Royston

Spot on...the term is generally used today as someone who takes, more often than not in a deceptive or relentless manner e.g they've blagged another day off work again or you're always blagging cigarettes ! That reminds me of another...Gannet (after the sea bird) someone who constantly takes, similar to greedy pig. Which also reminds of the wealth of alternative names for the police... Pigs, The Filth, The Sniffs, The Fuzz, Rozzers, Bobby on the beat, Boys in Blue, The Heat, five o...can anyone think of anymore

I'm interested in hearing peoples slang / dialect for their region and if possible where and why the phrase was coined... Where I grew up, getting a ride on the back of someones bike was called a backy...in a neighbouring town it was called a buggy...and in the midlands it was referred to as a croggy ??? Huge groups of kids that hang out in shopping centres wearing hoodies and cheap tracksuits are referred to as chav's / townies and locally to myself binners. Whilst growing up we referred to them as 'bus stop blaggers' as strangely enough they hung around bus stops being generally abusive to passers by. Krustys for right-on new age traveller types and pikeys for new age travellers that aren't really right-on and just go around thieving and being abusive. I thought about it when reminiscing on my travels where a Canadian girl reffered to clean cut types that dance to Latino House Music as ...... I can't remember the phrase she used (if anyone knows the answer to this, it'd be great...it was a few years back.) How many names for a hick ? What are the equivalent of chav's called in your town / city? What do you ask for when getting a ride on the back of someones bike ? What are the different classes referred to e.g toffs for the upper class...toffee nosed...stuck up. If anyone can provide any quirky or fitting phrases / names, it would be really appreciated.

Does nobody care about the poor monkeys, they have feelings too...or they will have. wea wea wea wea (Amityville violin screech). Can anybody tell me the real benefits of this research, and if so does it justify creating and testing on a self aware subject ?

Please take a look at the following link... http://www.news.com.au/story/0%2C10117%2C15891104-13762%2C00.html Why do they want to know if human brain cells will make a monkey self aware ? I can't really see the advantages in the experiment other than to make PG Tips rethink their ad campaign. What do you think, is this immoral, or can anyone see the benefits of this type of experiment outweighing the ethical implications ?

I guess adrenaline is released, which causes that gut feeling, what other chemicals come into play...I'm not sure. I also found out that what I was experiencing was actually envy, as jealousy is only attributed to something you already have. As she was my ex girlfriend I was envious of whoever was going to be the next man in her life. Just for the record we havn't spoken for a couple of months now and I'm a firm believer now of 'out of sight, out of mind'. I guess clean splits are best unless the break-up is very much mutual.

Check this link out... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4607053.stm It shows satelite pics of the development of cities over the past few decades. The spread of urban developments to cope with population rises is perfectly illustrated in a stark but undiscountable way. I'm not convinced that this problem will have devastating effects globally, due to a mottled economy, which means the effects will be more localized. A good example in history is Angkor Watt in Cambodia which grew to the size of New York, and the surrounding forest and it's resources could not keep up with the demand of the growing population. This gave no leeway for any enviromental changes and soon conflicts ensued over ownership of these resources.

Hang on, what do you mean by 13 visuals ? In the cortex there are 32 separate areas that deal with vision, connected by about 190 neural pathways.

I need to know this to continue a thread on extracting images from the brain, but I can't find anything specific to this when I google it. The link below takes you to the site explaining this research, and there's an opportunity to ask him questions. He claims the technology could record dreams in the future, maybe you should ask him ? http://www.mindpixel.com/chris/2005/06/extracting-video-from-cat-brains.html

I guess, but apes (especially chimps) display social and anti-social behaviour...grooming each other et.c Chimps have been know to murder rival 'gang' members if they've wandered into the wrong territory albeit we are descended from apes. Don't dolphins display social behaviour ? However I've never seen chimps donning smoking jackets and laughing at satirical comedy. Sense of humour is definitely a trait that seperates us from animals...but I agree with most of the above...biologically speaking we are definitely animals.

Very good point. I'll have to have a browse to see what's responsible in the brain for producing mental images as opposed to visual input from the eyes...I guess it's a combination of lot's of neural responses, as you said like memory et.c In the mean time check this out...slightly off topic, but still in the same vein when it comes to transposing thoughts to an external source. The research is in it's early days but very interesting, and also raises questions about the ethical side of such technology. Tell me what you think. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4472355.stm

I found this yestarday. Although the research is quite old now they've successfully reconstructed spatiotemporal scenes from the responses of visual neurons. In essence they have recorded the visual input of a cat and rendered the data so it can be viewed. The implications are that when the research is ready for human subjects it will be possible to record and playback our dreams! What would this look like though ? If you think about the images in your head when you think or dream, to me they are an incomplete mish mash of mental pictures and scenes, where 'you' are the only one that can decipher them into something of meaning. It would be really interesting how a computer would interpret such images...could be quite scary as well. http://www.mindpixel.com/chris/2005/06/extracting-video-from-cat-brains.html

I saw a programme recently where following an epileptic seizure this guy developed synaesthesia. He was also midly autistic but still retained good social skills. He interpreted images into numbers. When asked (particularly hard) maths equations he would see shapes that specified certain numbers and when the shapes came together he could tell you the answer. In one experiment he recited pi to 20,000 decimal places ! I'm fascinated by this condition, especially where it can be used to an advantage. http://www.educ.cam.ac.uk/synaesthesia/links.html

Stephen Hawkings latest findings predict that black holes can hold information. Instead of forming a singularity, information becomes an entanglement and later spewed out. Maybe this could create multiverses. If the entanglement is so great maybe it could create universes that abide by completely different laws of physics to our own.

Time to brush up on GR.

This may be a very silly and simple to answer question, but it's kind of bugging me. When I was 12 I thought of the idea of infinite universes to try and get round the whole boundary of the universe problem. I found out later on in life I wasn't the only one that thought this could be possible. However supposing the big bang was at the start of the universe, and for the possibility of infinite universes being created, wouldn't the rate of expansion have to be infinite ? If the rate of expansion is infinite, how would matter have time to cool and create uniformed bodies such as planets ? Wouldn't the highly disordered state at the beginning of the universe stay in that state due to the infinite rate of expansion. If the rate of expansion isn't infinite, does this mean there is only one universe and the boundaries can be explained in some other way, maybe a vacuum (that's just an example of the top of my head). I'm probably going to get a grilling for posting this, so be gentle I've got a screaming hangover.

I agree with all of the above. In retrospect the experiment is flawed as the tests should of been tested on a subject with no meditation experience or previous contact with the 'healer'. I labelled the post 'EEG readings could prove et.c' in hope that someone may have links to further studies, or if the phenomenon has been dissproved, and also to attract people who do believe in distant healing (it's always good to get both sides of the argument, and why I was unsure where to place the thread.) The experiment is a rather tenuous attempt to keep people guessing.

I stumbled across this when looking for info on Alpha wave activity in the brain. I find it quite startling, especially as I've found little or no scientific evidence to back up so called 'spiritual healing'. What are your thoughts, is there a flaw to this experiment ? Could we be on the brink of closing the gap between science and spirituality ? I wasn't sure where to post this, but I thought it would be more appropriate in the neuroscience category as it involves a controlled experiment using an EEG. http://www.dhyanapeetam.org/WorldTourMar2005_7.asp

I'm not condoning anyone try this out as an experiment but I had a discussion with a friend about withdrawal from a psychoactive drug. His argument was, that it was impossible to feel good from a withdrawal because the brain has a lack of seratonin / dopamine et.c, the brain has no capacity to feel good as it depends on these chemicals to induce well being. I don't want to go into too many specifics but this mainly concerns recreational mood enhancing drugs. However (due to some research) I'm well aware when the withdrawal starts taking place and if I feel any change in my mood, my brain instantly thinks that it's just the withdrawal of the chemical and there is no rational reason why I should feel bad. There is nothing different from the day of withdrawal to the day before, there is nothing different in my situation to any other day, so I feel good, and I do feel 'good'. Now what on earth is that ? How is it possible to always see 'outside' the way you feel when the very thing that constitutes your mood is completely diminished. You always hear phrases 'it's just the way you look at things' but if the very chemicals that govern a positive outlook are depleted significantly then surely you don't have the capacity to feel positive. If the brain and all it's processes are what make you 'you', then what am I if I can cheat what my brain should be dictating. I'm not the only one I know who can do this successfully. And I say it again I do not condone or encourage experimenting with chemicals, this is purely for debate.

28/m/UK

Thanks everyone, the reason I felt jealous was due to an ex-girlfriend visiting. Although I've been enjoying my independance and concentrating on starting a company and writing music, I was bombarded by these old feelings I had for her. Our body language towards each other is mixed, and confusing but there is definitely chemistry (for want of a better word) in the air. As the frustration of not being able to express these feelings through fear of driving her away it changed into jealousy, and this seemed to grow when she left. I guess I wanted a scientific explanation to see how irrational I was being, which is a topic I'm going to go further into on another thread (not specifically concerning jealousy though.) I find it interesting that people are still bound by such primitive instincts despite how informed they are about these instincts. And no, I certainly wouldn't take a pill to diminish these feelings, I think their much better dealt with by tackling the problems head on. And yes, I've talked to my friends about the root cause, but they also came to the same conclusions, that it's quite a primitive response attributed to a number of biological reactions. None of my friends are neurologists, which motivated me to find a more neurological explanation...ug.

Is there a neurological explanation as to why people feel jealous. Is it down to a specific chemical in the brain such as endorphin's being released when someone is happy, or is there just a psychological explanation maybe having low self esteem. It seems quite a specific feeling which is why I was wondering if it was down to one chemical. I read a while ago they synthesized a pill that could eradicate the feeling of guilt. It was mainly for people who had taken someones life in an accident. Is it possible for jealousy to be treated in the same way, maybe it could help in relationships. And yes I am feeling a little jealous at the moment, but I can't seem to attribute it to a low self esteem, I feel really quite good...until I think about it !

We are progressively becoming more informed (I believe with a lot of help from the internet), and stories lacking 'shock value' are just not news-worthy. However sick it may seem to use tragedies as a means to make money for the media, it spurs on charities and groups to help combat such problems. I believe a level of detail is necessary to get the whole story. With the story you're referring to it's almost impossible to explain the events without it being upsetting. No one is forcing you to watch the news, surely if a story is becoming upsetting then turn the channel over.