Royston

A joke perhaps. If it weren't for our little apathetic friend Herme3, all this violence, pain and suffering that goes on day after day after day, will stop. People aren't fighting over their differences, land, money and oil, Herme3 is responsible. errr, perhaps you don't get my sense of humour....ho hum.

Did it ever occur to you that it's your fault there's so much hate in the world herme3, you and you alone.

Makes perfect sense, thanks a lot Silkworm !

I'm obviously missing something, but I've been studying polymers and monomers recently, and the dissasociation of a carboxylic acid in water(carbon, double oxygen bond...and a hydroxide) produces hydrogen ions, and when bonded to an alcohol it condensates and produces water as a by-product. Why does the bonding of the hydroxide in carboxylic acid, behave like an acid ? I'm sure I'm gonna kick myself when I get the answer.

Sorry sophster, but I'm going to have to retract the goddess remark I made earlier...peanut butter is the food of the gods, but then again so is marmite and cheese toasties, dammit this thread's confusing !!!

sophster, you are a Goddess !

Nacho's, with spicy beef and cheese on top, sour cream and guacomole...heaven, usually ordered down the pub, but I've got the cumin and paprika ratio down if I want to make my own. Grilled, cheese and marmite on toast...the marmite bubbles (uber-savoury.) In fact a whole myriad of cheese on toast variations...pepperoni, grilled bacon, onion and pepper, triple cheese, chiles (been growing some red savina, can't wait to try them out) all with a delicate blend of herbs and spices. The trusty baguette, which is what I usually eat at work, BLT, coronation chicken and chicken tikka being some of my favourites.

Sisyphus, pinnacle and importance are distinct, the start of the universe is equally as important as the state it is in now otherwise we wouldn't be here. I think you're misinterpreting what my 'belief' is (though not set in stone as a religious belief per se) I did not mention purpose, or intent, in fact I made it clear that I don't think there is intent with regards to the universe. If there was intent, then the universe started through will, which contradicts the manifestation of consicousness and self awareness. I completely understand your take on the universe, that self awareness is just one poperty of many (agreed biggest understatement in this thread) but unless you can come up with compelling evidence that self awareness predated apes / humans then you can't really argue the case. Aliens of course, is another argument...but as far as I'm aware, for the universe to evolve to a point where it harbours life that can make sense of it, seems to me IMO a logical progress. Can you do me a favour, and PM me before making comments like this, I completely respect your outlook, please show some common courtesy with regard to other viewpoints. EDIT: Let me put it this way...if I had a three dimensional lattice, and fed some numbers into it to develop a pattern, the end result would bear no resembalance to the initial numbers, however the pattern could not emerge unless there were specific conditions to create the pattern.

My bad, it was only brought up in the course as it was a good example of an unsolved problem in physics...I know there is a three body and many body problem on particle size scales, but that's a different kettle of fish altogether.

The three body problem came up in my QM section of my current course, the problem is that it isn't that basic at all. With two bodies classical mechanics can be applied, but as soon as you include a third body (like your example) an asteroid, then even though the three masses are in the same plane, the effect of the second largest body should have no effect on the asteroid i.e the effect has to be so neglible that it doesn't alter the orbit. IIRC they are looking to QM to solve the problem (but please correct me if I'm wrong on this.) I know they've used hamiltonian systems and something called a Jacobi integral (might have the name wrong) but if you think of it in the terms of gravity effecting a particle - where obviously the effect is incredibly small, I think this is why they are turning to QM for answers.

EDIT: they're playing as a type - but it doesn't sound promising for Ghana.

1-0 Brazil in the first 4 mins. That's er, a nice play on words Amod. Please say Portugal beat England, that gives England an 80% chance of winning.

For what it's worth, just to put a different spin on the universe being 'conscious' - and to reaffirm why I think consciousness is intrinsic with the evolution of the universe, or it's an 'emergent' property of space-time, is that I see the universe as a logical progression (I'm sure I've said this countless times on here...but nevermind.) In that consciousness is an inevitability, the universe is almost pointless unless there is something to observe it, and make sense of it, IMO of course. So I wouldn't regard the entire universe as being conscious...that's non-sensical (the earth doesn't revolve around the earth with intent.) However I do believe the universe evolves, and consciousness is the pinnacle of this evolution...I guess this is a bit like the anthropic principle (this is not to be confused with Darwin's theory.) So the universe is conscious as much as it's system brings about consciousness...how it evolves after this point, is anybodies guess.

I actually quite liked the Sky TV ads that came out a few months ago - Ronnie Corbett and Alice Cooper eating gammon steak in bed together. There was another with David Hasselhoff doing the ironing, but I can't remember his unlikely house mate. The (I think) Carslberg advert, with the 'rythum of life' theme tune...goes through the entire evolution of our planet up to humans, then reverses back to a mud skipper, that goes 'bleugh.' I can't believe I can't remember the product for that ad, some ads are so slick and impressive, you don't take in what they're actually advertising. The Cillit bang ad makes me chuckle.

I super glue little bowler hats and brief cases to pigeons, it used to be seagulls (living near a coastal city) but I've progressed to pigeons. I also secretly play Estonian folk music on a tuba which I fashioned from rogue pubic hairs that I've found lying around the house, the tone and subtle nuances of my instrument are a real pleasure to the ears. No, I have no 'secret' hobbies.

That's precisely what I'm looking for, thanks ajb EDIT: Bar the talk on strings.

Well I can't help you Herpguy, but if anybody knows of any books on Quantum Gravity - introductory level. I'm not going onto the hard physics with my degree for another year or so (maths comes first unfortunately), so some background reading and resource in the subject would be welcome.

There as authentic as far as subjective experiences are authentic. As Bascule said, it's better to put these experiences down to the state you were in at the time, hallucinations can convince you of practically anything. That said, I'm probably the only person on here (bar one or two if IIRC) that feels that consciousness is not confined solely to the brain. However there is no compelling evidence (as yet) that supports this, as already stated, but that doesn't mean it can be dismissed altogether. If you want my advice (take it or leave it) is not to jump in at the deep end with quantum explanations of the mind and such, if your are uneducated, then go back to basics, and keep your experience as a pleasant thought...if you are serious about going down the scientific route. Though I wouldn't personally spend years of study to try and prove a subjective experience, it would be hard to let go if it ends in dissapointment. The way I see it, is self awareness is the pinnacle of the evolution of the universe (as far as we know) and will be the cherry on the theoretical cake, once it's been explained...if ever. I think there are other problems in nature that need clarifying before we can attempt to answer self-awareness, but it's certainly going to be very interesting to see how reality reveals itself.

Glad to hear it, thanks Dave

I made a comment in a recent thread about doing away with the religious side of the philosophy forum. It seems the main contention between members on here is sparked when talking about personal beliefs and or discussing religion in general...in fact some recent posts and threads (I'm not going to start name dropping) are just meaningless, and do not contribute to any form of healthy discussion at all...it's just a load of pot shots at individuals and organised religions. The problem is, it's from people who already know each other, know their beliefs and know exactly where they stand, but still the same tired arguments keep cropping up. There's plenty (and frankly very interesting) philosophical discussion to be had, without bringing religion into the mix. Just a thought. It may refresh philisophical debate on here, and may coax certain members away from that particular forum and talk about science and other issues instead. Before anyone says it, there's plenty to debate within philosophy (it's about a broad a subject as you can get) that doesn't require bringing God or religion into the discussion.

Thanks again abskebas...Stapp's theory seems to echo slightly of the anthropic prinicple, and also seems to agree (the details are a little cloudy) with some of my thoughts I raised on the freewill debate (philosophy and religion forum.) However I'm not convinced or sure (would be more accurate), if we have any choice to gain knowledge, self awareness appears to make us question, and in turn manipulate our environment...I see our efforts as a logical progression that points forward to only one possible outcome, maybe eschaton, maybe something much grander, it's impossible to stipulate where everything is heading. The quote below sums up Stapp's idea...

Thanks for the response abskebabs...I do vaguely remember reading about Penrose's argument, but IIRC it was met with a lot of contention, so for the level of understanding I had in the subject, I didn't get too engrossed in the theory. I guess Penrose shares my belief...hmm, still just because his particular theory isn't right, doesn't mean the idea that consciousness is a property of space-time should be dismissed altogether.

I voted immaterial, though I wasn't really sure why this disagreed with just a quantum explanation of the mind...as much as a causal / determined explanation, but so far I hold that consciousness is a universal process as opposed to isolated to our brains. However I can totally relate to consciousness as Bascule has described, and really it's an open book, and whatever science discovers then I'll have no choice but to abandon what I want consciousness to be. As for a quantum explanation...does anybody really understand or can explain this in layman, I really can't follow how the mind can be explained through any of the quantum processes I've come across...probability, indeterminism, quanta, where do any of these fit into self awareness ?

LOL, neither would I. That's not the argument though, Americans are *****'s.