Leaderboard

The majority of current medical definitions of death cite some form of 'all functions of the brain have permanently and irreversibly ceased'. Cardiopulmonary cessation hasn't been used in most places since around the 1980s Not by most definitions of death. It needs to be irreversible. Given the difficulties of defining life, it is no surprise that defining death adds more shades to the grey. You mean like the plethora of studies that show changes in the brain, due to stroke or cancers etc, can radically alter personality? The idea of tabula rasa hasn't been seriously considered by scientists for probably a century. Psychological studies on babies provided the evidence, not NDEs. You can learn an awful lot about the human condition from NDEs. And DMT. And dreams.

! Moderator Note Because it's cheating, and also advertising is against our rules. But mainly because it's cheating. And so you get banned, because you do the bidding of cheaters.

Hi geekyrussian, I'm your friendly geeky Aussie. Answering your question if you were sitting on the Sun, besides immediatly getting a hot arse, you would see the light from the Moon, reflected back to you 8 minutes later, [8.25 minutes to be exact], consequently seeing the Moon as it was 8.25 minutes ago. I understand what you sort of envisage, but I don't think it applies. if you were sitting on the Sun, and you had a huge screen in front of you stopping the light, so that the Moon was not visible, then removed the screen, you certainly would then see the Moon as it was 17 minutes earlier, at that instant, from the time you first removed the screen. I think! Not 100% certain, but reasonably confident. Let's wait for another smarter geek to verify....

Rome split from Ancient Greece and became a greater nation. America split from England and became a greater nation. What we now call Physics and Chemistry used to be called Natural Philosophy. So Where, When, How and Why did Science split from Philosophy and do we think they are now the greater discipline ?

Yes i understand, But reflection for 8 mins is only half of the problem. The 16 mins of delay are not going anywhere, as me sitting there and watching on the moon from that start point. As i understand that two objects on the equal distance from the point of my view (wich is the source of light #1) get 8 min difference in time, because the smaller Sun that is next to the Moon, its light travels towards me and reaches me in 8 mins, but the Moon (that is actually on the same distance from me as the smaller Sun) i will see with 16 min delay. So 2 objects that are on the equal distance from me are actually in two different timeframes (for me). Cause in the start point i will see smaller Sun in 8 mins and the Moon in 16 mins (beacuse light needs to travel to the Moon, from my Sun, and back). I am really sorry if its confusing, its really hard for me to explain myself on the language that is not my primary one. Thank you Regards Ohhhh, Yes now i see... ok thanks for the answer

The roots of science as we know it, I think, are already present in Roger Bacon and Galileo. It's this emphasis on observation and careful measurement that really did it. I see some kind of fruitful meandering from the empirical side (Francis Bacon) to the mathematical/rational part (Descartes). Advances have come in successive emphasis on one and the other. Aristotle (empirical emphasis) got his physics badly wrong. Much later, Descartes (pure reason, mathematics) got his biology of sorts badly wrong. I think this tension echoes through the centuries even today (cosmology; multiverse, pre-big-bang scenarios). "Greater" as more efficient, more influential at the grassroots level, more present in people's minds if only to the effect of disagreeing with it, or setting in motion waves of counter-opinion, or even just wondering what it means or implies, I think science is more influential than philosophy. I can hardly think of anything like the denial campaigns on global warming and the possible human influence on it would have happened had it been a question on purely philosophical epistemology.

I appreciated the MSN article's observation that "correlation is not causation." My testosterone is likely to be considerably higher than that of the two Sub-Saharan women, yet I'm entirely sure they would complete any footrace with me laps behind them. (unless the starting gun contained live rounds and was fired directly at them) The multitude of physical factors is so large -- skeletal proportions, ratio of fast-twitch fibers, hormonal balance, variations in mitochondrial DNA (yes, some folks do have better mitochondria for certain sports where endurance matters -- we're not sled dogs, but there's a variable range in the human species), allergic responses, erythrocyte count (do you live above 2000 m.?), innate joint flexibility (woman do better than men, on this one), and so on. In some competitions, like running, specific physical factors are strongly linked with cis-gender and are understood to relate to the mechanics of running. Narrow hips allow for more efficient bipedal running. Paired with a deep chest, you get the classic physique of the long-distance runner. All the training and fierce spirit in the world is not going to make a cis-female competitive in that particular sort of competition, because race outcomes are so dependent on anatomical factors. It's not like basketball, where a short man can get onto a team with speed, lightning=fast moves, and amazing outside shots (Nate Archibald is the classic exemplar). So, you would be left with two choices for aspiring female long-distance runners. One, you can compete, but you will probably lose all the time. Two, you can compete only with people whose bipedal mechanics is somewhat similar to yours, which would be the traditional women's event. So, where do the biomechanically-different trans-females go, then? With larger chest cavities and vital capacity, and narrower hips, they would seem to be competitive in the men's event. Does the problem then become one of nomenclature? (forgive my longwindedness, and my likely rehashing aspects of this discussion that probably were already covered somewhere back in the 17 prior pages of this thread.)

Sure, but i'm not sure of the relevance. Every evolved thing had the external intervention of natural selection, or human selection for some animals.

Perhaps it's more that entropy defies an easy distillation into a sound bite. To say that scientists don't understand it is true in the same sense that we still have more to discover, as with all science, but not so much in the sense that we have no understanding of it. Feynman had a good quote about this difficulty, when someone asked about magnets in an interview I really can’t do a good job, any job, of explaining magnetic force in terms of something else you’re more familiar with, because I don’t understand it in terms of anything else you’re more familiar with. IOW, there are some situations in physics where you need to learn some physics in order to develop an understanding of a concept.

Is it the system or the substrate you think not capable? Talk about pentiums suggests you think it a matter of substrate - i.e better micro-processors are needed. Inow suggests it is not so much the hardware, but how information on that hardware is organised/represented.

There is a lot more to both Science and perception that this. It really is. +1 for this and for demonstrating proper respectful discussion. But I think it deserves its own thread away from heated discussion and potential heckling.

I think that the energy dispersal seems to be best answer. It reminds me of decay / decomposition, one of seemingly naturally-occurred states of living things that undergo after death. I wasn't sure because entropy and these first words / meanings (disorder, randomness, uncertainty) as impressed upon me is that scientists still don't understand it so that cause me to be not sure as well at first place.

Yep. I'd say it'll take 8 minutes for light to get from the Moon to you, so you'll see it where it was 8 minutes ago. That light itself will have left the Sun 16 minutes ago - but it's when the Moon reflected it that matters here. ( Consider going out on a moonless night (away from town) where everything is lit only by starlight. That light took many thousands of years to get to Earth, but the objects seen (slightly) illuminated by it will not appear as they were thousands of years ago! )

Typing 'run' in Search, then typing 'tmp.msc' will show you your pc's tmp status.

I agree, but it does indicate that there are problems with the current rules. Just trying to 'slot' these extraordinary instances into the existing framework of rules won't work anymore. That is all some of us are asking for; reexamining the rules to give all competitors a fair shot.

To model the behavior of the universe in ways that minimize human bias; to move forward with the recognition that all models are only at best provisional, and with a willingness to reject them when evidence demonstrates that they're flawed and unrepresentative in some way. Science is about building maps, and our task is to recall that all maps can always be made better and also that the map is not the territory.

Ok thanks, So what is the main objective of science? Is it to gain an understanding of the behaviour of how things operate? Rather than the fundamental "reality" that may under pin this? It's a very interesting subject!

No they did not ..they dismissed me immediately despite showing there replys to be wrong ...they can not produce an example of nature producing the same phenomena...even conceding that atomic particles can not be identical in nature ..but are still identical ???? rules .....what!!! You must not know more than us .... oryou must not question percived ideas ....? I think you all must be pretty put out that a mon scientist has brought to light something you never thought up yourself .. if nothing in nature can produce the same thing why would extraterrestrial lifeforms be the exception ..... It can only be prebiotic material if that prebiotic material becomes Abiogenesis it's not Abiogenesis unless Abiogenesis produces biology ... the material and causation of prebiotic material can not exsit twice what material is available can not then be the same Abiogenesis that happened here it would produce anything other than what has been produced before....

When a person's heart stops and brain activity ceases what you have is a dead body. Dr. Moody chose the name near death experience. More accurate would have been Limited Death Experience. Pam Reynolds body was clinically dead for one hour during surgery. Yes, she and other experiencers were actually dead. The info gathered from NDEs is positive . If science chooses to ignore the NDE they will have to prove the brain is where the personality resides. Something that will be impossible. I think we can learn from anomalies that people are not born with a blank brains.