nec209

Senior Members
  • Content count

    559
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About nec209

  • Rank
    Baryon
  1. How can one go about improving visual memory. Some people seem to have really good visual memory and other people terrible visual memory. Some people can look at image or object and it like the image is well burn into their memory remembering every detail vividly!! Other people look at image or object and forget. I did a visual memory test and did terrible on the test. I had to look at image for about 10 seconds and recall detail and well I did bad. Take look at the bird look at it for 5 to 10 seconds and recall as much detail!! Take image like this bird light blue, dark blue, really dark blue and red so on. www.vetbook.org/wiki/bird/images/8/83/Bird01.jpg What happen to me was I was looking at image and not sure if it was light blue, dark blue or really dark blue and I forgot pink and yellow and other detail I forgot. Not sure how big it was at the back and side not sure on one of the shapes. This was terrible for me. This got me thinking why are some people really good at visual memory and other people terrible at visual memory? Why do people have to stare at image to burn it into memory or look at it over and over to go into long term memory. What can be done to improve visual memory?
  2. As long as the person memory, person character, person personality, person emotions and behavior is not destroyed other wise you right it would theseus's paradox a copy of person that was alive.
  3. The psychological need of sleep

    No one knows why people dream or why people need to sleep. Others say your dreams are your memories being filing away. The memories in your brain being filing away or organized. Or some kind of auto immune system repair or memory organizing. Others like Freud think dreams are one way of the unconscious to talk to the conscious......
  4. The article should read human brain linked to computer not the internet. There was no internet of information. The brain was linked to local computer not the internet.
  5. Why is there so much gun violence in El Salvador, Venezuela, Colombia and Honduras when guns are really hard to get? And most people do not have guns and there is no gun culture like the US. Where are the street gangs and criminals getting there guns from? Is most of the guns being smuggled in from the US there by arms dealers? Countries like El Salvador, Venezuela, Colombia and Honduras are not like the US, where it is very easy to buy gun legally. Most people don't have guns and it is very hard to get gun legally. Yet some how gangs and criminals are getting guns so where are they getting guns from arms dealers being smuggled in from the US or Russia? Well some people will like to ban guns in the US but say look at El Salvador, Venezuela, Colombia and Honduras? But if guns are banned where are they getting the guns from?
  6. I was reading article that in future with advance medicine we may be able to bring back dead people. Could this be possible and if so how? With out cryogenics how could this be done? In future with advance medicine and technology how could this be done?
  7. what is science, bad science, junk science

    Okay so would you say eugenics is bad science or pseudoscience? What things do you agree and disagree on with it? So if understand there is no science that supports breading of persons behavior, mood, morality, moral values, person character and person personality? So if understand genetics don't play apart when comes to persons behavior, mood, morality, moral values, person character and person personality? And so in that case eugenics will not work. But genetics play apart when it comes to mental illness, mentally handicapped and mentally challenged so eugenics may work for mental illness, mentally handicapped and mentally challenged people but not persons behavior, mood, morality, moral values, person character and person personality?
  8. Okay I do what you ask because it off topic for that thread. Can you other here define what is science, bad science, junk science and pseudoscience. What makes good science and what makes bad science? To my understanding I always thought bad science or junk science did not have any science backing like saying you can walk on water, earth has no center mass or time travel.
  9. The heritability of attitudes: a study found

    Than explain to me what is junk science or what is bad science? What is difference of bad science vs junk science? Why do people say bad science or junk science? Eugenics say persons behavior, attitudes, personality, persons characteristics and traits are because of genes? Do you agree or disagree?
  10. The heritability of attitudes: a study found

    May be the confusing is your view what eugenics is different than mind. Or what you think eugenics is? Or why you think eugenics is bad science. Or why you think eugenics bad science. Or what some other members here think what is eugenics. I'm guessing you think there is no genes that drive a persons behavior, attitudes, personality, persons characteristics and traits that why it bad science .
  11. The heritability of attitudes: a study found

    Okay forget about ethics and morality should there be allowed to have kids or not. Trying to understand you say science say mental illness, birth defects, mentally handicapped people, mentally challenged people and IQ have noting to do with genetics? So mom or dad or both having that problem can have many kids as they want they will not get problem.
  12. The heritability of attitudes: a study found

    Here is question do you believe mental illness, birth defects, mentally handicapped people, mentally challenged people and IQ have nothing to do with genetics and there should be no law in place to stop them having kids? The mom or dad or both that have mental illness, birth defects, mentally handicapped, mentally challenged and IQ have nothing do with kids having mental illness, birth defects, mentally handicapped, mentally challenged or the kids IQ. Where do you draw the line on genetics?
  13. The heritability of attitudes: a study found

    Why are you copying and pasting the same old thing. You are repeating your self, please stop repeating your self, and say some thing . Do you have degree in historian? Or genetics and evolution? If not may be best you do not reply to this thread again you are not contributing any thing . And base on your post history you like arguing and contribute nothing base on other threads. Or It does not matter if 3% scientist or 90% scientist at that time thought eugenics was real or not. And you did not even give any citation or source saying otherwise. Just spoon out same thing you reaped over and over. That some how eugenics is not science and scientist never believed in it. No citation or source. How many scientist have to believed in it to be science? How do you define science or what is science? I more likely to believe Francis Galton sociologist, psychologist, anthropologist, eugenicist, tropical explorer, geographer, inventor, meteorologist, proto-geneticist, and psychometrician.......... Knows more about eugenics than some anonymous poster like your self not even read one chapter out of book on it. Be the science of eugenics be futility or real or not or mixed. You have not shown any citation or source showing be it 3% scientist or 90% scientist at that time thought eugenics was science or not. And not discussing the paper the start of OP thread or eugenics you seem to be addicted to history on origins on eugenics if 1%, 3% scientist or 90% scientists believed in eugenics or some way shaping government policies. And still not ask what is science or how you define science? How do you define science? Is there some test proving evolution like Darwinism or eugenics? Or does eugenics like evolution like Darwinism suffer from same thing? no test and no proof? Where are the tests, studies and proof? Or is it theory? Is science not math base and running test to proof some thing?
  14. The heritability of attitudes: a study found

    You are aware there was scientist and philosopher had strong beliefs in eugenics. I guess scientist and philosopher where much crackpot people too in that time line. But I get this paper must be also crackpot science because it stinks with eugenics so is evolution like Darwinism going by your thinking . You not even debating if eugenics is good science or not. You seem be debating the past that eugenics is not science. Than why where scientist and philosopher not anti- eugenics? Why did science not scream to the politicians that is is wrong and junk science? Here is question do you support people that have mental illness or mentally handicapped should be allowed to have kids? What is point of crispr or genetic engineering? if offspring has nothing to do with mom or dad.Where do you draw line on genetics? Why did Sir Francis Galton coin eugenics in 188 why not some school janitor? And how would you prove or disprove eugenics when you cannot even run DNA sequence in that time line of before and after group. Every thing was base on breading with out even looking at genetics.
  15. The heritability of attitudes: a study found

    When many countries done sterilization it tells me it was not just bunch of crackpot idea guys running around say that do sterilization on poor people, criminals, drug addicts, alcoholics and people who have mental illness. It does not matter if it is good science or not at all at that time. You apply never been junk science? Junk science is worse than not good science. There many junk science out there today like earth has no center mass or time travel so on. None of that is back by mainstream science If you apply not good science it one thing or lack of science proof but there was many scientist at that time supporting eugenics. Many countries have done sterilization in name of eugenics. After ww2 eugenics make taboo being really bad. Well I understand that eugenics can be abused.