iNow

I've gotta say, Mr.Skeptic seems to have nailed it with the very first response.

Not likely. He opened this thread more than two years ago.

An interesting piece from Thomas Friedman. He essentially wrote the speech which he thinks Obama should deliver in Oslo this December. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/opinion/11friedman.html Here is the speech I hope he will give: <keep reading>

It comes from the fact that we are pack animals who exist in troops. Those humans who went against the group rules and procedures were ostracized, and hence lost access to resources such as food and potential mates. Over time, those humans who went against the expectations of the group and got thrown out of the group reproduced less than those humans who behaved in accordance with the group rules and expectations. Those who followed the rules benefited from the protection, access to food, and access to potential mates within the group, and had more offspring than those who did not. In short, morals come from our evolution as pack animals. Those who were immoral faced more difficulty in surviving and reproducing than those who acted within the morality of the group. Through time, those who were more inclined to be moral were more successful reproductively. Btw... the same thing can be seen in wolf packs. The wolf who does not act in accordance with the expectations of the group alpha is shunned from the group, and a lone wolf cannot be as successful hunting and breeding as can wolves who remain a part of the larger pack/collective. Come on... that wasn't so bad, was it.

You might try here: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Matrix.html ...or, even here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_%28mathematics%29

It tells me that since I don't own this forum and I'm not charged with staffing it that I don't get to ban clueless paste-eating asshats like you who have little clue and a complete lack of understanding regarding the actual science of evolution.

Hey mate - No need to open multiple threads on the same topic. Just put it in one place. If people know the answer, or know of a way to help you learn more, they will post it... even if you think you've posted to the wrong topic (in that case, it would be best to request a Moderator move it for you). Just don't post the same thing multiple times as different threads. It clutters up the place, and gets on peoples nerves. Take care.

Well, you are making the mistake of generalizing your own experiences to the population at large. While I have already stipulated that social expectations play a role, I really quite disagree with the point I've quoted above. The ONLY reason I have sex is because it feels good and it's fun. I mean, seriously... My girlfriend and I didn't roll around in the sack last night for two hours because society expected it of us. We did it because we craved it, it was fun, it felt good, and that's a feeling we've all evolved to feel (those creatures who didn't enjoy sex didn't reproduce as successfully as those which did... the enjoyment of sex itself is what was selected for, not the goal of offspring conception).

Yes... It's all social brainwashing. Couldn't possibly have anything to do with a reduction in cortisol levels and the increase in both dopamine and serotonin levels in the brain post-coitus as the literature all indicates.

Here's a statement he put just a short while ago: This morning, Michelle and I awoke to some surprising and humbling news. At 6 a.m., we received word that I'd been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009. To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize -- men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace. But I also know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes. That is why I've said that I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations and all peoples to confront the common challenges of the 21st century. These challenges won't all be met during my presidency, or even my lifetime. But I know these challenges can be met so long as it's recognized that they will not be met by one person or one nation alone. This award -- and the call to action that comes with it -- does not belong simply to me or my administration; it belongs to all people around the world who have fought for justice and for peace. And most of all, it belongs to you, the men and women of America, who have dared to hope and have worked so hard to make our world a little better. So today we humbly recommit to the important work that we've begun together. I'm grateful that you've stood with me thus far, and I'm honored to continue our vital work in the years to come. Thank you, President Barack Obama I think that even he thinks it's inappropriate, which is funny. Too bad this will simply be more ammo against him used by the nutters. On the other side of that coin, it serves as a nice international counter-balance to the ridiculousness like people trying to impeach him for "the fact that he seems to have, it seems to me, some malevolence toward this country, which is unabated."

Wait... what? Who did that? I don't see any bashing here. Also, just because you are not personally aware of the studies does NOT mean none have been done. Anyway... You should watch this special (it's incredibly accessible and interesting): A synopsis: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/264223 This interview contains a lot of very important information, regardless of how one feels about CAM [Complimentary and Alternative Medicine]. Professor Baum starts by explaining the difference between complementary and alternative medicine. For him, complementary medicine is everything that improves the quality of life of a patient undergoing medical treatments, possibly for life-threatening diseases such as breast cancer. Alternative medicine, on the other hand, seeks to replace scientific medicine. Says Michael Baum: I'm obviously against alternative medicine, because to me, alternative, by definition, means it does not work. If it works, we would use it. As an example of that, he cites a few medicines of herbal origin that are being used for cancer therapy such as vinca alkaloids form periwinkle and taxanes from yew trees. <...> Later on, they talk about what Baum politely calls "post-modern relativism," the idea that everything is but an opinion. I have an opinion, but you have read some other books and you have therefore another opinion and both opinions are equally valid. As a result, we have now alternative medicine, alternative teaching methods, alternative legal advocates, "but," he says "we haven't yet come up with an alternative Boeing 747 pilot". He links this to the MMR vaccine crisis where people are being told by alternologists and are convinced that there is a conspiracy of the medical establishment and the government that, in order to protect themselves, they were willing to sacrifice countless children to autism. "This is simply a lie," he says, and he adds that even among his closest friends, there are people who are not immunizing their children and that these children are now unprotected as a result. <...> Dawkins asks Baum if he can cite a few examples of complementary/alternative therapies for which he does have time. Baum cites art therapy as an example of complementary therapy in which he has invested quite some time. He also cites acupuncture, which is bonkers as an alternative complementary medicine belief system but which does have some value as a complementary therapy, for example in pain management. Still, his belief doesn't seem to go very far. He goes on giving an example of the importance of clinical trials and tells a story about how he was chairing a meeting in Florence, Italy on the role of CAM in the treatment of breast cancer. He was in serious pain at the time, so much so that he was limping. An acupuncturist offered him a treatment. The next day, he was completely without pain, and even visited the Uffizi gallery for a few hours. The interesting part is that she offered the treatment, but that he didn't accept it. Had he accepted it, the result would have been so spectacular that he would have become a convert. A nice illustration of the importance of controlled trials. Baum is also telling Dawkins about how many alternologists always go back to some "golden age" of medicine, and argues that there is no such thing as a golden age of medicine in the past, that the golden age is now, and that it will become more golden if only science can continue. He gives the example of Victorian England where life expectancy was not much more than about 40 years and where 30% of the children died shortly after birth whereas now most children survive, and that we now have life expectancies of close to 80 years, leading us to work longer than in the past. Dawkins and Baum talk about the importance of science education. Baum tells Dawkins that we have a scientifically illiterate population, a scientifically illiterate house of commons and, worse, that they actually take pride into their scientific illiteracy. Scientists have an important task here, he says, and children should be taught the scientific method from early secondary school in order to have a scientifically literate population. <more at the link>

All week's been pretty crappy and only working intermittently. Today, I got several server busy errors, as well as a Forbidden (I think it was a 405) error.

Sure, you can say that. You'd still be wrong, though. Oh, really? Tell that to all of the animals which have gone extinct. You're just not getting it. Let me try to help. Watch these: SeTssvexa9s 7w57_P9DZJ4 Repeating an invalid assertion does not suddenly make it true. I hate to break it to you, but that's the ONLY place evolution has a goal... in your head... and in the head's of other people who don't understand it very well.

+1 As an aside, I chuckled a bit after misreading the title, when I thought it said "3D Democratic Senators."

During that time, the number of new drugs went up only 7%. Even though the trend was upward, that's pretty slow. Most suggest that the reason it was slow (relative to previous years) is because most of the easy problems found drug solutions first. Once those easier problems had solutions, we had to start focusing on the more complex problems, and those are harder to solve. Since we're now trying to fix the complex stuff, we're spending more time than we used to trying to find solutions, so the total number of solutions released is lower than it used to be. The "low hanging fruit" have all been picked, so now we have to spend more time climbing higher into the tree to find any fruit at all.

Isn't this a bit like asking why we still have baseball, despite the invention of batting cages? Or, why we still play golf even though we go to the driving range?

Yes, I agree completely.

John - My impression is that this is more about where they exercise that influence, not that they be prevented from exercising the influence altogether.

It will vary by person and by type, so no.

TBH, I intend to let the thread go dormant for a little while... at least until a new article, video, or bit of information piques my interest (or, until some fresh readers comment with new questions or contributions).

Right on. I can relate to that. While I might push hard to remain focused and on-topic, I'm most certainly glad that others share my fascination with this.

Well, while the numbers are very very very unfathomably large, they are not infinite. There are a finite number of planets and other formations... there's just a whole lot of 'em. The universe itself may be infinite, but we really don't know on that one. Even here on earth life can evolve of different elements than humans. I'm thinking of things like extremophiles... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremophile Well, due to basic chemistry, there are some limitations. The molecules need to be able to change in specific ways to support life. However, as far as I know, silicon has been suggested to be rather possible as a base of life (one which is different than the carbon we're all used to). Well, there's always a chance we could be wrong, but... yes, absolutely we can answer it... or at least have lots of fun trying. Enjoy.

I see. The challenge, of course, is that those same principles apply to all groups, and not just religion... Therefore, it's not really helpful for this particular discussion. Please also bear in mind that this thread refers to religion in general, and hence any concepts regarding Abrahamic notions (like god and the devil being good and evil) are far too narrow and far too isolated to apply to the discussion at hand.

No, the brain is not like a VCR, and we don't "replay" memories in the sense that you suggest. Your eyes would not move left to right during recall if you were (for example) remembering a football game where the player was going left to right. The placement of the eyes is contingent upon which area of the brain is being accessed to pull the memory. Memory is interconnected with many brain areas, and we simply "look" toward the area of the brain which is being most activated when retrieving that memory.

While natural saccadic movements are fascinating, GDG, I'm not entirely sure that's what's being asked about here in this thread. My sense of THX's post is that he is wondering why we look in certain directions when thinking about specific things. TXH - Maybe you can clarify?