pears

I don't believe someone can remain fully awake for 40 years. Complete lack of sleep would be fatal wouldn't it?

Hi fresh, are you still experiencing insomnia? Sorry if this is a really obvious question but do you take on board much caffeine? I used to have a lot of trouble sleeping but my ability to sleep seems very correlated to my caffeine intake. I currently take none except for the odd soda and I generally fall asleep easily unless I'm worrying about things. I hope your sleep is improving.

Can a protozoa 'think'? I suppose it depends what we mean by 'think'.

I'm so sorry to hear this arc I wish you and your family all the best (your wife is beautiful by the way) take care

What's the purpose of the question? Is this a homework question? Doesn't it depend on the advertising policy of the second publisher or is the second publisher expected to use exactly the same policies (whatever they are) as the first and simply scale down? It seems like there are too many variables here to give a precise answer.

But wouldn't you expect to get a better range of answers from a religious site where there are experts in that field? Rather than a site where the expertise is in science?

I'm curious to why you ask that question on a science site. Isn't it a better question for a religious site? In any case I did a quick google search on that verse for you and found this http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=661

OK. Perhaps we need to clarify exactly what we are talking about here. Are we talking about bible literalists? Or inerrantists? I took the post to be about inerrantists but it goes on to talk about literalist interpretations so perhaps we aren't completely on the same page. If someone believes the earth is 6000 years old and makes scientific claims in the realm of geology, yes I can concede that I might not take their science claims seriously. (However scientific methodologies should have no problem clearing things up right?) But that is a narrower scenario than a general questionability over theistic scientists. A scientist might be an inerrantist without holding a literal view of the bible. Their work may be on a matter the bible never mentions. In that case I don't see how their beliefs prevents their effective work as a scientist. The scientific method itself should be enough to disprove a claim.

Have you read the question?

Surely a claim is questionable because of the evidence for the claim - not because of the other beliefs of the claimer? Why can't a claim be judged in isolation from it's owner?

tommygdawg sorry to hear of your difficulties this year. Welcome to SFN. It's a great place to start learning about science!

I know EdEarl - so many questions, not enough answers

Chronicles is a history book but the bit you referenced is a poem within it

I like your question. It's one that has occurred to me before now as well, one of those niggling ideas that gets lodged in my brain when I'm trying to sleep and almost drives me mad. It's one of the reasons I got interested in philosophy of mind, which itself is a fascinating subject - though as with most philosophy it seems to leave me with more questions than answers. There are many views on the relationship between the mind and the body (brain/nervous system). Identity theorists equate minds with brains. So a mind IS a brain. You ARE your physical brain. Functionalism sees the mind as the function of the brain (not equal to the brain but rather described by the way it operates, e.g. like software running in a computer. Some see consciousness as an immaterial property that emerges out of the brain (so the mind is dependent on the physical but not physical itself). Some even see the mind as a separate substance to the physical body. Others view consciousness itself as an illusion. There are many other views and variations within the views I've mentioned. I would recommend philosophy of mind as a subject you might be interested in, which might help you arrive at the understanding you're seeking (a better understanding if not a complete one). But minds seem to be inextricably linked to bodies. Consciousness, though not well understood, appears to arise out of a physical system so I would say minds (whatever they are) are utterly dependent on the physical body the are associated with. And yet, our continuing sense of self seems to transcend the physical in the sense that the physical changes over time (my body changes and all it's individual cells are replaced on a regular (ten yearly?) basis. So I would say that 'I' am not just my mind but 'I' am my body and it's mind combined (somehow - in a way that's not understood). My view (my current view that is - always subject to change ) is that my mind is somehow an emergent property of my body. This is an interesting question. My gut and limited understanding of this area so far tells me that my mind is dependent on the physicality of my body so that I (my consciousness) would not exist had I not been the exact product of my parents - i.e. that particular sperm and egg. (I cannot back this up). But the idea of the potential of consciousness being something in the genetic make-up is one that had never occurred to me before. It doesn't 'feel' quite right to me since siblings (non-conjoined ones) don't share consciousness. Solipsism and idealism (only minds exist) seems to be one of those theories that one has to make an assumption about as there is no way to show otherwise. I.e. to get to the scientific world and the scientific method, we have to leap out of and reject idealism even though we have no way of 'knowing' that's the correct thing to do. It's not so much that 'idealism' is an untestable hypothesis, as much as 'objective reality' is an untestable hypothesis - unless we assume idealism is false.

All those references are from poetry. Is it fair to claim something in a poem is an assertion of scientific fact? They're not science papers but the declaration of a poet (from whose point of view the world does seem fixed). In fact if you want to be scientific about it, the earth IS fixed (in the poet's inertial frame )

How would you program it? How far have you got?

What is this topic about?

Aaah yus. Of course. I can picture it now. Thank you.

If it was in The Sun it must be true.

Yay the discussion has descended into a circus again. Just as it was starting to get back on track. Oh well.

Not a permanent band though? Would it be a seasonally melting and freezing band in various places? I find this rotation hard to picture

But the images aren't clear like in normal photos are they? They are somewhat fuzzy. At least the ones I've seen. Still very cool though.

There may be a more natural explanation but it comes down to personal opinion at the end of the day, and what makes sense to one person, doesn't necessarily make sense to another. Perhaps you're right. Perhaps purity of faith is more important than I think it is. But I would have thought that honest doubt is better than dishonest faith. And perhaps faith that sits alongside doubt does have a kind of purity, because it doubts, but continues to believe in spite of it.

Thank you. I'll be sure to.

The video is rather contrived. It's just misdirection. Thank you.