dimreepr

I put my faith in 'The Avengers', sorry couldn't resist; essentially it's all about the ETA, so our best defence is keeping our eye's peeled...

23 hours ago, TheVat said:

Seems like doing it the hard way, and deceleration takes a lot more newtons than deflection.   I would favor a high energy laser that strikes one side to form a jet of vaporized material.  Depending on the mass of the rock and its distance, a few hundred newtons of thrust could steer it off its collision course.  

I have to wonder if that would be effective, by the time a focused enough beam to make a difference, had any effect, it seems to me that it would probably be too late to make a real difference.

13 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said:

What are the pros and cons of this reproductive set up?

The only answer to that question is, it work's for humans among other's.

What's the point of the question?

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

Your writing is very clear and concise, and valuable

I know that my method of inquiry is unconventional and at times bothersome, but here is an article that I would like for you to comment on! If you do not wish to do so, I would understand.

"With a finding that will "rewrite neuroanatomy textbooks," University of Iowa neurologist Aaron Boes, MD, Ph.D., and his colleagues show that the thalamus is not a critical part of the brain pathway involved in keeping humans awake and conscious."

"The finding upends decades of medical dogma that placed the thalamus as a critical relay point for the signals originating in the brainstem and ending in the cortex that maintain consciousness (wakefulness). The new study, published online Nov. 12 as a preprint in the Annals of Neurology, provides the first systematic evidence from humans that questions the routing of this critical pathway. The study evaluates patients with strokes of the thalamus and shows that even extensive injury to the thalamus does not severely impair consciousness."

https://www.gehealthcare.ca/fr-CA/insights/article/rewriting-the-brain-pathway-for-consciousness

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ana.25377

Furthermore, cephalopods and some other living entities do not have a thalamus per say, but show complex behaviours.

The only thing I find bothersome is, you're clearly an intelligent person, but you're trying to run before you can walk; please think about building your case, rather than flit from study to study saying "what about this".

13 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said:

I'm not missing anything. I'm sharing my thoughts. It seems logical to me that if you were to double the number of child bearers within a given species by making each and every member of that species a child bearer, as opposed to just half the said species, the population rate of growth would be considerably greater than otherwise. How many babies can a single woman bear during her lifetime? How many women can a single man impregnate during his lifetime? 

You are missing the point, "Mother Nature" has a built in escape clause when it comes to actual overpopulation, it's an automatic death sentence, and your thoughts on the subject has very little to do with it.

17 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

I watched the video from beginning to end.

Are you trying to convince me that I am right?

That wasn't my intention, I was trying to get you to learn before you leap.

17 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

You should watch once again and put yourself in a mindset that the brain is actually a transducer.

I did so and a lot of how he says the brain work's, made sense in that perspective.

What do you actually mean by a transducer?

Quote

In biology, a transducer is a device that translates one physical quantity to another12. In the context of biosensors, a biotransducer is the recognition-transduction component of a biosensor system, consisting of a bio-recognition layer and a physicochemical transducer that together convert a biochemical signal to an electronic or optical signal3. In plants, the term transducer is used to refer to plant species that trap energy from the sun and nutrients from the soil for the creation of food in the form of carbohydrates4.

Because, as I've previously mentioned, tree's don't think before they open their mouths.

17 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

He also asks where is mind in the brain? In the cerebellum? no. even if 80% of neurons are located there? Still no! In the cortex? maybe, but why there and not somewhere else, he says. In the thalamus? He does not answer! in the Claustrum? mentions it at the end with still no definite answer.

Indeed, in the brain as I previously stated, we just don't know which bit does the thinking.

17 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

He briefly states that consciousness is in nature; at least in dogs, which is my position also.

Indeed, I'm pretty sure I mentioned dog's and computer's in relation to consciousness, in this thread (if memory serves).

But again, it does nothing to bolster your case.

17 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

During the video, he peppers us with many questions about consciousness without answering them, which is again my position that we know very little about the mind brain connection.

What's all this "we" business Tonto, do you have a relevant doctorate?

11 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said:

It is my notion that if all humans could have babies, not just half of the species, that would pretty much double our reproductive capacity. Men can fertilize women much faster than women can bear children. Women are only about half the population within the age group of human fertility. In unisex species, reproduction rate and baby-making efficiency are measured in the female, not male, half. 

Think about what our world numbers might be if our species was 90% women!

Your missing the point, their are many factors involved in how "mothre nature" regulates population, most of them are much more unpleasant than sex.

Did you know, a greenfly is born pregnant? You can't get more efficient than that... 

Humans have to eat, just like the greenfly; let a couple of mice into one of our grain store's and in a few months, all we'll have left is a huge mound of mouse bones and whatever fed on their carcass'... 😉

49 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Good caution there.

Indeed, I wonder why...

9 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said:

Human hermaphroditism might not be a good thing after all. That would mean each and every person could have a baby.  Even with male and female in separate bodies, the world is way overpopulated as it stands right now. 

Overpopulated by whom?

Greenfly could overpopulate the world, if only they knew how...

17 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Mind over genes?

"An international study led by the UGR using artificial intelligence has shown that our personalities alter the expression of our genes. The findings shed new light on the long-standing mystery of how the mind and body interact."

"In previous research, we found significant differences in well-being between people in the three personality groups, depending on their level of self-awareness. Specifically, those with greater self-awareness (the creative group) reported greater well-being compared to the organised and unregulated groups. We have now shown that these levels of self-awareness are also strongly associated with the regulation of gene expression in the same order (creative > organised > unregulated). This suggests that a person can improve their health and well-being by cultivating a more self-transcendent and creative outlook on life."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/04/240401142515.htm

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-024-02484-x

 

Mind over genes; what, about this study makes you think that?

Using AI in this case will only really show statistical correlation, it doesn't know what the locus of control really means, for instance why have they labelled an internal locus as 'creative'?

This is a good place to start with your critical thinking on the subject.

Don't be fooled by the ease of finding thing's on t'internet that seem to agree with you, think about why that is...

10 minutes ago, JohnDBarrow said:

I wasn't trying to invalidate anything. I wanted folks here to understand that two separate individuals are involved in bringing forth young even in hermaphroditic species. 

For some reason, Mother Nature provided that the vertebrate (higher-level) animals be unisexual (male and female in separate bodies). Logically, I try to pick the line in the store that I perceive to get me out of the store the fastest. Mother Nature may have found it most efficient to put male and female in separate human bodies if nature has any free will or reasoning power at all. 

 

Another name for hermaphrodites are bisexuals.

This term is not to be confused with the sexual orientation of being attracted to both sexes. 

I think you'll find that folk's here, understand the nuance... 😉

Just now, JohnDBarrow said:

The hermaphroditic animal species still involve two separate parents to bring forth young (at least in earthworms) as far as I know. Female parts of plants are above male parts, so pollination (inbreeding) won't occur within the same tree merely by the law of gravity. The wind (or birds and bees) has to carry pollen from neighboring plants for genetic diversity. Most plant life is hermaphroditic as far as I know. 

Indeed, but how does that invalidate my point?

We are on a spectrum here, bacteria being the simplest and human's being the most complex, of course there's a crossover; much like wondering which line to pick at the checkout. 

16 hours ago, MigL said:

I don't like Dimreepr's analogy, but I'll try to use it.

Picture yourself living on that salt flat, which is level as far as the eye can see, and seems to go on forever.
You start walking in one direction ( at a great speed ) and eventually you lose sight of the salt flat, and run into mountains and forests.
Even cities and bodies of water that you have to swim across ( again at great speed ) until eventually ( after quite a while ) you come back to the same exact spot on the salt flat. But from the opposite direction.
Clearly the surface of the world is finite; but there is no boundary.

So where is the center of the world's surface ???

Now ( and this is a big step ) extend your thinking to 4 dimensional intrinsically curved space-time.

TBH I just thought a 2 dimensional model was more appropriate, in this case... 🤔

10 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said:

I dare say the hermaphroditic earthworms are quite populated worldwide. I understand it still takes two of these individuals to reproduce. Genetic diversity would still come from two separate individual earthworms which mate with one another. My theory is that if humans were also hermaphroditic and naturally able to continue their species, still two separate individuals would be in order to reproduce. A single individual entirely reproducing on its own in theory would indeed lack any genetic diversity. 

Here is a link (not safe for work) to a piece of artwork I made to provide you a mental picture of my notions of a hypothetical hermaphroditic human had Mother Nature otherwise gone that route or may still choose to go that route in the future before Man becomes entirely extinct should that be the fate for us. 

https://www.mediafire.com/view/94s6qklnc0xc3yx/concept_hermaphrodititc_human.png/file

 

My concept hermaphroditic human (the one that never happened but might still happen in the future) is conceived by me to possibly be able to both bear and sire healthy children under normal circumstances. The trouble is that uterine female mammals generally have limited physical strength and stamina. Since each and every of my theoretical hermaphroditic humans would have childbearing capability under normal circumstances, how well might they be able to do strenuous and dangerous labors? The non-childbearing men have a physical advantage over the childbearing women and therefore men have been assigned the more dangerous and difficult work for the longest time. Modern woke societal attitudes regarding sex and gender disregard such natural differences between men and women. But I digress. How might the hormones work in a single mammal's body with both impregnating and childbearing capabilities?  

 

 

I think a lot of it depends on the energy needed to create the next generation, the more energy needed often = longer living, more complex, life form's which normally would mean, a tiny mistake in just genetic copying would be eliminated by the complexity and energy needs of the lifeform. 

That is not present in less complex or energy dependent lifeforms, they have many more generation's to make up for the shortfall in genetic diversity, that two parents provide.

It's a balance, because of the time it takes for each approach to fill their respective niche in the world. 

8 minutes ago, iNow said:

Fun fact: The universe is under no obligation to make sense to uninformed human minds 

Indeed, but we are under the obligation to teach the children, how to tell the difference...

1 hour ago, Time Traveler said:

In case the Universe is finite, I can't understand how there is no center

Can someone smart and well informed+ well-meaning , give me light and tell me if the Universe is the place (vacuum) where all existing ( matter, energy, fields, dark energy , dark matter ) +  all who are inside the vacuum . If that is then the vacuum is infinite and all from inside could be finite or infinite ? In this case ,all from inside the vacuum at beginning of Big Bang had a place in infinite , like point 0 or place near point 0 on the intersection of the axes OX-OY-OZ . After time 0 when Big Bang happened was inflation ....That point 0 is then the center of all existing in the vacuum
If I am wrong I wait arguments against

 

If you stand in the middle of a salt flat, your horizon or how far you can see, is about three miles in every direction, from that perspective 'you' are always at the center of 'your' universe.

IOW the big bang is the salt flat and we're in the middle of it. And it doesn't matter what's outside of what we can see bc if we can't see it... 😉

IOW the middle just got bigger...

BTW we're all time travellers it's just another direction that we can't see, beyond 3 miles...😉

4 hours ago, Time Traveler said:

The brain makes a "correction", it lies to us, that we observe the present when in fact we observe a mixture of past tenses

Of course it lies assumes certain thing's, it can't possibly process reality in real time, as tremendous a tool as it clearly is, reality takes a little time to think about... 😉

43 minutes ago, Time Traveler said:

Ok ..Finally an argument ....My ridiculous mind tells me that there must be a center of expansion...maybe not in the observable universe  

That certainly is a ridiculous statement, did your brain lie to you again?

23 hours ago, Externet said:

In a future of the A.I. development taking root, call it loss of jobs, call it unfair competition, call it any nasty effect generating aversion from the public.  How could it then be stopped from invading every aspect of lives ?

This question is akin to the, so called, immigration problem.

The cold hard truth is, most people are happy to see it happen bc it doesn't really affect them, and they like to 'google' on their friends when they insist, that a tomato isn't a fruit. 

You can't stop an invasion that's already happened. 

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

It's already owned by the same few people who already own everything else. And of course there is no switch-off, unless they abandon it for lack of profitability. When we reach 50% unemployment, everyone defaults on their loans and there is nobody left to buy all the goods and services, and there are no taxes left to collect, the whole economic and political structure collapses, because no provision has been made to change gradually from a debt/profit driven organization to whatever the next thing is. 

That's not likely to happen, though. Certainly, there will be riots long before then, bombings and burning of automated factories, maybe derailment of driverless freight trains, etc. Police will have to gas and shoot protesters, jail their leaders and all the usual rigamarole when the plebes get too restless. Maybe it will peter out in a cascade of financial and civil crises; maybe someone can start another war of distraction (though that one's wearing pretty transparent and can much too easily escalate to total annihilation) and deploy all the artificially intelligent weapons.

No off-switch; no public domain; no contingency plans. We just have to hope AI gets smarter than we are and takes over the helm before we run it into the iceberg. 

What iceberg?

The future is so easy to predict when it's already happened...

33 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

I believe that I have less "legitimacy" than most participants in these scientific forums.

Who told you that?

It's up to you to gain legitimacy, through reasonable conjecture.

21 minutes ago, Externet said:

Hello all.

In a future of the A.I. development taking root, call it loss of jobs, call it unfair competition, call it any nasty effect generating aversion from the public.  How could it then be stopped from invading every aspect of lives ?  Is there a "protection switch-off" its advancement ?  Any 'way out' reverse gear ?

If not generalized to the public; but to some or personally,  is there a "switch-off" to prevent it from affecting ?  A 'change channel' or 'do not use social web sites' sort of approach ?  If profit is involved, will there be chance for A.I. to be stopped ? 

How do you see it ?  Proceed with caution, or reject it, or embrace it, or make money with it ?

I look forward to the time it does all the hard work for us, no more zero hours contracts and it's ilk.

I see no real reason to fear the future of AI, as long as it's available for everyone to make use of it; AI maturity under that condition, will make money a pointless concept.

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

I am sure that this will not satisfy you, but nonetheless, here is one that I think is more than just patching small holes.

• DNA mutations are not random as previously thought
• Findings change our understanding of evolution

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04269-6

Now, on to mind-brain.

Layers upon layers of "unexpected" complexity was added in the last few years to genetics and science as a whole.

Again, on to mind-brain.

I get what you're trying to say, but if I can quote Frank Herbert "science is like a balloon, we blow knowledge in, which inflates the ballon, but in doing so we increase the surface area of what is unknown" (or words to that effect), standing outside the balloon it's easy to say "look how big it is, there's so much that we don't understand, how can they say I'm wrong?".

Sometimes scientist's do fall into the trap of belief, like every other human on the planet, but that doesn't entitle you to say "therefore what I believe has equal legitimacy".

On 4/7/2024 at 5:14 PM, DrmDoc said:

Perhaps, but with the direction of your natural/artificial selection argument we'd be debating the age old question of nature versus nurture--a debate that apparently won't be settled by or between us in any assigned forum.

But it is fun to speculate... 🧐

Seems obvious to me...

Ahhh, a neg, an anti-point; there's a reason why antimatter, isn't dominant...😉

1 hour ago, harlock said:

 

Here the logic is this: I do 'impossible' things to make people believe that I come from God. It was really important because Jesus brings eternal life, that is, forgiveness from original sin. Jesus time is the last about Daniel 70 weeks to be forgiven from original sin. It's an incredible importance. I think it's logic. It's not a scientific question.  

Indeed, that's why it's not important... 😉

18 hours ago, Airbrush said:

Thanks for posting this!  Now I can post a few Bible verses I compiled that make Trump look like an Antichrist.  If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck, errr an Antichrist!

ANTICHRIST:

He is called “the little horn.” – Daniel 7:8   The word “Trump” appears twice in the KJV bible as an abbreviation of “trumpet” or “little horn.”  The little horn has “the eyes of a man and boasts great things.”

He will come in his own name and be accepted - John 5:43

He has the mouth of a lion – Rev. 13:2

He is arrogant, shall exalt himself above others – Daniel 8:25

He is extremely boastful with a “mouth speaking great things” – Daniel 7:8

He will throw truth to the ground. – Daniel 8:12   (30,000 false or misleading statements while in office.)

He will deny the Father and the Son - 1 John 2:22   He said he does not seek God the Father's forgiveness, thus denying the need for God the Son as savior.  (BTW:  God the Father wanted his Son to suffer and die to please HIMSELF!  That is what a sacrifice is for, to please God the Father.)

He will be a vile person – Daniel 11:21

He will honor the God of Forces, and "a god his father knew not, he shall honor with gold, silver, precious stones, and other pleasant things.” – Daniel 11:38

He is connected to gold – Rev. 13:18   King Solomon became obsessed with gold and pagan gods during his later years.  Trump’s obsession with gold and “pleasant things” is comparable to King Solomon

He will have a “covenant with many for one week” – Daniel 9:27

He will disguise himself as an “angel of light” – 2 Corinthians 11:15   He masquerades as a force for good, and defender of Christian values, but in reality, defending only HIMSELF.

He is named “the Lawless One” – 2 Thessalonians 2:8 Trump considers himself to be above the law or a law unto himself. There are many examples of him skirting the law and able to avoid repercussions. He said “I have the right to do ANYTHING I want as president, but I don’t even talk about that." HE DID TALK ABOUT THAT!
 

He does as he pleases – Daniel 11:36 “Then the king will do as he pleases, and he will exalt himself and boast against every god, and will speak dreadful things against the God of gods; and he will be successful until the indignation is finished” – Daniel 11:36 NASB He “shoots from the lip” not caring if he’s politically correct, or who he might be insulting, or even if what he says is true.

He works deceitfully – Daniel 11:23 “He shall work deceitfully: for he shall come up and shall become strong with a small people” and “Through his cunning He shall cause deceit to prosper under His rule” Trumps deceptiveness was so pervasive that even his own attorneys testified they would only meet with him in pairs to prevent him from give them 2 different versions of the same story.

He understands dark sentences or sinister schemes – Daniel 8:23 “A king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up” He is a master of intrigue and machination, which is scheming or crafty action, to accomplish an evil end.

He attains the kingdom by flattery – Daniel 11:21 “And in His estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honor of the kingdom: but He shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries or smoothness, slipperiness, or fine promises (e.g. Mexico will pay for the wall). Scheming with a small group of people, American Nationalism, or Christian Nationalism, serves Trump in his quest to regain power to use as retribution upon his enemies.

He will amaze the world – Rev. 13:3 He steals headlines daily, by one outrageous comment after another

He will succeed in all that he does – Daniel 8:24 “His power will be great, but it will not be His own. He will cause terrible destruction [Covid mismanagement] and succeed in whatever He does [The Apprentice]. He will destroy the mighty men along with the holy people.” Trump has attained everything he wanted through devious means. The world considers him a great success. He will never stop until he regains power and takes revenge on his enemies.

 

 

 

I remember a quote that said that if a man rapes a woman, it's ok, all he needs to do is pay off the father and marry the girl, and take care of her for the rest of her life!

I'm sorry but this is typical of the age we live in, the seventh'ish epoc of the age of nihilism, of which you're a part.

You're so busy finding fault's in the bible, you miss the relevant part's "it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to find heaven"; Trump isn't the antichrist, much like antigravity, there's no such thing.

Trump is 'our' product, just rejoice in the fact that he'll never be happy bc his locus of control is definitely external, and consentrate on your own; which is also mentioned in the bible, I don't know where exactly, TBH I don't care... 😉

Quote

Locus of control refers to the degree to which an individual feels a sense of agency in regard to his or her life. Someone with an internal locus of control will believe that the things that happen to them are greatly influenced by their own abilities, actions, or mistakes. A person with an external locus of control will tend to feel that other forces—such as random chance, environmental factors, or the actions of others—are more responsible for the events that occur in the individual's life.