Consistency

That post is wrong on so many levels it's difficult to know where to start.

Humans don't force bacteria to make B12.

The bugs were making it before we evolved.

We permit them to make it, by giving them good growing conditions in fermentation vessels.

We also let them make the stuff in our guts but we don't "force" them to do anything so when you say

"I know how humans force bacteria to produce it and take it away."

or "You're the chemistry expert and you can't see how humans force bacteria to produce B12?"

you are plainly talking nonsense.

 

 

Let's look again at the first assumption cited here

You said "Its an assumption that we humans produce it through fermentation".

 

Hardly: for a start, while I agree that WIKI isn't always right, it's generally fairly well informed about non-controversial things like the industrial production of B12 and it says that the production is by fermentation. and they cite a reference

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00253-001-0902-7

 

 

Yet you also say "an assumption means having absolutely no evidence."

 

 

Anyway, re "By limited mind, I mean being limited in viewpoints."

so far, you have only accepted one viewpoint- your own.

And you have continued to do so even when it has been shown that you are clearly wrong.

So, once again, you say:

you can only learn from yourself.

You can't learn from limited minds and

you have a limited mind.

 

Good luck learning anything.

 

So much ignorance in this post that I don't even know where to begin. Please go study bacteriology before saying anything else and please stop with the evolution rubbish.

 

We produce it through fermentation, can we absorb it? No. So.. It doesn't matter. What I meant was that its an assumption that we humans produce it through fermentation and absorb it.

 

I don't agree with your viewpoints however ajb made some excellent points which I agree with.

 

When you're missing information, It doesn't mean that you think I am wrong, it means that you lack the information to know. Thats all.

For most of scientists its to get a career and for others its to discover the truth in what they are interested in.

 

Knowing too much science is just as bad as knowing less than the basics. Getting lost in the little details in never helpful.

Nikola Tesla was right then... Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.

Evidence isn't falsifiable, but hypotheses are falsifiable.

 

Thats assumption.

 

We need evidence in the first place to make an hypothesis.

 

No evidence = no hypothesis.

No evidence = assumption.

 

There is a fine line between hypothesis and assumption. Many people confuse the two.

 

An actual hypothesis is either truth or part-truth because its based on evidence.

Get a grip.

You can't talk about vitamins, particularly deficiency states, without talking about food,

If you are not supplementing the B12 provided by food, what are you supplementing.

 

Natural food yes. Now I know what you mean.

 

Like I said, I know how humans force bacteria to produce it and take it away.

 

You're the chemistry expert and you can't see how humans force bacteria to produce B12?

 

There is more to science than experiment. As was discussed at some length- it is a vital part of science, that it make assumptions.

 

You didn't understand what I asked and what I have been saying all along.

 

hy·poth·e·sis/hīˈpäTHəsis/

Noun:

 

A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

A proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.

 

as·sump·tion/əˈsəm(p)SHən/

Noun:

 

A thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof(evidence).

 

What's the difference?

 

Hypothesis means having limited evidence while an assumption means having absolutely no evidence.

 

Making an hypothesis builds on a subject while making assumptions leaves a person ignorant.

 

When it comes to doing an experiment, the experimenter should not be making assumptions but merely adopt a "I don't know what is going to happen attitude" and let the science speak for itself. Then when they have the evidence from experiment.. only then start making hypotheses with the other evidence in their brain. Also adopting a "don't believe everything you read until you see the actual evidence" is beneficial.

 

A thing that is limited about the scientific method is how the possibility of creators is rejected and excluded from the equation. We neither can prove nor disprove the possibility of creators but this shouldn't give anyone the right to eliminate the creator(s) variable from the equation.

 

You also said "I can learn from others if the knowledge isn't coming from a limited mind."

and you said "Autodidact implies a person who can only learn by teaching oneself."

And, in the title of the tread you imply that you are an autodidact.

 

By limited mind, I don't mean limited in intelligence, memory and any other attributes of a scholar.

 

By limited mind, I mean being limited in viewpoints. A non limited mind is a mind of an autodidact, which means having many many viewpoints. I could probably learn from another autodidact if I ever run into one but the chances of that are slim.

 

I am far from perfect. I lack the professional language skills which are neccessary to write up what I discover in the first place.

This thread is old but... Is the water attracted to the heat and absorbs it?

Often there is people that seem to have will power, life force, inspiration, mental energy, direction of what they want to do with their life, emotions, etc...

 

What if these qualities are internal energies... how could we measure them?

Do you believe that doing experiments equates to making assumptions?

Nice way of twisting my words. It isn't a statement of the obvious since I was talking about B12 supplementation and you brought food into the mix out of no where without clarifying what you said by adding "proper".

drug dealers do it for the money, same reason big pharma does it. People try them to escape themselves, I guess.

 

That organic bran muffin you ate had something extra in it.

 

Our diets aren't nutritionally deficient?

 

LOL. Your assumption failed. I don't eat grains and dairy.

I never said it was a choice: I said you had mis-defined it.

How have you come to the decision that any of the minds here are limited?

Do you realise that many here have come to the same conclusion about you (not least because of the logic faults you have displayed)

Do you really think we are all wrong, and you are the only one who is right?

How would you react if you saw someone else acting like that (i.e. making clear errors but claiming to be the only one who is right)?

No, I understood, you didn't.

 

I said that being an autodidact isn't a choice. What is an autodidact in your own words? Are you one?

Some are limited and some aren't limited. Making assumptions instead of asking for clarification is a sign of being limited.

I never thought or said you are all wrong and I am the only one who is right. You've made assumptions about what I said.

What may seem as errors to you is misunderstanding. Ask for clarification.

 

Animals do not need vit B 12 supplements: if they did they would die out in the wild.

Yet they survived just fine in the world before we came along.

They continued to survive with our care and exploitation (take your pick- it doesn't alter the argument) for centuries before we had a clue that B12 existed.

 

Obviously, at that point they were getting their b 12 from their food.

 

Clearly, farming practice has changed and, it seems, the food which we provide them is inadequate- that's why we add b12.

If we gave the animals proper food, they wouldn't need the supplements.

 

So, as I said (and you misunderstood), animals don't need supplements- they need proper food.

 

I agree. The cows should be eating quality grass, migrate, fast naturally and produce their own B12 but the majority of cows don't since they eat grains.

 

How do you know they were getting B12 from their food?

 

You didn't say "proper food". You said "food". If you would have said "proper food", I would have asked for clarification on what you consider is proper food.

 

Incidentally, if you want make discoveries in amateur science, I recommend astronomy. Of course that relies on not living in an area with too much light pollution.

 

I don't have a want to make discoveries. I don't have a choice in what I see.

2: Storing contact details in a personal address book

* [exempt] Organisations that process personal data only for:

-organisations that do not process personal information on computer

 

What if its a personal digital address book? - This is mainly why I wasn't sure about #2.

Drugs had to be invented before people could get their hands on them. To clarify my original question... why did drug dealers start producing drugs in the first place? To support a psychological need?

 

We don't need marijuana to be legal since we can produce our own endocannabinoids and opioids by exercising and eating whole natural foods.

 

By the way. I am not for prohibition and neither legalization.

I am not for prohibition because it doesn't solve the problem. Haven't you thought about why people drink, smoke and do drugs in the first place?

Maybe believing in a higher power is what some people require in order to ultimately believe in themselves after the world has crushed their self-esteem.

At the top of my head. 1 cow escapes.. you're left with 99 cows. 50 blue and 49 brown.

 

It wouldn't be 49 or 50. Maybe 49.5 brown to 50.5 blue?

On my next birthday I’ll be 88-yrs old. I know that I’m deeply engaged in a Don Quixotic mission-war to extricate-free the USA and world Science from the clutches and consequences of the religious-trade-union-church AAAS, adopted strangely by the majority of scientifically ignorant religious god-trusting Americans and by their most other humanity following flocks…

No need to blame religion for your own inadequacies. Religion doesn't limit those who don't let themselves be limited and brainwashed.

 

What have you contributed to science?

But I am sincerely confident that only thus it is feasible and possible to embark on a new, rational, Human culture (Scientism) and on new more beneficial and effective technology courses for humanity…

Oh I see. So you want your own cult with your own blind followers?

CS is for Computer Science. Maybe it should be moved to -> http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/25-computer-science/

 

Read this: http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_organisations/data_protection/the_guide/exemptions.aspx

 

1 and 3 does not need to be registered with the information commissioner. Maybe 2 doesn't either; not 100% sure.

Time is just a measurement. The days will seem longer in hours if you alter it to go faster and the days will seem shorter in hours if you alter it to go slower. Changing the speed of time will cause an illusion to the observer.

 

Making a new system will just cause confusion. Like metric vs imperial.

No, this is not close to accurate...

 

 

Our thoughts do not fit into this equation at all...

 

You're right. I got confused with the title.

 

Correction: Sure abiogenesis is trying to figure out how atoms come together to form complex biochemical molecules, enzymes, and cells to build a biochemical vehicle however where do our thoughts fit into the equation?

 

Why aren't our thoughts into the equation? They(thoughts) aren't part of the picture?

"Autodidact implies a person who can only learn by teaching oneself."

No, it does not.

However if you believe that you can't learn from others, what are you doing here?

It's against the rules to preach to us.

 

"Naturally, animals products don't contain enough Vitamin B12; hence why animals require supplementation."

No, they require food. They always have.

 

"And we have no killing instincts unless we are severely in ketosis."

So wrong, it's silly; ask an army.

Autodidact isn't a choice. Can anyone self-learn and make discoveries?

 

I can learn from others if the knowledge isn't coming from a limited mind. I've learned things from few people on here.

 

I said B12 supplementation. Not food. You misunderstood.

 

The army loves to shoot guns. No instinct, especially when the animal is shot from 20+ yards away.

If you removed the bollocks from this post there wouldn't be much left.

 

put your money where your mouth is.

Sure abiogenesis is trying to figure out how biochemical complex molecules arose from nothing to build a biochemical vehicle however where do our thoughts fit into the equation?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7xKYNz9AS0

Castration stems from the same type of controlling mentality as circumcision.

 

There are several factors believed to contribute to criminal behavior, one important factor being high testosterone levels.

 

The human body isn't that simple. Testosterone injections cause aggression because they cause an hormonal imbalance. Hormonal imbalances cause depression, apathy, irritability, and aggression in everyone.

 

High testosterone levels with all the other hormones in balance leads to decisive behaviour.

 

Did you know that the birth control pill causes aggression in women?

 

The problem isn't the criminals. The problem is our diets are lacking in fat soluble vitamins. Fat soluble vitamins are scientifically known to stimulate the production of hormones and neurotransmitters in the required amounts. How many people in the world eat their leafy greens for Vitamin A/K and get sun exposure for Vitamin D?

How can someone who no longer has control over her mind and actions, ie who is brainwashed, be accused of either of those actions? If you are brainwashed you have lost personal volition - the mental element of deception is essential for a charge of hypocrisy. Those who are brainwashed have limited personal will and can no longer be considered an autonomous agents capable of forming the double standard necessary to be a hypocrite.

 

Personally, I do not believe brainwashing is as complete or real as it is often portrayed; but it was your claim and you making the equivalence to not being able to think for oneself. Some cults do attempt to mentally coerce their followers and the children of their followers - that renders those who suffer this cruelty more to be pitied than blamed.

 

A brainwashed person talks about their personal values(which they don't act out) while acting out the cultural values. Hence hypocrisy.

 

There is of course different levels of brainwashing; some more subtle than others.

 

Compulsory education is a type of subtle brainwashing. Should we label it as a cult?

 

I enjoyed the rest of your post btw.