Greg Boyles
-
Posts
574 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Greg Boyles
-
-
Global cooling was "alarmist rhetoric" of the popular media, not of the scientific literature.
Let's remember here that there is a serious theory that a period of average global warming will melt the greenland ice sheet, disrupt the critical turn around of the gulf stream ths shutting it down, halt redistribution of heat from the tropics to the northern latitiudes and thus trigger an ice age in much of north america.
And that the last ice age was triggered by a similar period of global warming that melted a major ice sheet in the great lakes region of north america that also shut down the gulf stream.
So global cooling may indeed happen.
I think the deniers and media have successfully derailed the debate by centering it exclusively on average warming such that any instances of cooler average temperatures is seen as evidence against global warming.
If anything the increased heat retention in the atmosphere energises the global climate system and makes it swing more wildly between extremes, including possible ice age conditions.
Through statemements like this you are re-inforcing the deniers' strategy and debating the issue entirely on their terms.
STOP IT!
The correct term is global climate change, which may include both periods of warming and periods of cooling over a longer time frame.
0 -
I think you are misinterpreting what I am saying and I haven't really disagreed with anything you have said. My original post regarding biochemistry was this:
I never said that biochemists were overly concerned with molecular structure as a whole. When I said 'small section of the compound', I really had the amino acid residues within protein binding pockets in mind. To my knowledge, binding residues are well within the confines of biochemistry. Small polypetide chains, I'll admit, are more suited for biological chemistry or organic chemistry.
In any case, I've agreed with everything you've said and I'm a little tired of the off-topic ramblings.
Was not criticisng that particular comment.
Was criticising this one:
I was most disappointed to do biochemistry at uni here in QLD to find that it in fact only vaguely resembles chemistry in the widest definition of the discipline.-1 -
I wasn't directing that particular comment at you, sorry for the confusion.
Well regardless, I still think your criticism of biochemistry is misplaced.
0 -
Again, I agree with you. Biochemistry is, however, far form a complete science and there are still a number of processes that are yet to be chemically described. I wasn't really criticising biochemistry so much as I was confirming your point.
Notably when it comes to how enzymes actualy catalyse their chemical reactions. But again this is in the realms of organic chemistry rather than biochemistry, at least for routine biochemistry.
Perhaps there is or will be molecular biochemistry, and other specialised fields of biochemistry, where they focus down on these sorts of precise details.
I'm not interested in arguing with you and no where have I insulted you. Again, I apologise if that is how you are interpreting what I am saying. All I am doing is offering you feedback and asking questions out of my own, idle curiosity. I had assumed that was the intention of you posting here.
If you aren't willing to respond to me civilly or address my questions appropriately, then please tell me what questions I am permitted to ask. However, I would appreciate if you offer me the same courtesy I have extended to you and respond to me civilly, without hostility and without putting words in my mouth.
I don't feel insulted and nor am I insulting you. I am merely calmly pointing out that your criticism of the way biochemistry is currently taught was a little unreasonable in my opinion.
Greg: I didn't read your edit until after I had posted. Protein structure is obviously not something you would want to model exactly with chemical nomenclature. I was more referring to the biochemical reactions themselves.
Precisely! Which illistrates my point that a great deal of biochemistry is in a 'layer' between physiology and organic chemistry.
0 -
I agree. I was most disappointed to do biochemistry at uni here in QLD to find that it in fact only vaguely resembles chemistry in the widest definition of the discipline. That's not to say that the actual chemistry behind the process is not important and not studied though, which is more or less what I was talking about.
When they were first working out the organic chemistry behind biochemistry then they no doubt used full chemistry nomenclature and molecular structures.
But now that a lot of it is well understood full chemistry nomenclature and molecular structures are not necessary for routine biochemistry.
Let's remember that biochemistry is mid way between organic chemistry and physiology. It is necessarily provides a broader picture of the chemcial processes of life than organic chemistry. And the full details of organic chemsitry would be unnecessarily confusing.
Trying to describe every aspect of biochemistry in terms of full organic chemistry nomenclature would be a bit like trying to describe how to drive a car by providing full details of what happens in the engine bay when you depress the clutch etc.
The complex polypetide folding that produces functional enzymes etc is well beyond both organic chemical nomenclature and dscript anyway. The only way you can reasonably convey those sort of structural details is through these sorts of means:
Trying to convey this sort of detail through chemcial nomenclature like below is meaningless when it comes to describing the physiological roles of such biochemical entities such as enzymes and neurotransmitters
If you were designing drugs to replace neurotransmitter then you would need to get into precise chemical structures etc.
0 -
I never said they were. I would in fact completely agree that they are quite the opposite of interested in chemical structure or reaction mechanisms. However, to say that it is not necessary to go beyond empirical formula is a little presumptuous.
I am merely pointing out the manor in which I was taught biochemistry at the university of Melbourne. Molecular structures are rarely required or used for routine biochemistry. In fact even empirical formulas are not always used. E.G. In biochemcial reactions involving energy transfer the abreviations of ATP, ADP + P are used rather than their chemical formulas.
It is about being able to convey the big biochemical picture rather than getting bogged down and distracted by unecessary detail.
0 -
Generally, the chemistry involved in metabolic pathways or biochemical reactions only applies to a small section of the compound as a whole (such as the terminating ends of an amino acid chain, binding pockets of proteins, etc.). As such, it is not necessary to continually draw out the entire compound every time you wish to represent it, merely the parts of it that are involved.
I can really only see this being useful for compounds that have no stereochemistry whatsoever, and only if you include double and triple bond information as well as charges and hetero-atom bound hydrogens. Outside of that it fails to provide an adequate amount of detail. For the case of amino acids, the only real way I can see around the stereochemistry issue is if you predefine the chain as having all L or all D configuration. I also think that having to learn different symbols for every single element, which I am assuming would have to be the case and please correct me if not, is terribly inconvenient and not particularly easy to do.
Since when are biochemists concerned with molecular structure when representing biochemical pathways? From my biochemistry days in 1986.....rarely. The molecular structure and entities involved are so well understood that it is rarely necessary to go beyond the form C6H12O6
0 -
Yes, and we have tools for studying them
but when looking at more and more, larger and larger molecules, I am trying to increase writting speed and writting space efficiency, while also alowing for multiple forms of representation to increase overall flexibility.
Now, I am just looking to play with something, seeing if there are other ways of doing something, and what advantages disadvantage said new method may present. but I cannot resist the following...
"Why fix what 'aint broke, ya' know?"
the true mind of a scientist!
I'm sorry for trying to modify, improve, change, experiment.... can you recommend a good doctrine for me follow?
Not so, Dscript Chem notation is an extension of Dscript(the general neography, at http://dscript.ca)
Dscript letters
C =
(every intersection is a carbon)N =
So.. accounting for the neography(neography is a new writting system) it is just as obvious that...
is the same as 
(the right side is the name "phenylethylamine", not a molecule)The difference is I sacrafice the correct angles and extra bond lines (irrelevant in this case anyways) in order to gain speed and reduce size.
Bond lines can be added easily, they do of course usually increase size and reduce speed.
Think of it more like a symbol or glyph that attempts to represent chemical notation.
At the very least, it can be fun if you enjoy penmanship and will force the user to "play" with it, all the while memorizing chemical structures.
It is NOT meant to replace any current system.
This is a hobby that I am looking to refine.
The conventional diagram on the left looks far simpler and more intuitive to me. I still don't see why the d-script representation can be written more quickly than the conventional representation in this case. Looks more intricate to me.
0 -
Why is most of the banana leaves torn?
Don't know much specifically about the banana plant but I would say that what you are calling torn leaves are actually leaves divided into lobes.
0 -
Like this:
nomenclature
For the record, writing in 'CH3', etc. is actually not required, you can simply leave it off. For citation's sake, I should mention that I got this from wikipedia.
If you are familiar with chemical nomenclature and the haemoglobin molecule in particular I don't see why you couldn't draw the above molecular diagram in less than a minute anyway and I don't see why you could do it any quicker in dscript.
The molecule contains a high level of complexity which requires the same level of detail to represent it in what ever script you end up using.
The periodic table is an intuitive means of representing chemical elements as possible, hexagons/pentagons as intuitive method of representing the various carbon ring structures as possible and single/double/tripple lines as intuitive methods of representing single, double and tripple bonds as possible.
If you are very familiar with the structure of the compounds you are trying to represent then it seems to me that you can very easily and quickly represent them with this current method.
D-script seems to be adding another layer of complexity than you need to learn and become profficient with.
Anyone with a basic knowledge of the the periodic table etc would be able to have a stab at the meaning of a lot of the above diagram.
But D-script representation would be totally unintelligeble to them.
1 -
"The medical progress is coming to brick wall."
"Well some dotors hope in 50 or 100 years from now we will tell genes when to turn off or when to turn on and there will be a three approaches to problem of drugs or surgery or telling of when to turn on or off the genes"
While we are working towards the latter, the former cannot be true.
"other than that, medical progress is slowing down and yes medical breakthroughs is slowing down very fat ."
So, because we are working towards revolutionising the whole of medicine, you think we have hit a brick wall.
BTW, have you noticed that the medical journals are getting fatter, and more numerous because they have so much progress to report?
Did you notice that survival rates for most cancers are getting better?
Have you spotted the fact that, apart from overweight Americans, the lifespans of people are getting longer?
In fact, is there any real evidence for your assertions at all?
While there have been improvements in cancer treatment we are at great peril of returning to the pre-antobiotic era due to our wide misuse of antibiotics resulting in the rise of antibiotic resistance bacterial strains.
So yes there is some evidence that we may have hit a brick wall in at least some areas of medicine.
0 -
Well, that is rather a valueless comparison. How does it look when we compare vertebrates in general with insects in general? If you are going to compare humans with something, then surely that something needs to be another species? At least within the context of this thread.
The gist was that humans are the dominant and superior life form on Earth.
But that depends entirely on your criteria for dominance and superiority.
I merely pointed out that if you criteria for dominance and superiority were evolutionary longevity, number of individuals and variety then class Insecta would win easily on all counts.
Evolution did not exist for the sole purpose of giving rise to humans and there is nothing to suggest that humans will not become extinct at some point in the future.
1 -
Hello,
Does anyone know if there is any known living organism that consumes inorganic material as its only source of nutrition in today's world. I've heard it said that inorganic material had to be the only likely source of nutrition available to the first living cell, eons ago.
Thanks, David James
Not true. A soup of sugars, amino acids and DNA etc existed before any cells formed.
The nly thing missing was oxygen and so the first cells had to use oxidants other than oxygen, e.g. inorganic sulfur compounds etc,
1 -
Do hormones belong to the same organic family, or they are just under the same biochemical family 'Hormones', i.e. are the like ketones, aldehydes ...... etc.?
You are missing the point Amr Morsi.
Hormones are indeed chemicals in the broad sense, in the same way that sodium chlorine, ethanol and amino acids are all 'chemicals'
But hormones are not a specific chemical familes like alchols, hydrocarbons and ketones etc
Hormones are a family of biological components like organelles, organs and muscles.
There are many organelles and organs with highly varied structures and functions.
There are 3 types of muscle in the human body (smooth, cardiac, skeletal and no doubt many more if you take into consideration the whole animal kingdom) also with different structures and functions.
Hormones are similarly a highly varied group of biological functionaries that perform a wide variety of different physiological functions and have highly varied molecular structures.
0 -
Great! This is great!
Hormones: Stimulators for a macro (not Chemical Reactions): processes, phenomena, metabolisms, secreations .... etc.
Nerves: Receptors and Translators.
Muscles and Organs: Carry out duties as per normal and as per nerves and need cell respiration and nutrition (mainly through blood).
Bones: are not
Brain and Mind\ Feelings: Controller of the whole body (very limited and distinctive) and perceptor, "even if of feelings".
Heart: My Heart!
Bones: to get broken?
Non-Cellulars: Materials: Are deposits?
And, DNA is the the most biggest Molecule in the Creation (is this true?): is the origin! WOW!
By the way: Can we say the the chromosome is a molecule?! hh??
A chromosome is a biological structure not an individual molecule.
As well as the DNA molecules, it contains a plethora of proteins. Structural proteins like chromatin and various specific gene inhibiting and activating proteins etc.
0 -
Do hormones belong to the same organic family, or they are just under the same biochemical family 'Hormones', i.e. are the like ketones, aldehydes ...... etc.?
Hormone refers to an effect on biochemical or physiological process, not a chemical relationship.
Ethylene, I think it is, acts as a hormone that promotes the ripening of many fruit. But it clearly bares no chemical relationship to testosterone.
0 -
The brain could not have consciousness unless individual cells had consciousness no matter how small it may be. This is an accepted fact that is even taught in schools.
Please note that split brain patients, where the corpus collosum has been divided in order to contain severe epileptic siezures to one hemisphere, have shown that the two hemispheres of the brain at least (and quite possibly other components and regions of the brain), are entirely capable of generating seperate and independant conscious and self aware entities.
So split brain patients are a literal and physical case of split personality disorder. One personaity controls the left side of the body and the other personality controls the opposite side of the body.
As to the minimum amount of brain that is capable of generating a conscious entity, who knows. But clearly the smaller the mount of brain the less sophisticated will be the conscious state.
But until science comes to a different consensus, individual cells do not have any consciousness or self awareness.
They certainly respond to stimuli and avoid obstacles but that is in the same sense as a robot.
0 -
The brain could not have consciousness unless individual cells had consciousness no matter how small it may be. This is an accepted fact that is even taught in schools.
Rubbish questionposter.
Either you weren't paying attention in class, you have an intelligence deficit or your teacher(s) are incompetent in science.
Here is a challenge for you - you cite one single biology text book that states that single cells are conscious and self aware.
You wont find one because it is not accepted science fact, at present at least.
Even in the scientific paper below that proposes a shift in the emphasis from whole complex brain source of consciousness to a single neurone source of conscious, please note that the assumption is that it is the electric impulses travelling along the neurones dendritic processes is what makes the neirone conscious.
The neurone is not conscious in and of itself without the electrical impulses.
http://cogprints.org/3891/1/snt-9html.htm
ABSTRACT:A theory is outlined that shifts the presumed locus of mind/brain interaction from the whole brain level to that of single neurons.� Neuroanatomical and neurophysiological evidence is offered in support of the existence of single neurons that may individually receive dendritic input of sufficient complexity and diversity to account for the full content of conscious experience, and of an arrangement in which the output of multiple such neurons summate to achieve amplification of the individually emitted messages.� An ultramicroscopic extension of the theory is suggested as a way of moving forward on the philosophically difficult aspects of the mind/brain problem.
1. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this paper is to suggest a shift in emphasis from the large to the small in the search for a brain correlate for the mind.� By most accounts, the mind is assumed to correlate with the integrated activity of large populations of neurons distributed across multiple cortical and subcortical brain regions (Sperry 1969, Damasio 1999, Edelman and Tononi 2000, John 2001).� Nonlinear dynamic mechanisms are then invoked to provide for the "binding" of the dispersed neuronal activity into a unified stream of consciousness (Hardcastle 1994).� By this view, activity within any single neuron correlates with merely a fragment of the total conscious experience; it is only through the integration of these fragments that a single whole-brain consciousness is assumed to emerge.
A contrasting model is outlined in the present paper that places the mind/brain interface not at the whole brain level but at the level of the single neuron.� Specifically, the model proposes that a single brain at any given moment harbors many separate conscious minds, each one assumed to be associated with the activity of a different individual neuron.� The model proposes, that is, that what is usually regarded as a person�s single conscious experience correlates not with an integrated neuronal network, but individually with single neurons that separately and redundantly encode the entire conscious content.� Consequently, at any given time, a multitude of conscious beings are assumed to be associated with a single person�s brain, all having identical or at least similar experiences.� Axonal outputs from multiple such neurons are then conjectured to summate, providing amplification of the message being emitted by any one of them.� The overall scheme is one in which conscious behavior, while appearing to be the product of a single macroscopic mind, is actually the result of the superposed output of a chorus of minds, each associated with a different individual neuron.
The proposed theory makes the following assumptions:
a) Each neuron in the nervous system is independently conscious, the electrical activity in each neuron's dendritic tree serving as the neural correlate of consciousness (NCC) for that neuron.
b) For most neurons, such as those in the hypothalamus or those in the posterior sensory cortices, or for cortical interneurons, the conscious activity of the neuron would be expected to be simple and would additionally be unable to directly affect the organism's macroscopic behavior.� Such neurons would not, therefore, contribute to what is usually taken as a person�s conscious behavior.
�
c) For a subpopulation of neurons in the lateral prefrontal cortices, however, the arrangement is such that:� i) the conscious activities of the individual neurons are of a complexity and diversity sufficient to match that usually ascribed to the much of the brain as a whole; and ii) a large number of such neurons having more or less the same conscious activity at any given time summate their outputs to achieve amplification of the message emitted by any one of them.
d) As a result of this arrangement, the conscious content of an organism's macroscopic behavior is seen to derive from the summated action of an ensemble of independently conscious neurons.� Consequently, single neurons in the model serve independently as separate NCC's; there is no combining of the individual consciousnesses into a superordinate whole-brain consciousness.
0 -
http://scitizen.com/future-energies/can-renewables-replace-fossil-fuels-_a-14-3165.html
Comments?
In 2006, the total amount of energy the world consumed was 469 quadrillion BTUs, or quads.* Charted in percentage terms, the global fuel mix looks like this:If the latest information I gathered at the ASPO peak oil conference is correct–and I think it is, or at least is as close to correct as anybody is going to come at this point–then we should expect oil to begin declining at about 5% per year starting around 2012 – 2014.
Of the 157 quads provided by oil, at a 5% decline rate we’ll lose 7.85 quads per year, or 1.7% of the world’s primary energy supply.
The “Geothermal and Other”category, supplying 1.6% of the world’s primary energy, represents all the renewable sources combined: geothermal, solar, wind, biomass, and so on.
Since 1.7% is very close to 1.6%, we can put the challenge of substituting renewables for oil this way: Starting around 2012 – 2014, the world will need to build the equivalent of all the world’s existing renewable energy capacity every year just to replace the lost BTUs from oil.
Fortunately renewable energy of all kinds is enjoying a massive growth spurt, attracting trillions of dollars in investment capital. On average, the sector seems to be growing at about 30% per year, which is phenomenal…but it’s not 100%.
In terms of BTU substitution, then, it seems unlikely that renewables can grow at the necessary rate.
Not Just BTUs
However, the challenge is more complex than mere BTU substitution.
Replacing the infrastructure, particularly transportation, that’s based on oil with one based on renewably generated electricity will in itself require energy–and lots of it. As Jeff Vail, an associate with Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP, said at the conference, between 80-90% of the energy inputs for renewables must be made up front, before they start to pay any energy out.
Even if renewables were able to make up all of the lost energy from oil, still more would be needed to afford any economic growth.
In all it seems a fair bet that it will take at least a decade for renewables to merely catch up with the annual toll of oil depletion. The gap will likely manifest as fuel shortages in the OECD when the developing world outbids it for oil, and a long economic recession or depression…unless efficiency comes to the rescue.
To that point, Vail speculated that population increase alone could offset as much as 30% of the improvement in conservation and efficiency. He noted that despite the recession, car sales are up 29% in India as people buy their very first cars.
Falling Net Energy
Another driver of the down escalator is that the net energy (EROI, or energy returned on energy invested) of nearly all fossil fuel production is falling.
Dr. Cutler Cleveland at Boston University has observed that the net energy of oil and gas extraction in the U.S. has decreased from 100:1 in the 1930’s, to 30:1 in the 1970’s, to roughly 11:1 as of 2000.
Simply put: As the quality of the remaining fossil fuels declines, and they become more difficult to extract, it takes more energy to continue producing energy.
This begs the question: What EROI must the replacements have to compensate for oil depletion?
Vail presented several models attempting to answer it. In his optimistic scenario, assuming a 5% rate of net energy decline and an EROI of 20 for the renewables, the“renewables gap” was filled in year 3. In his pessimistic scenario, assuming a 10% rate of net energy decline and an EROI of 4 for the renewables, the gap wasn’t filled until year 7.
For a sense of how reasonable those assumptions are, we must turn to the academic literature, since no business or government agency has yet shown any particular interest in EROI studies (much to my dismay).
Studies assembled by Dr. Charles Hall (source) put the average EROI of wind at 18 (Kubiszewski, Cleveland, and Endres, 2009); solar at 6.8 (Battisti and Corrado, 2005), and nuclear at 5 to 15 (Lenzen, 2008; Hall, 2008). No data is available for geothermal or marine energy. All the biofuels are under 2, making them non-solutions if the minimum EROI for a society is indeed 3 (Hall, Balogh and Murphy, 2009).
[A quick aside: The huge range of the nuclear estimate is one indication of how difficult it is to accurately asses the costs of nuclear, which is part of the reason I still haven’t written the article I know many of you are hoping to see some day. I’m working on it, and still looking for current research with appropriately inclusive boundaries and updated numbers. Nearly everyone is still using cost estimates that predate the commodities bull run, not even realizing how it distorts their analysis. So far I have found nothing to change my outlook that the nuclear share of global supply will stay roughly the same for several decades.]
I am not aware of any studies on the EROI of biomass not made into liquid fuels–for example, methane digesters using waste, landfill gas, and so on–but its sources and uses are so varied that if the numbers were available, they probably wouldn’t be very useful. While such applications are generally good, they’re not very scalable—they work were they work, and don’t where they don’t.
Theorem of Renewables Substitution
Where EROI analysis leaves us is unclear; it needs more research and a great deal more data. There are some useful clues in it though.
First, we know that biofuels–at least the ones we have today–won’t help much, other than providing an alternate source of liquid fuels while we’re making the transition to electric.
Second, we know that solar tends toward Vail’s pessimistic scenario, and wind fits the bill for his optimistic scenario.
But here’s the rub: The lowest EROI source, biofuels, is the easiest to do, with the vigorous support of a huge lobby and Energy Secretary Chu himself. Rooftop solar is the next-easiest to do but making up the lost BTUs takes longer due to its moderate EROI. And the source with the highest EROI, wind, is the hardest. (I explained why solar is easier here.)
Therefore I propose the following, slightly snarky Theorem of Renewables Substitution: The easier it is to produce a source of renewable energy, the less it helps.
<br style="font-weight: bold;"> The Winner: Efficiency
All of these factors–the declining supply, the pressures of the developing world on demand, the renewables gap, and the theorem of renewables substitution–underscore how crucial efficiency is to addressing the energy crisis.
It also underscores how profitable the entire energy sector will be for many, many years to come.
With supply maxed out, and demand at the mercy of a developing world, the name of the game now is doing more with less. More efficient vehicles and appliances, building insulation, co-generation…and all the other ways to eliminate waste.
I know it doesn’t have the sex appeal of, oh, say space based solar power, but it’s where the real gains will be made.
0 -
I didn't get how this works.
factorial 0 = 1 factorial n = n * factorial (n - 1)
You're making a new function "factorial". And n factorial will be n * factorial(n-1). But how can it be possible if it still does not know what is factorial?
This sounds really weird to me. You just gave the factorial 0=1, how can it guess the result for other n's? Or factorial is a built-in function?
Perhaps it would make more sense if I wrote the equivalent function in C
int factorial(int n, int total = 1)
{
if (n == 0)
return total;
else
return factorial(n-1, total*n)
}
Call it as x = factorial(10);
0 -
I think carbonates are forming at an order of magnitude faster than source rocks, but thats a gut feel. Do you have some specific data to support your suggestion.
No specific figures. But clearly coral reefs accumulate over geological time scales as do oil and coal deposits. In terms if a human life time or the life time of a civilisation they are similar time scales.
Probably also should consider that coral reef accumulation is a far more common occurence than oil and coal deposition which require more specialised conditions I believe.
E.G. Oil deposition requires anoxic deep ocean conditions and how often has that occured through the history of Earth.
0 -
Single cells DO NOT have conciousness or self awareness.
I am confident in saying that this is a universally accepted biological fact.
And I never said that individual neurones have consciousness - you have completely misunderstood what I was saying.
I will try again for what it is worth.
When a neurone does what it does in firing off nerve impulses to neighbouring neurones it contributes to the generation of conciousness within the brain, i.e. the continuous stream of nerve impulses is a small part of consciousness not the neurones themselves.
Back to the motor cycle analogy.....
It is not the piston of the spark plug that is a small part of the speed of the bike. It is the coordinated movement of the piston and the coordinated sparking of the spark plug that are small parts of the speed of the bike.
If the piston does not move or the spark plug does not spark then the motorcycle does not move and generates no speed.
Similarly if the neurones in your brain do not fire impulses, or the propagation of those impulses was disrupted by severe brain injury resulting in a coma, then the conscious and self aware entity that calls itself questionposter would simply no longer exist.
If your brain was some how repaired so that impulses could again flow as normal then the conscious and self aware entity that calls itself questionposter would exist.
Much like flicking a light switch on and off.
And a light switch analogy pretty much matches the reality doesn't it......with fainting, a blow to the head, sleeping or a stroke etc.
You might think that this reduces our humanity to insignficance but on the contrary, I think it makes our humanity even more amazing and precious.
Think about it.......simple chemistry and physiology can generate a fragile self aware conscious entity that is capable of such incredible scientific acheivments, including being able to question its own existence.
0 -
how does the decision to get up out of bed lead us to actually getting up out of bed?
I guess the thought takes shape in the frontal lobes with a cascade of nerve impulses being sent to the motor cotex which then sends the appropriate combination of impulses down the spinal chord to the limbs that then results in us pushing ourselves up and out of the bed.
In much in the same way that the CPU of a robot reaches a point in the program it is running where electrical signals are sent through a series of wires to limb actuators that then cause the robot to move in some way.
0 -
is calcium carbonate a sustainable resource?
Deposits of calcium carbonate are laid down at a similar rate at which oil and coal deposits are formed.
So technically it is no more renewable than coal and oil.
The only difference being that the reserves of calcium carbonate are so much more massive.
0
Global Warming is Not a Crisis
in Climate Science
Posted
Who has shown that heat re-distribution des not occur via the gulf stream and other ocean currents?
It seems as though it is still at the hypothesis stage, but here are the details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutdown_of_thermohaline_circulation
So there is currently insufficient firm evidence to prove the hypothesis. Probably the same problem with proving CO2 induced geenhouse effect. I.E. It requires many decades of accumulated evidence to reveal any overwhelming pattern. Presumably the hypothesis is far to young as yet.
But it is certainly not the case that the hypothesis has been empahtically disproved.
Please don't misinterpret my post as supporting your notion that climate change, global warming or what ever your prefer to call it is not somthing to be very concerned about.
A mini or full ice age will kill millions or billions of humans and destroy western civilisation just as surely as the effects of significantly increased average temperatures.
As I pointed out, a future ice age will not necessarily disprove that global warming was real prior to it.
The larger issue here is global climate change or shift not short term global warming.