iNow

What is this natural cause? The human cause is incredibly well supported, and will only be displaced by CLEAR data to the contrary. I accept your contention that there are sources of error in the measurements, however, I reject as non-sequitur your conclusion that these errors are enough to overturn anthropogenic origin.

From the link I shared in post #2: The brain uses chemicals to transmit information; the computer uses electricity. Even though electrical signals travel at high speeds in the nervous system, they travel even faster through the wires in a computer. A computer uses switches that are either on or off ("binary"). In a way, neurons in the brain are either on or off by either firing an action potential or not firing an action potential. However, neurons are more than just on or off because the "excitability" of a neuron is always changing. This is because a neuron is constantly getting information from other cells through synaptic contacts. Information traveling across a synapse does NOT always result in a action potential. Rather, this information alters the chance that an action potential will be produced by raising or lowering the threshold of the neuron. Computer memory grows by adding computer chips. Memories in the brain grow by stronger synaptic connections. From another page at that same site: http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/plast.html Following birth, the brain of a newborn is flooded with information from the baby’s sense organs. This sensory information must somehow make it back to the brain where it can be processed. To do so, nerve cells must make connections with one another, transmitting the impulses to the brain. Continuing with the telephone wire analogy, like the basic telephone trunk lines strung between cities, the newborn’s genes instruct the "pathway" to the correct area of the brain from a particular nerve cell. For example, nerve cells in the retina of the eye send impulses to the primary visual area in the occipital lobe of the brain and not to the area of language production (Wernicke’s area) in the left posterior temporal lobe. The basic trunk lines have been established, but the specific connections from one house to another require additional signals. Over the first few years of life, the brain grows rapidly. As each neuron matures, it sends out multiple branches (axons, which send information out, and dendrites, which take in information), increasing the number of synaptic contacts and laying the specific connections from house to house, or in the case of the brain, from neuron to neuron. At birth, each neuron in the cerebral cortex has approximately 2,500 synapses. By the time an infant is two or three years old, the number of synapses is approximately 15,000 synapses per neuron (Gopnick, et al., 1999). This amount is about twice that of the average adult brain. As we age, old connections are deleted through a process called synaptic pruning. <...> The capacity of the brain to change with learning is plasticity. So how does the brain change with learning? According to Durbach (2000), there appear to be at least two types of modifications that occur in the brain with learning: 1. A change in the internal structure of the neurons, the most notable being in the area of synapses. 2. An increase in the number of synapses between neurons.

But none of those limitations you've cited have anything to do with science or the scientific method itself. Each are obstacles with the system under study or measuring device probing that system, not the process of inquiry. You're certainly free to disagree, I just wanted to point out where your explanation for that disagreement appears lacking.

... the study of matter and the changes it undergoes.

No, not really.

I believe the word you meant to use was "supplementing."

You might get a lot of useful information here. I use this site all of the time. http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/bvc.html Throughout history, people have compared the brain to different inventions. In the past, the brain has been said to be like a water clock and a telephone switchboard. These days, the favorite invention that the brain is compared to is a computer. Some people use this comparison to say that the computer is better than the brain; some people say that the comparison shows that the brain is better than the computer. Perhaps, it is best to say that the brain is better at doing some jobs and the computer is better at doing other jobs. Let's see how the brain and the computer are similar and different. <see link for more>

The OP asked why we build hydro-electric dams instead of wheels in rivers. That question has been addressed. It's about output and efficiency. Now, why not just pop up some solar panels? They don't hurt the fish at all. It's good to think about smarter solutions, but important that the proposals scale to the need.

Yes. Ever heard of a wet dream?

Seraph - Now that your thread is no longer being trolled further and further off-topic, I'm curious if you've found universities or researchers studying this area, and if you've had the opportunity to correspond with them. After all, that is what you asked about. I haven't seen you around in a while, but thought I'd check in. Perhaps you're just hanging out in the shadows... not sure.

It wasn't my point. I was just the translator. I do, however, tend to agree with Sisyphus that you have a rather extreme view of crime and punishment. These are very often human beings in difficult life situations. It's not always about such clear ideas of "good and evil," but more appropriately differing shades of gray.

So, if it's natural, what is causing it? You may as well be saying that too many pink unicorns are farting which causes it to warm at this point. You need evidence to support the cause you propose. You propose it's natural. I say fine. What natural event is it to which you refer? The human cause is incredibly well supported. My point is truly that simple, regardless of how you feel about the images I shared.

Your reality is skewed and you're sounding a bit like Hitler did with the Jews. Easier to understand now?

If the primary driver is natural processes, and not humans as you suggest, then what precisely is happening to cause the temperature to shift so quickly? Is it volcanic activity? Is it an increase in energy from the sun? Is it the melting of permafrost, or the decay of plants and animals? What is it, precisely, that is causing the climate to change, and to change at such an incredible rate? You cannot just say "it's natural" without explaining what natural event is making it happen. Conversely, if you DO just say "it's natural" without explaining what natural event is making it happen, then you can safely be ignored and your comments dismissed. Anthropogenic causes (human as primary driver) are the most well supported and evidenced factor available to us, and will remain so until you present an alternative to support your own little pet conjecture. Humans are the primary driver. Not the only one, but the primary, and simply saying "it's natural" isn't good enough to overturn the mountains of evidence which support the contention that we humans are the hugest contributor to the current warming, a warming which has trended upwards since the point when we reached the industrial revolution and began burning coal in large quantities.

You, of course, meant "you're," not "your." Cheers.

Their preacher told 'em it was immoral and agin'st gods will, ergo they are afraid of an eternal damnation to hot infernos and hellfire. After that, maybe they're worried about diabetics no longer needing insulin or perhaps they don't think it's right to ease the suffering of humans who really shouldn't have to experience such pain and troublesome existence during their time here on earth. Like Mokele, beats the hell out of me.

There's nothing like a forty year old paper to inform a persons questions and perspective about modern day research. Way to stay fresh with your knowledge, scrappy. I salute you.

And it was that second point which was key... It wasn't so much about the tools themselves, or the knowledge of how to build them. The article was just background to my point. To restate, the chimps had the ability to visualize the honey bee nest below the ground. They had a mental picture of it's layout and which tunnels had honey, and used that mental visualization to obtain the honey. While tool creation and use is quite tool, it was the ability to extract honey from underground nests via visualization where I found parallels. In short, if chimps can visualize "blueprints" for an unseen bees nest in such a clear way, then it doesn't seem to be a big leap when making the assertion that they also have the ability to visualize or contemplate "unseen others." It was just a cool article, and peripherally related... Not at all central to the premise of the thread. Speaking of cool, I just got done watching this 2002 lecture by Robert Sapolsky on the Biology of Religion. Sapolsky is a professor of Biological Sciences, and Professor of Neurology, Neurological Sciences, and Neurosurgery at Stanford University. His lecture talks about the biology of religion in some interesting ways, and draws some really articulate parallels with schizophrenia, OCD, ritualistic behaviors, social cohesion, etc. I found it really very enlightening and epiphanic. One of the things which stood out to me in the lecture was his repeated point about these various mechanisms and properties of the human psyche being shunned when practiced in the wrong environment, causing one to be pushed to the periphery and removing their ability to pass on genes, whereas if these same properties/behaviors manifested at the right time and place they could be taken up by large masses of people (like a religion). One comparison he made was with sickle cell anemia. It's really bad in most contexts, but in certain times and places its benefit is abundantly clear (like how that same mechanism provides an immunity to malaria). Here's a link to that lecture, as well it's outline: http://blip.tv/file/2204956 The Biology of Religion I. Some opening caveats, disclaimers and fine print II. Religion and belief 1. A return to the final question of the schizophrenia lecture 2. Genes and the advantages of intermediate penetrance: sickle cell anemia, Tay-Sachs disease, cystic fibrosis....and schizophrenia? 3. The Kety schizophrenia adoption studies: their second discovery, and the continuum of traits. 4. Schizotypal personality disorder: social withdrawal, odd perceptual experiences, a tendency towards concreteness, metamagical belief. 5. Who are the traditional schizotypals? a. Paul Radin, Erwin Ackerknecht and Paul Devereux: hearing voices at the right time b. Alfred Kroeber’s elaboration: “Psychosis or Social Sanction.” The common roots of ‘sanction’ and ‘sanctuary.’ c. Western cultures and schizotypalism III. Religion and ritualistic practices 1. Obsessive compulsive disorder a. Obsessive thoughts: intrusions, blasphemies, and so on. b. Compulsive rituals: self-cleansing, food preparation, leaving and entering, numerology and symmetry c. Genetic, neuroanatomical and neurochemical hints 2. Ritualism of the religious orthodoxy 3. Hindu Brahmans: hours of daily purification rituals involving cleansing, cyclical nostril breathing, defecation, ratios of handfuls of food from the left versus right hand, rules for entering temples.... 4. Orthodox Jewry and the magical combination of 365 prohibitions and 248 requirements: cleansing, food preparation, and the importance of numerology over content. 5. Orthodox Islam: rules for numbers of mouthfuls of water, for entering and leaving a lavatory, for handwashing, and, of course, magical numbers. 6. The rituals of Orthodox Christianity: the magical number 3, the multiplicities of Hail Marys and rosary use down to Lutheran organists advised about dotted rhythms in the Lutheran hymnal 7. Freud: “obsessional neurosis as individual religiosity and religion as a universal obsessional neurosis.” 8. Ignatius Loyola and the 15th century concept of “scrupulosity.” 9. The underlying adaptive value of anxiety reduction 10. Making a living as an obsessive compulsive a. An example in a 16th century monk named Luder: “The more you cleanse yourself, the dirtier you get.” 11. Why should OCD and religious rituals have such similar patterns? a. An ecological explanation b. A historical explanation IV. Religion and the attribution of causality 1. Superstitious conditioning in animals 2. Hippocampal damage and increased vulnerability to superstitious conditioning. V. Philosophical religiosity 1. Temporal lobe epilepsy: humorlessness; perseveration; neophobia and a "sticky" or "viscous" personality; hypergraphia; concern with religious issues. Some concluding thoughts: What am I not saying 1. You gotta be crazy to be religious 2. That most people’s religiousness is biologically suspect 3. That faith is any more biologically accessible or interesting than is loss of faith Enjoy.

Yes. We move forward at the rate of one second per second.

Yep. Those nice little bees pre-digest it for us. How nice of them, eh? As an insulin-dependent diabetic, honey is probably my absolute favorite treatment for low blood sugar. When I've not eaten enough food to counteract the insulin I've injected (or, if maybe I exercised too hard that day), the blood sugar gets too low and more sugar/food must be ingested. Honey is amazing for this because it is super dense in sugar, it is predigested so gets into my system really really quickly, and the energy it gives lasts for a really long time (as opposed to eating something like a candy bar, where I get a surge of processed sugars which wears off quickly). Honey is a food of the gods!

Generally, no. Honey is pretty awesome, and won't go bad if it's stored properly. More here: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen01/gen01338.htm The one exception is, once you've opened and regularly eaten the honey, sometimes it gets too dry and it will crystallize. It doesn't spoil, per se, but it's not the same viscous gooey delicious self after that happens. Either way, honey spoils not. http://www.beesource.com/resources/usda/honey-composition-and-properties/ By far, the largest portion of the dry matter in honey consists of the sugars. This very concentrated solution of several sugars results in the characteristic physical properties of honey - high viscosity, “stickiness,” high density, granulation tendencies, tendency to absorb moisture from the air, and immunity from some types of spoilage. <...> Dextrose, a major sugar in honey, can spontaneously crystallize from any honeys in the form of its monohydrate. This sometimes occurs when the moisture level in honey is allowed to drop below a certain level. <...> If unheated honey is allowed to granulate naturally, several difficulties may arise. The texture may be fine and smooth or granular and objectionable to the consumer. Furthermore, a granulated honey becomes more susceptible to spoilage by fermentation, caused by natural yeast found in all honeys and apiaries. Quality damage from poor texture and fermented flavors usually is far greater than any caused by the heat needed to eliminate these problems. <...> Fermentation. - Fermentation of honey is caused by the action of sugar-tolerant yeasts upon the sugars dextrose and levulose, resulting in the formation of ethyl alcohol and carbon dioxide. The alcohol in the presence of oxygen then may be broken down into acetic acid and water. As a result, honey that has fermented may taste sour. The yeasts responsible for fermentation occur naturally in honey, in that they can germinate and grow at much higher sugar concentrations than other yeasts, and, therefore, are called “osmophilic.” Even so there are upper limits of sugar concentration beyond which these yeasts will not grow. Thus, the water content of a honey is one of the factors concerned in spoilage by fermentation. The others are extent of contamination by yeast spores (yeast count) and temperature of storage. Honey with less than 17.1 percent water will not ferment in a year, irrespective of the yeast count. Between 17.1 and 18 percent moisture, honey with 1,000 yeast spores or less per gram will be safe for a year. When moisture is between 18.1 and 19 percent, not more than 10 yeast spores per gram can be present for safe storage. Above 19 percent water, honey can be expected to ferment even with only one spore per gram of honey, a level so low as to be very rare. When honey granulates, the resulting increased moisture content of the liquid part is favorable for fermentation. Honey with a high moisture content will not ferment below 50ºF or above about 80º. Honey even of relatively low water content will ferment at 60º. Storing at temperatures over 80º to avoid fermentation is not practical as it will damage honey.

Tautologies don't tend to be very helpful in scientific research and study.

Now, that's pretty awesome. Drilling down into the information you shared, I discovered this: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14552-mirror-test-shows-magpies-arent-so-birdbrained.html Self-recognition, once thought to be an ability enjoyed only by select primates, has now been demonstrated in a bird. The finding has raised questions about part of the brain called the neocortex, something the self-aware magpie does not even possess. In humans, the ability to recognise oneself in a mirror develops around the age of 18 months and coincides with the first signs of social behaviour. So-called "mirror mark tests", where a mark is placed on the animal in such a way that it can only be observed when it looks at its reflection, have been used to sort the self-aware beasts from the rest. <...> The authors suggest that self-recognition in birds and mammals may be a case of convergent evolution, where similar evolutionary pressures result in similar behaviours or traits, although they arrive at them via different routes. De Waal agrees: "Magpies are known for their ability to steal shiny objects and to hide away their loot. It's not too far-fetched that a master thief like a magpie has that perspective-taking ability," he says, referring to the idea that the birds have a "theory of mind". HRVGA9zxXzk Lol. If it makes you feel any better, I have that feeling myself repeatedly when reviewing your threads and posts. So often, they are rich with all sorts of wonderful information, but real life tends to consistently keep me from immediately diving too deeply into it. All the same, I usually bookmark the cool bits and come back to them. Hopefully you'll be able to do the same. Thank you for the kind words and feedback, my good man. Have a wonderful weekend. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I'd never heard that before, but it sounds incredibly plausible, and wouldn't surprise me in the least. I did some googling, and found this which seems to support it's veracity: http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2008/05/chimps-awe-inspired-by-waterfall-some.html Elephants caring for a crippled herd member seem to show empathy. A funeral ritual performed by magpies suggests grief. Then there's the excited dance chimps perform when faced with a waterfall – it looks distinctly awe-inspired. In June 2006, Jane Goodall and I visited the Mona Chimpanzee Sanctuary near Girona in Spain. There we met Marco, a rescued chimp, who dances during thunderstorms with such abandon that he appears to be in a trance. Goodall and others have witnessed chimps, usually adult males, perform a similar ritual at waterfalls. She described a chimpanzee approaching one of these falls with slightly bristled hair, a sign of heightened arousal. "As he gets closer, and the roar of the falling water gets louder, his pace quickens, his hair becomes fully erect, and upon reaching the stream he may perform a magnificent display close to the foot of the falls," she describes. "Standing upright, he sways rhythmically from foot to foot, stamping in the shallow, rushing water, picking up and hurling great rocks. Sometimes he climbs up the slender vines that hang down from the trees high above and swings out into the spray of the falling water. This 'waterfall dance' may last 10 or 15 minutes." <...> "A chimpanzee comes to a stunning sight in the midst of a tropical forest: A twenty-five foot waterfall sends water thundering into a pool below, which casts up mist some seventy feet. Apparently lost in contemplation, the chimpanzee cries out, runs excitedly back and forth, and drums on trees with its fists. Here we see the dawn of awe and wonder in animals. "Famed heart surgeon, Dr. Christian Bernard, witnessed a chimpanzee weeping bitterly and becoming inconsolable for days after his companion was taken away for research. Bernard then vowed never again to experiment with such sensitive creatures." In addition to sources for those comments, there are also some other really great stories and quotes at the link above which seem to inform this topic, and reinforce the view that humans are probably not as distinct or "special" as many might prefer to think. I agree fully. If we could demonstrate that other animals had beliefs in higher powers, then of course people would interpret this finding differently. I imagine that some would argue such a finding gives support that those higher powers truly exist. I, however, would tend to see it more as another demonstration of convergent evolution... common obstacles finding similar solutions... naturally through the process of evolution by natural selection. Either way, it would be supremely cool to have such solid data at our fingertips, regardless of how different people may interpret it. Also, the links and information Martin brought into the thread really seem to speak clearly about that question of identity you raise. It's so common across so many species... species with vastly different genetic backgrounds and cortical infrastructures... yet present in them all the same. That same trait is parallel in countless ways to our traits which lead to belief in deities and tendencies to religion. (Also, if only we could communicate better with our non-primate partners on this tiny blue planet. How frakkin' cool would that be?) Btw - Your comment about "proto-faith" is probably one of the single-most thought provoking comments I've heard/read all week. You've managed to sum up this discussion relating to animals and our own beliefs/religious predispositions in a very clean and elegant way... Proto-faith. Nice.

Indeed, but that proverbial line you seek is ever changing and never static. IMO, the answer to this question is a resounding, NO. With something as important as the health of a young human who is not yet developed enough to care for themselves adequately, we must set much more objective standards which can be applied in all cases. The concept of belief is far too subjective and fuzzy to be used in matters of such import. This is merely my opinion, but I feel it is well grounded and reinforced by the reality in which we exist. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI really logged in to share this story. It's a bit of a two-fer, and gets us away from the religious angle, which is nice. This one relates to homeopathy (hence, my suggestion it was a two-fer). http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,25590813-5005941,00.html Mr Sam, a homeopath, and his wife were accused of breaching their duty of care as parents to 9-month-old Gloria in the days before her death in May 2002. During the Indian-born couple's four-week Supreme Court trial, a 12-member jury heard from 34 witnesses as well as viewing photographs charting Gloria's decline in health from the age of four months when she first developed symptoms of eczema. The jury heard the baby girl was malnourished and her immune system depleted because her body was using the nutrients from food to fight infections caused by her skin condition. The Crown successfully argued the couple were criminally negligent by persisting with homeopathic remedies to treat their daughter's eczema instead of seeking conventional medical help in the last two weeks of her life. The jury heard Gloria's rash was so bad at six months' that her skin would weep and tear when her parents changed her clothing and nappies. As her health deteriorated, her parents continued to administer homeopathic drops and ointments recommended by Mr Sam's professional peers to treat her skin rash. The Crown alleged Mr Sam additionally breached his duty of care to Gloria as a patient. However, Mr Sam denied Gloria was ever his patient. <...> To find the Sams guilty, the jury had to be satisfied that the couple owed a duty of care to Gloria as their infant child and that they "omitted to obtain appropriate medical care" for her when they returned to Sydney from a trip to India 11 days before she died. Additionally, the jury had to find that the omission caused or contributed to Gloria's death and that it "amounted to criminal negligence in that it fell so far short of the standard of care a reasonable parent would have shown in the circumstances." A consistent theme in these stories is one of negligence, and the understanding that avoidance of western medicine is simply unreasonable and not acceptable, regardless of your system of beliefs.

Cool that. Thanks for coming back and clarifying. I've heard arguments both ways, but most seem to suggest that quantum influences in the brain are negligible if present at all. Cheers. I now return you to your regularly scheduled program...