Leaderboard

A pretty cool simulation of everything in orbit around the Earth: http://stuffin.space/?intldes=1983-001A And an article about it here: https://www.universetoday.com/138981/this-is-the-coolest-everything-thats-orbiting-the-earth-right-now/

Human cells make up only 43% of the body's total cell count. The rest are microscopic colonists. Understanding this hidden half of ourselves - our microbiome - is rapidly transforming understanding of diseases from allergy to Parkinson's. The field is even asking questions of what it means to be "human" and is leading to new innovative treatments as a result. "They are essential to your health," says Prof Ruth Ley, the director of the department of microbiome science at the Max Planck Institute, "your body isn't just you". No matter how well you wash, nearly every nook and cranny of your body is covered in microscopic creatures. This includes bacteria, viruses, fungi and archaea (organisms originally misclassified as bacteria). The greatest concentration of this microscopic life is in the dark murky depths of our oxygen-deprived bowels. >>>> http://www.bbc.com/news/health-43674270

I've been wanting to share this for a while now. Our friends at Secure World Foundation, a non-profit dedicated to promoting the peaceful use of outer space, have prepared a fantastic document for those who want to know more about current human activity in our nearby space. It's a non-partisan, non-profit, global perspective to give participants and observers an informed view of Earth's outer space situation. You can download a free PDF copy from the SWF website here. Your information is private. You can put "ScienceForums.net" for your affiliation, if you like. Feel free to share this as well. It's important to know what's going on over our heads, as well as keeping our orbital paths clear of debris, and space travel as safe as we can make it.

I think it's less about needing a dictionary and more about needing time to get through the 74,000 word posts. Philosophy: Why say in 5 words what can be said in 5,000!

The ethical need to sustain life, the Achilles heel of the NHS? Most of the cost to the NHS is in the last years of our life, and it's my intention to sign a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) as and when my time is nigh, so as to play a small part in its continued success. When is it reasonable for a doctor to sign a DNR, despite the wishes of the patient, if it means a huge saving in costs and will ensure its sustainability.

Rather obviously there are no studies that look at precisely that in a given cohort, as it would ethical very questionable. However, germ-free mice are routinely maintained for infection studies and aside from a sterile environment they do not require specific adjustments to be viable. Moreover, there are a few studies that showed that germ-free mice were e.g. less likely to become obese (I remember it was a PNAS paper ca. 2007, but forgot the author). Also, perhaps obviously, they do not develop no or reduced inflammatory bowel responses. In humans the time of sterility (e.g. during high antibiotics treatments) are only transient in which one could collect data. But obviously, they are not lethal. Usually the effects of the AB treatment or the reasons to take them take a greater toll on health than the induced reduction in bacterial load. I doubt that there is good data on long-term effects, though. Edit remembered the paper: link

It has already been proven. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem If it is one of "Those pesky perpetual motion machines" then it is.

No. You can't get more energy out than you put in. The "small" motor " wouldn't produce enough power to drive the torus. A big enough motor to do that would need more power than the torus could provide. It's a lost cause.

It's funny how you both congratulate each other, whilst misunderstanding the point and the dictionary.

There's a specific part of the brain that vibrates in a certain way, much like a radio station you select on the dial of your tuner. We're gaining increased confidence that it's this vibration in this spot that is responsible for our sense of consciousness while awake.

The cost is not only financial but also personal/spiritual (whatever you want to call it). Depending on what you are dying of, it is likely to be quite a slow, uncomfortable and completely undignified process - especially if you are in a hospital bed. DNR doesn't mean much: literally do not attempt resuscitation. It is not the withdrawal of treatment as people sometimes think. Sign DNR and you should still be treated in the exact same way as some who is for resuscitation. Most resuscitation attempts end in death anyway (approx 4/5 in-hospital attempts iirc). Withdrawal of treatment is another thing, with another layer of ethical consideration. Many patients are incapacitated and do not have an advanced will and so the decision goes to next of kin. They are generally not in an ideal emotional state to literally be making life and death decisions and nor are they provided much support (very much depends on the ward and hospital). It is quite common to see families start resolutely with 'my pa would want to fight til the end', but after watching their father shit themselves constantly for two weeks begin to realise the undignified realities of dying. Doctors make the decision based on whether it makes medical sense (i.e. likelihood of success and quality of life thereafter). Good doctors (palliative care docs, which you'll generally only get if you are dying of cancer, which most palliative cases are not) might actually take into account the dignity of the patient, but i've rarely seen it. Nurses are generally crap at advocating for their patients for various reasons requiring its own thread (again unless you get some palliative care nurses, again generally only for cancer patients). If we want a good death to be a viable option (and i think we absolutely should), then we require more training for doctors and nurses, and just more nurses so they can actually dedicate some real time to emotional/spiritual support of the patient and family. This is a lot of investment, i'm not sure it would save money - it might actually cost a bit. The infamous Liverpool care pathway was an attempt at this, but as all things in nursing, it became an exercise in paperwork and bureaucracy and soon hit the tabloids as the death pathway. In my opinion its not the pathway that was the problem but the set-up of the entire nursing profession - but that's another discussion. Having something of that kind is a good idea. By the way, this is where a learnt to respect a lot of priests and imams. They would do a much better job of providing support to patients and families than nurses would.

Thank you for your clarification. I am sympathetic to this view. You may have noticed my username, iNow. This is an abbreviation of the original, infiniteNow. I've learned a lot since choosing that username, but my point is that I can relate to where you're coming from. A few things I've learned: 1 - Despite our perceptions, "now" is not infinite. 2 - Different observers experience time differently, and this includes the present moment. There is no universal or infinite now, even though our tiny human brains feel like there should be (nature is under no obligation to align with our feelings of common sense). 3 - Time cannot absolutely stop. The closest you might get is to a photon which travels at the speed of light. If that photon stopped, so would it's time, but photons don't stop. By definition, they travel at the speed of light. They don't have a valid reference frame for measurement because they are never at rest (and being at rest is required for a valid reference frame in this situation). There is no where in the universe that time could absolutely stop, even though this runs against our horrible human common sense. Anyway... others here have already addressed this, and frankly most of them are far better versed on this material than me. I do want to thank you for clarifying your comments, though, and did want to share that I'm sympathetic to your views... even though they're misguided.

I think everyone is in agreement above even though it appears otherwise. If the patient (Bob, in the example above) is willing to pay for said care privately, then he can get it and the doctor has no role in choosing for him or on his behalf. However, if the state is paying, then at some point Bob no longer gets to decide whether or not he wants care, especially when the return is too low to justify the investment. I believe the OP is asking: Where is that line between acceptable investment and unacceptable return? Where SHOULD it be?

No worries, forget about it.

Stevie Wonder has been banned as a sockpuppet of Mikemikev (and Sammy Boy, and probably also Over 9000 and Dave Davidson)

I am sorry for yesterday, I behave like an asshole. Is this more about to be aware of same hues but a little bit different darkness or lightness ? I mean,in fact,women are better than men categorizing the same color's variations,but we see the same color's. I think the differences that will cause are very small and negligible according to the working mechanism of photoreceptors.

Recently did a kayaking trip out to the Dome House of Cape Romano. Pretty proud of myself, went further than before and managed my first overnighter via kayak. Dome House itself is interesting. Built back in the 80's and later abandoned. Coastline has since changed and now the Domes sit offshore. http://www.messynessychic.com/2013/06/12/the-mysterious-dome-homes-marching-into-the-sea-before-after/ Approaching the house. Number of folks out for the day and there was even a tour boat at one point. Close up. Floors are all gone at this point. Would have liked to take some interior shots but didn't want to chance catching on something. Thought this one was particularly cool. Can almost see it as an ancient temple sinking beneath the waves. Shots of my faithful steed and my home for the night. Found a nice little spot, ideal for camping. Sunset. Good trip. Longer and most adventurous trip I've done so far about 12 miles. Somewhat nervous about ending up the in the Ten Thousand Islands area, but hugged one side going out and the other coming back and was fine. Saw a shark. That was a first for me actually. Left me alone so all good. Packing was... interesting... Reminded me of backpacking but with the added twist of being out on the ocean. Could definitely bring a small cooler in the future, maybe going vertical to help with the limited space. Was a nice time. Physically demanding, but definitely nice seeing the Domes in the day and listening to the waves at night.

Everyone I know that voted for Trump did so purely out of spite. They were unhappy and relished the idea others might becomes so too. They weren't tricked or confused about who Trump was. They simply wanted to see SJWs, liberal, scientist and etc become unhappy as them. They were sick and tired of facts proving them wrong about their climate denial, evolution denial, education, and etc. They know the facts are against them but simply don't care. They rather just see everyone suffer than be forced to concede. It is a "I'll see you in hell" mentality. Trump didn't think he'd win. It was a stunt. It is conservatives who conned Trump, in a sense, by voting for him and not vice versa. All success isn't deliberate. We all have first hand accounts from people who that Trump never wanted to win or thought he would win. As for the contractor they simply lack shame. It doesn't require talent to take advantage of people. It requires sociopathic behavior. So you don't believe Michael Wolfe that Trump never intended to be elected? Because it can't be both. Trump can't be clever for winning if he never intended to.

So it is option b) (you have an agenda). Thank you for clearing that out. I am going to give you my personal analysis and perhaps you can snap out of your mental lock. (I will use the term "religious belief" quite liberally. Try not to be too offended.) You seem to be in a state of cognitive dissonance : on the one hand, you hold a religious belief concerning the purpose of the human race, while on the other hand you resent religious beliefs (like me, you probably like feeling smug when watching Dawkins, which is hard if you hold such beliefs yourself). You found an answer to your dissonance in teleonomy, which you molded to suit your beliefs. That would explain why when I read about it, I draw different conclusions than you. You are correct that I hadn't heard about it prior to this thread, but I found the wiki article quite informative. Then the problem worsens as you make up apologetic nonsense, such as "apparent does not mean illusionary" thing or your entropy argument. Nature does not seek out ways to maximise entropy. In fact entropy maximisation isn't even a thing, only entropy increase, and that is a very stupid process. The only law related to this is dS/dt>=0. There is no law that says d^3S/dt^3=0 (maximisation of the increase in entropy) Anything life on Earth does is negligible in terms of entropy on a solar system scale anyway. To get to your agenda: I too think that we are heading towards an AI that is smarter than us, but I see no reason to draw in religious beliefs in purpose. I also doubt Dawkins would appreciate that you are using him as one of your profets.

Having some common ancestors doesn't mean you have "the same ancestors". All living things have common ancestors. They don't have "the same ancestors". How stupid.

You're a joke dude. I failed spectacularly after your regulars were claiming we all have the same ancestry? What a silly website.

1.) Contrary to your false claim, entropy maximization exists. 1.b) Source-i: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_maximization 1.c) Source-ii: Causal Entropic Forces, by Dr. Alex Wissner Gross (Connection between entropy maximization and intelligence. I also linked these in the OP!) 2.) I need not believe in some religious purpose, because purpose may exist in the realm of science, instead of religion/objectivity. In fact, I thought life was purposeless (and I had no issue with that as an atheist for several years), until I later encountered teleonomy some years ago. I then (still as an atheist) adjusted my prior knowledge, and developed a hypothesis regarding human purpose in the realm of science, as seen in the OP. 3.) I need not force Richard Dawkings to describe purpose in the realm of science, because he does that regardless of my input. 4.) Notably, teleonomy does not concern "apologetic nonsense", it concerns science rather than religion. You ought not to confuse those things! 1.) What nonsense of yours. 1.b) Your incomplete quote: 1.c) The entire sentence: 2.) Based on the fact that you omitted the remainder of text above, we now see how you came to misinterpret the clearly expressed words on Wikipedia/teleonomy page: Your quote: 2.b) As you can see, while the page underlined that the latter was largely attributed with religion (aka the divine) or human intervention, the page does not exclude purpose driven processes in nature. (That teleology is attributed with unevidenced divine or human intervention does not delete apparent purposefulness or goal directeness from teleonomy!) In simple words, teleonomy is not merely contrasted with purposefulness, but instead, contrasted with purposefulness as typically expressed in teleology. In fact, the page opens with this description for teleonomy: Teleonomy is the quality of apparent purposefulness and of goal-directedness of structures and functions in living organisms brought about by the exercise, augmentation, and, improvement of reasoning. So, contrary to your claim, teleonomy does indeed concern goal directness, rather than not! Why bother to lie about the content, or feign understanding, when your lack of comprehension is ironically, quite clearly demonstrated? Why did you lie while saying that teleonomy is not goal directed, when the very initial line on the page clearly expresses it as such? What significance do you garner your comment above signifies? Does "a kind of pseudo-possessiveness" signify the absence of purpose? Why did you think Richard substantiated that phrase, with the terms "archeo-purpose" and "neo-purpose"? I don't detect why you feel that portion of video opposes the OP, or any response of mine thus far. Care to enlighten us? He's late, and trivially demonstrably wrong. In fact, the page opens with this description for teleonomy: "Teleonomy is the quality of apparent purposefulness and of goal-directedness of structures and functions in living organisms brought about by the exercise, augmentation, and, improvement of reasoning." Strange misinterpreted some earlier line, (by ignoring the remainder of a sentence he quoted from the wiki page) and so Strange fell into an error. That error is quite odd, given the very initial sentence on the page, which expresses teleonomy to concern goal directness, rather than not as he falsely claimed!

@Bender, earlier you had asked: And I had responded: To clarify, "a kind of pseudo-purposiveness" may be thought of in terms of the topic of randomness : For example, Juergen Schmidhuber underlines that it is sensible to describe the universe from the scope of "short programs" (i.e. reasonably, the laws of physics) instead of truly random processes. He then expresses that it is sensible that the cosmos is "pseudorandom", rather than truly random, i.e. the cosmos comprises of processes involving random components, however with overarching non-random structures. (Similar to how evolution concerns random mutations, all under the paradigm of non-random selection.) Likewise, as far as I can detect, Dawkins refers to "a kind of pseudo-purposiveness", to be scientific processes regarding goal directness, minus the teleological baggage, i.e. purposiveness minus theistic nonsense! This is likely why Dawkins introduces "archeo-purpose" and "neo-purpose" immediately after mentioning the term pseudo-purposiveness. (Perhaps you are confusing Dawkins' use of the word "pseudo" with pseudoscience, and so you persist to falsely express that purpose cannot be in the realm of science, despite contrary evidence!)

Trump the Great, he will receive this title in history.