mrburns2012

I think the current thought on this idea is that there's a limited time frame (probably up to infancy years) when the immune system actively develops tolerance to both self antigens (so we don't become allergic to our own cells) and nonself antigens (eg. potential allergens). After that, eating worms and cat fur probably won't help.

The problem is that there are new information being discovered each day. If the rate of school learning were to remain constant, you might not have enough time to learn the such information by the time you finish college. At least, that's true in some of the sciences.

No, cells don't want to divide simply to be "young," because cell division costs energy, accumulates toxic wastes, and increases the risk of cancer. They only divide when doing so is necessary for your overall health, ie. skin cells, liver cells, mucosal cells of the large intestines, etc... divide regularly to avoid the build up of toxins that tend to accumulate on those tissues. Cells that are not exposed to as much toxins like muscle and neuronal cells don't divide as rapidly because they don't need to.

Why?

WolframAlpha definitely needs improvements. The response to my question, "Where is Osama Bin Laden?" wasn't anywhere near sufficient. So much for "predicting" the answers

There's a relatively new journal (Journal of Visualized Experiments, or JoVE) that publishes videos instead of traditional texts. So instead of spending money on expensive lab gear and put yourself at risk of exposure to pathogenic microbes, you could check that out. Unfortunately I think the majority of the videos in that website require a some sort of subscription. But there's a free 1-day option that might be sufficient for your needs. I haven't tested this, but I think you can simply start a new account when one expires as many times as you need to.

image for FAIL

It's good to have an ambitious mind, but there is a lot more to learning than reading books (the reason for science labs, etc...). You might think that you can get away with learning from the internet, but by learning so much advanced information without any direction or basic understanding, you're essentially loading your mind with word salads. Once they overload your brain, they may start spewing out everywhere... and I think it's beginning to show in some of your posts. I think it's a lot better for you to pick up a biology course at school and start from there. If you really like what you are learning, it'll be evident by your performance at school. And there's no reason why you wouldn't have extra time for yourself to learn extra stuff if the pace of your school is too slow for you.

Empathy is the ability to understand other's feelings, so I would think critical thinking is required for that to happen. You may be thinking that empathic people should feel sad when they see that others are sad, or angry when others are angry. However, empathy is not the ability to mirror other's emotion. But you're right in that people under intense emotional states can act and think irrationally. Edit: I looked up "Simon Baron Cohen," and apparently someone else has already debunked the guy's ideas: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~ssiegel/papers/baron-cohen.html

I don't know what the article is trying to say, but I remember learning that there is always some glucagon secretion even when blood glucose is high. And because glucagon and insulin are secreted by different cells, I don't see why they can't be produced at the same time.

I am going to admit that I'm no expert, but the little I've learned about the nervous system compels me to be at least a bit skeptical about the information presented on this thread. Ideas in here on midbrain function, "fractal pyramids," "why", "what," and "how" organizations, etc... may be speculative at best, but appear to be presented as no less than widely accepted facts, i.e. ideas without controversy. I strongly admire and support anyone who is willing to help others learn what they have learned, but I also believe that speculative ideas should be presented as such. Anyway, I apologize if my post seemed condescending to you or if I had misjudged you on your ideas and assertions since it was not my intention discourage anyone from sharing information.

I'm not sure most people would agree with you on this one. For example, if you were to ask a typical neurologist or an expert (i.e. w/ a PhD) on neuroscience for an explanation on how the brain works, would they be able to come up with the same answer you've provided us. If not, then your explanation isn't anything resembling "common sense."

What's a fractal pyramid? Edit: Nevermind. I see what you're trying to say. The idea that everything is organized into 3 subdivisions sounds too convenient to me, not the way I've been taught.

I've observed ghosts in independently recorded films like Casper, Ghostbusters, The Ring, The Sixth Sense, and many others. Any scientist can independently verify my claims are true.. I kid you not. On a more serious note, I agree that not all people who have claimed to have seen ghosts lied. It's been proven that physical and chemical alterations to the brain, which is tangible and not merely some abstract concept conceived by religious zealots, can alter the senses like auditory, touch, smell, vision, etc... In other words, even external stimuli aren't always necessary for "ghost" sightings to have some logical explanation.

This picture explains it all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DNA_chemical_structure.svg If the picture doesn't isn't helpful, you might first want to read some basics of organic chemistry. If it doesn't even help then, you're too far ahead of yourself.