sure some stuff may live, and undoubtedly will, but what, and how will that look. With all of the risk, why risk it? I don't want acid oceans anymore then I want plastic oceans. I want our biosphere to be stable, not static. I don't want poisonous foods, poisoned air and water.

While this goes away directly from GW, the point about GW is that the impact will be negative to the current global theme anyway you look at it. You will have massive extinctions coupled with all kinds of other change such as invasive species, invasive everything because the global environment again will be changed by GW. Can anyone really speculate what will happen when all the ice melts? That is serious dramatic change in a relatively short period of time.

IF you increase CO2 you increase all of its effects. The more or you do this the more change you cause, its really quite simple. I could easily see America if not the industrial world being able to change to something else easily within twenty years if it was truly desired. Point of fact though is its not. That change could easily stave off so much.

Here's one that apparently has been submitted for peer review.

 

http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/Review_Article_HTML.php

 

I asked in another GW thread about Lindzen and Choi's paper submitted for peer review earlier this year and have seen no responses on it.

 

I also searched the site here for discussions on Lindzen's ERBE data conclusions as well as this Petition Project and found nothing. I don't know if I'm not searching correctly, or if no one is refuting their claims or simply ignoring them altogether.

 

My logic has always been that consensus is right more than it is wrong and that it is irrational to pick and choose when to reject scientific consensus unless you're an expert in that field. All us laymen can do is read articles by smart people and attempt to educate ourselves, but at the end of the day, we are not experts and any ole smart person can refute the claims of another and we wouldn't know which is correct. So, nodding to consensus is the only logical choice.

 

But this is only taking me so far. Several folks keep throwing up the issue about consensus itself. A weak consensus is not the same as a major one. There does appear to be a smaller consensus than on other empirically based theories, such as evolution and gravity.

 

So I come here to ask. What is to be made of the 31,478 signers of this petition?

 

 

 

 

More importantly, what is the peer review conclusion on these papers? I'm talking about both Lindzen and Choi's radiation conclusions as well as this one posted on Petition Project by Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, and Willie Soon of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.

Probably because its biased I would say. They ignore a lot of stuff about GW you can find in other reports and I would even dare to say show a good degree of bias while doing it.

You really could say so much about stuff, like the acidification of the oceans, to what about the constant increase of CO2. I mean the count itself in terms of PPM is increasing like it has not for a rather long period of time even in geological terms. This has no other condition to produce it except for human behavior. It would also be worth noting from what I know that around the thousand PPM marker geological speaking you can find transitions from a greenhouse to an ice house type of global environment, and that regardless CO2 is a greenhouse gas. So what about it having a feedback with incrasing atmopheric H2O, is that question even addressed. In short a lot of things scientifically that relate to GW are simply ignored in that "paper", and furthmore that narrow view applied to me almost reeks of some kind of censorship scientifically giving all the data to date.

They plop some graphs up and say everything is the same and CO2 is having no effect but making plants grow better, its simply not true in any regard, nor is that physically possible in the first place. It actually sounded quite dumb to me to be honest.

Where is the data showing empirically that its the sun, and why giving the heavy debate has this not ended the debate if it were true, as it could be simply shown with the science. It should be 1,2,3 easy if that paper were true.

I also for the life of me still have a hard time wrapping my head around the debate.

CO2=greenhouse gas, no debate

CO2 Levels=Constant PPM increase since industrial revolution, no debate.

The atmosphere of Venus is 98% CO2, and incidentally the planet is around two times as hot as mercury at about twice the distance from the sun, with mercury being the closest planet to the sun, and the next or third rock being Earth, which distance wise is much closer in temperature to Mars then Venus is to Earth. If anything all the proves is CO2 is again a greenhouse gas.

This makes me think of a stand up comic named Eddie Izzard. In one of his shows he equates the lack of a stable global population in terms of peace and all of that jazz to why the NRA exists and why kids get guns to blow up their fellow classmates. I think its an interesting point in all reality because you can find all this variation on law and what is acceptable all over the world. Even in cultures that share and evolutionary affinity like the western world for instance. Most people in America would never think of having law that allows for drug use like you might find in Amsterdam, but on that note why has that city not turned into a bunch of drug crazed zombies riddled with addiction and violent crime.

So how do you say what is right and what is wrong is to me something that is ultimately subjective really. I do not care to have my liberty taken from me in the form of being murdered anymore then what video game I can or cannot play, but you have that problem to me I see of how you engineer civilization as the world is not just me. How do we deal with freedom and environmental issues, and what can you take as objective and turn into law.

All terribly complex questions, and I typically just think humanity on a whole is far to ignorant to really make it all work.

"We are looking for new suppliers that can supply us with sulphite paper bags."

Would be my guess.

The second article confirms that you can amplify an entangled photon in such a way that it remains in the entangled state (clone it), and this remains true even if the amplified signal has subsequent losses. Certainly interesting, because it raises the question of why the losses don't destroy the entanglement — they are interactions, but not necessarily ones that reveal the entangled state. (But what if they were?)

 

How do you think this will change the world of communication?

So I guess that means the no cloning theorem is a no go.

Catching water in a bucket moving at relativistic speeds would result in water vapor and a bucket with a hole in the bottom.

At those speeds wont we overcome one of the forces in the standard model in regards to atoms and even possibly have a hydrogen bomb.

I really don't think the buckets movement would matter if the drip rate was constant and all the drips were going in the buckets volume.

Here at low position it takes 1.5 seconds for eighty drips to fill the bucket, and high it takes 0.5 seconds for the bucket to be filled, and at normal it takes 1.0 seconds for eighty drips to fill bucket.

At low its 1.5seconds x 80drips=full bucket=120 seconds

At high its 0.5seconds x 80drips=full bucket=40 seconds

At normal its 1.0seconds x 80drips=full bucket=80 seconds

So then it would be forty drips at high, plus forty drips at low=80 seconds. This is very rudimentary. You would have to know rate of travel, which that might increase in a giving distance, plus will all the drips be the exact equal mass, air pressure differences in the path of travel, would any rotation or minor shifts in the mass distribution in a drip cause any disturbance combined with hitting the atmosphere. I think the list can actually get very complicated rapidly, I think it would be fun to see a thread on this site that could actually factor everything out that would be in this question.

That's part of the question, in that how closed ended is genetic variation? Could you make it so such could be even manipulated on a conscious level. Not to mention what would happen when you could manipulate the human mind that way, what kind of thought could you generate.

Here is something cool to think about. You could decide to go swimming at the bottom of the oceans, and maybe even have some form of vision in terms of combination of senses, then even pop out on the surface and sprout some wings. Its all rather sci fi now, but in all reality is it something totally impossible?

I think one issue of it all simply would be the impact it has on horizontal gene transfer as most of life is embedded in some sense that way. Could all of these designer genes start to get spread somehow that way. Another thing is if such technology or that ability would allow eventually for cancer to be something of the past. I don't see how being mutation is constant unless we somehow could end mutation.

In short though if it were possible to use genes that way, I personally think the universe is the only limit in time giving such ability or technology.

Okay, say its the future and they have some kind of computer program that can put together genes to add any kind of sci-fi trait to an existing organism. To add to this your genes or the human genome has been modified basically to have genes that code for proteins and what not that can integrate these genes.

What kind of an impact would that have? What if we could make it so people could run 100mph and skin could harvest solar energy for stuff? To whatever could be possible, do you think that would be the best route to take humanity really, into that kind of a world where such is possible?

I do not know now if that is to far out. Evolution operating on genes seems to have been able to produce all kinds of variation, for instance animals thriving at depths and conditions no one thought possible.

On a side note could be able to run like that get rid of cars, imagine highways full of people running at 80mph, to funny. Hey maybe we could cure death even.

That isn't true I'm afraid. If it were that simple it would have been done a long time ago no?

 

Things like graphics cards don't reply on the underlying "software" (the firmware) but also on advances in the hardware. Compressing everything into one multi-cored CPU where each core could be programmed individually wouldn't allow for one to expand upon hardware and, say, upgrade to a faster graphics card because removing the core would not be possible. See what I mean? You need to have flexibility and that can't be given by programming.

I understand that part, but here is something I am saying that I think is getting missed also. Most all of the electrical components in any giving computer operate instructions in the form of some standardized logic operating on some standardized electrical devices. This holds true for processors. If you could make say some 15 core processor that has all kinds of capability it could run in various ways depending on the instructions. For instance maybe a maximum graphics potential for a giving program would require six of the cores.

I think it would be nifty to have something like that which held trillions if not more possible configurations from a code standpoint on how it could handle instructions. I just wonder if you could get them all to clock independently or in certain ways when required.

I also don't know if economics has really made this idea happen, I am sure its occurred to people before me though, but I have never heard of it.

Merged post follows:

Indeed. Graphics cards, for example, use fundamentally different CPU types than a regular processor. They're optimized for very specific massively parallel operations. Replacing them with a generalized CPU is not going to be efficient. Have you ever tried using a computer that had no graphics card and had to use software rendering? It's painful.

Yes I have, and I know it sucks.

I am not arguing though that this processor be standard by any current definition, just that its design allows for some tremendous amount of possible configurations. I think if you allowed for enough of those in some way that can be reconfigured on the fly it could be able to simulate the behavior of many other components.

And that would require you to upload new hardware instructions each time you wish to add a new component? Sorry but programming hardware isn't the best solution.

 

Graphics cards for example are optimized for their task and for their specific hardware. While other hardware may be able to emulate the features they won't be as good as the originals. No code can, for example, turn an Nvidia GeForce 8800 GT into a 275 GTX. The hardware has to be changed.

There would be no new components, just code. The optimization issue would be how well such a system could possibly execute information in any giving configuration, as any component is obviously some form of an electrical device doing the same from basically the same technology in a sense. How many people use those super multi core processors to the max every time they get on a computer, but yet even with new components you cant expect the same outcome with higher end graphics cards and other components just having some 386 processor if that was even possible.

Good point. If everything were built directly into the CPU then extensions (such as extra PCI cards say) wouldn't be possible. Thanks for pointing that out.

Yes, but to cycle back onto an earlier point the design of something in terms of hardware itself can be programmed. I guess the big leap I am trying to picture is a cpu of many cores that have properties similar to programmable logic devices. I think way way for this to happen in a more immediate sense is a variety of cores that can synchronize on instructions, but that each core can process different types of instructions. Then say one core would simply be a semaphore of sorts of directing instruction traffic and so on, or maybe all of them could do it.

On edit

I also think sticking to the motherboard is sort of a stagnation. Not that its bad, but with just a motherboard and related component set up you really don't know what else could work or even how.

I think that mankind actually hates violence for the most part. Each of the things you mention can have different motivations.

 

War: War can be due to greed, hatred, or compassion (liberating people from a tyrant). War heroes take up violence on our behalf, so we don't have to.

 

City riots: people sometimes feel the need to make demands. If asking nicely doesn't work, violence sometimes does. If people enjoyed violence, rioting would make no sense since that would be like giving presents to the people you don't like.

 

Video Games and Television: The perception of danger releases adrenaline, which some people enjoy. It also makes things interesting because people pay attention to danger. Because we put ourselves in the shoes of the characters in danger, we can feel danger while not actually putting ourselves in any danger. For this purpose, dare-devil stunts would work as well as violence, but can be harder to put into a storyline.

Note also that mammals have an intrinsic play instinct, which can be play violence but can prepare them for hunting or fighting for mates.

 

Martial Arts: As a sport, it is less violent than football, in my experience. Especially if the focus is on technique rather than sparring. Sparring is kind of like a video game in that it is play fighting (more or less, depending on the rules). Not to many people enjoy an actual fight, since they can get quite hurt during one.

 

Real fights: Some people stir up fights. This can be due to dominance behavior (testosterone being key here) where their opponent refuses to submit. I think only people who tend to win would enjoy fighting, since it minimizes their chance of being hurt. There's also status, honor, altruism, and other reasons for people to fight.

 

I think it boils down to: adrenaline rush, dominance/status, greed, or hatred. Any propensity to violence IMO is due to these motives, and possibly others, not an intrinsic desire for violence.

 

 

 

I think it is largely due to the play instinct. We play to learn to deal with real danger, by simulating a danger in a safe environment. As for people who put themselves in real danger, this could be due to a misjudgment of the danger, or for status. How many people do dangerous things only when others are looking?

adrenaline by itself has been around for a long time in biological systems. Violence with people I would have to agree happens for lots of reasons though, and I would not simply state that it's all a product of adrenaline. Then again you have law on many different levels, or various form of social organization. You can have law that covers a certain group and excludes others, such as American law is not German law. Then of course you can have ideaological based violence, violence from poverty. Is suicide considererd a violent crime by anyone?

I think a lot of it comes down to unknowns. I mean we say we are different from animals in that we can choose, but obviously that has limits plus a biological basis. So who is to say how people would be depending on envronment, would any of the modern stuff in the world be the way it is for instance without the written word, not just the spoken?

So in short, I do agree that violence has many causes. What I wont agree to is saying its heavily dependent on how you grow up. I mean if that was the case being born into violence should as a constant guarantee the same.

There are several issues, the first would be the size. This would make the processor larger and thus slower as it would take the electrical signals longer to cross the processor and it's components.

 

The second would be cooling. CPU's already generate huge amounts of heat and need to be kept cool to work optimally. The more you try to cram into them, the more heat generates.

 

The third is that it's pointless. It would not reduce the complexity of the system and would still require just as many connections - why waste time doing something that will not make a great deal of difference in the end?

I would like to argue it from the point of all the logic behind any computer system and why the processor exists to execute these instructions. Even a graphics card has a gpu, and most all of it is simply digital right with a clock? So why can't it all be just brought down into cores that have different structures for say doing floating point numbers and what not? If each core could do the same functions they could relate to each other in optimal ways when doing instructions I would think.

I think all the different specialized components ultimately has to use the processor to some regard and all of them have to run from some instruction set. Plus many of these digital devices and what not can be reprogrammed, as in the hardware does not have to be the end all of what it can do.

I think it would be interesting to see as I don't know if anyone has tried such.

Could you get rid of a motherboard and instead just have a giant processor full of cores? You could have the cpu, ram, and a hard drive. Maybe those can be gotten rid off in place of just a big chunk of flash memory and a cpu. Heck it could probably process in order to maintain a certain temperature even. All of it could be intergrated into the monitor or even maybe the keyboard.

What I mean is the motherboard is a series of components, like a cpu for example. Why cant all of that simply become integrated into a huge multicore processor?

I think that would be neat is all to try. One thing I can think is that different programs would behave differently on it I imagine, and maybe some of the cores could be programmed to track this behavior and optimize it, which could lead to threads of computer behavior based on its interaction with a human.

I know you probably can't put everything that makes up the guts of a computer on a cpu, but if you could put a majority of stuff on it that would I think reduce the size of a computer greatly. I also think it would allow for energy consumption to be regulated more effectively.

Richard Feynman said :It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge what energy is

 

what do you think?

So why is physics considered a natural science if in reality all you can of it is that it produces abstractions of reality in the form of mathematical models. Before people knew of math or what not I am sure frostbite was still occurring in the world, why do we call it physics and not just applied math?

I understand its all ultimately human thought, but with evolution for instance in the biological sciences is that just a model or some paradigm? Not trying to produce some one up on the empirical scale here, but is that not some point in physics when you can say its actually objectively grasping something.

*On a side note I always looked at energy as the capability for some amount of change really. I mean this may not be even close to scientific, but if nothing in the universe could change in any form then you could have no concept like energy as no observations could take place or nothing could happen really, you could have no form of motion or really I don't think anything would exist.

This brings me to my far out hypothesis that the physical universe is simply just a perpetual thermodynamic evolution of sorts in its current state going from thermodynamic laws. I think that's why mathematically we get a sense of multiple universes because that possibility exists. Heck the existence of life could be just that, who is to say. Yet I guess such proves that math is far more scientific and proper to employ in a scientific sense of things. I guess this idea of mine is why I am so interested in quantum decoherence really.

I always wondered with how much we use soil if just that rate of change increase itself in the properties of soil worldwide is having any kind of noticeable effects. Basically do different parts of the environment have clocks, and if you start to work on soil would you change its clock in terms of interactions with all the other various system that make up the environment.

That doesn't explain why it feels good. When we aren't in danger (whether we put ourselves in danger, or whether danger finds us), shouldn't it feel bad? Just as how our knee feels the same way if a hammer is taken to it, whether we bash our own knee with the hammer, or whether someone else is trying to mug is, it still hurts like hell, right?

 

The keyword here is, why does it feel good?!

Adrenaline does not always feel good, and you are probably mixing up other chemicals, and along with that I think the brain can be on more then one at a time.

Before you read my question, please know that I really only want answers from scientists, doctors, OR people who are experts or have extensivly researched the subject.

 

I'm NOT looking for answers from baised people. This includes anti-drug activists that don't think anyone should smoke marjuana, and also includes people who overly advocate marijuana, worshipping it and refusing to beleive that any adverse effects can come from it.

 

--

MY QUESTION:

My question is, can the use of marjuana have any permanent effects on the mind?

This includes, loss of memories that happened while NOT high (childhood memories, etc.). Or maybe damaging your ability to remember memories that are created years after the user quits?

Or maybe loss of brain cells? If so, can proof be provided? I read a long article about marijuana's effects on the brain cells, and I forget exactly what it said, plus it was very complicated, but i think it said that something in marijuana will kill the cells, but another thing (i forget if it's in marijuana or your brain) will prevent the cell from dying.

So if marjuana causes any permanent changes, losses, or damages to the human mind, I'd like to be informed.

--

 

The reason that I'm asking this, to give you a little background info-- I'm an occasional marijuana smoker/eater, and when I started, I was soming about once a week, then eventually once a month, and currently I haven't smoked or eaten (brownies, oil, etc) marijuana in atleast 5 months. But when I DO consume marijuana, I always try to get as high as I can, and sometimes hallucinate, because I usually comsume very potent sativa strains, which are more psychedelic. I get so high that my mind feelz hazy weeks after.

My older cousin used to be a bigtime pothead, but he tries not to smoke so much now, and tells me not to, and says that he thinks it will damage my brain.

I value my mind very much, and want to make sure that I don't change it with drugs.

But I LOVE to get high so will it really do anything bad if induldge just once a month?

 

Thanks in advance to anyone who answers my question. I will apprieciate it very much.

If you use it in a recreational manner I don't see how it could hurt you anymore then using caffeine. As far as studies go I have seen lots of them that support that it does cause harm, and lots that state that it does not cause harm, I think the bias even goes into the science. If you maintaining a haze, where it might be easy to day dream constantly you are probably using to much, more so if this persists even after you stop using for weeks on end. Then again you said you actually hallucinated from it, which I have never heard of myself from anyone I have known that actually inhales.

Overdose is practically impossible unless you go through steps that would be highly irrational in the first place. Then again you can overdose on water.

Bottom line to me is from what I know that marijuana is no more dangerous then many other products people consume on a regular basis that happen to be totally legal, like cheeseburgers.