invert_nexus

It could be a water tower. I'm not sure about the scale though. It does look like it might be too big for that. And it has some weird effects around the circumference...

Aww. Should have known that other thread would get deleted. Anyway. I'll repost my post from it in here. I'd like some answers from people that understand physics. The other forums I reference are short on knowledgeable physics people right now. So the following is a cut and paste from a now deleted thread (slightly modified): =========================================== Could somebody in the know about physics and these constants say something about this? Garry here is all over the net with this as well as other things... but lately he's been obsessed with these lists of constants. I've guessed over in another forum what he might have been on about (I won't get into that here) but it appears that I might have been wrong. It would now appear that he's trying to say that NIST has faulty entries on their website? I've searched around and it seems that all the listed constants are correct but maybe they got them from Nist!? Anyway, I'd just like to know if he is actually trying to make a point (I invited him to just say what he wanted to say over in the other place but he refused) or if he's just 'acting' weird for attention. I'm betting on the latter but could very easily be wrong. I'm not up on physics and so am not in a position to comment. So. Some help here? (I would be surprised if he hasn't posted these constants in a multitude of other threads down in your religious forum as well. Yeah. I know. Don't ask me what they have to do with religion and Garry's not talking. I made my guess and he won't confirm or deny.) Edit: I spent a bit of time going over his post history here. He seems to have actually said things more clearly here than in any other forum I've seen him ramble in. He's gone on about these constants for a far longer time than I've been aware. I thought it was a relatively recent transmutation of his psychosis, but it would seem that it's not so recent. His past references to these constants always seem to lead to gravitons, and I presume that his present scenario is likely no different. I think that he thinks that the unearthing of the Ark of the Covenant that he believes is buried beneath the heelstone of Stone Henge will release a surge of gravitons or something. You really have to wonder about people who fall prey to such strange beliefs. I wonder if he really believes it of if he's pretending? He's spent a long time on his 'quest' for it to be artifice. I wonder what his friends and family think of him? I wonder if they're scared of his irrationality? Anyway. I'd still appreciate if someone could identify if there is something erroneous about the listings of constants from the nist site. But I doubt if there is. I think he's just groping for attention.

Hmm. You have a point there. Neurons do fire once the firing threshold has been reached. On or off. With no real variations in the action potential (although the firing threshold does change as the neuron 'tires out'.) But, it is also analog in that the communications between neurons is through neurotransmitters and not action potential. The chemical messengers between cells is analog. And throw in glial cells regulating the neurotransmitter level in any given synapse even more (a new idea which is not wholly proven yet, but is certainly tantalizing in its evidence) and you have a whole spectrum of values rather than on or off. So. As has been said, the brain is complicated. It's sort of a hybrid creature. Digital and analog. Interesting.

No. With the Baldwin Effect traits are passed on. Eventually. Take Vervet monkeys and their well known vocalizations. These vocalizations are genetically inspired. A vervet raised in captivity will make these calls under the proper conditions without needing to be taught them. But, they do need to be taught to refine their technique. The hawk call, for instance, might be used erroneously anytime anything is seen above the monkey. It takes experience to hone that down so that only the proper stimulus produces the proper effect. But, for this behavior to have become instilled into the genetic material of the monkey, it needed to be selected for. Those monkeys that didn't make the proper calls were culled from the population. While those who did make the call were selected for. Over time this solidifies behavior genetically. You have to look at it as a series of small changes. Every behavior of an animal is based on some form of genetic trait at least in some small way. A predilection for behaving one way as opposed to another. And as time goes on and the Baldwin Effect hones the genome this predilection becomes stronger and stronger. More genetically bound. Until it is no longer a predilection, but an instinct.

Greetings, apendrapew. Yes. I've been in here a little bit. But not much. I don't like the limitations of speech evinced in this environment. If you know what I'm saying. (No. Really. Nice place. Just not my place. Take no offense, people.) As to Sciforums, google it and you will find something. A treasure hunt, perchance. And as to the problems, I have received an email from Dave explaining what happened. Apparently, he had problems with his hosting company and they killed the database a day before he was going to leave for North Africa on vacation and so he's been unable to do anything about it. He didn't say so explicitly, but I assume the database will be repaired when he returns. Sometime around the end of May. Hopefully the threads remain.

Uncool, So. You're a determinist then? Did you read those links to Lucas's arguments against determinism, by any chance? And what of chaos theory? And quantum theory? The brain is nothing like a computer. A computer is digital. The brain is analog. I'm a believer that a brain couldn't be modeled efficiently by any system less complex than itself. Brain-like behavior could be implemented (think Chinese Room and/or black box) but it would not be needful to model the brain precisely. The brain is a work of neurons and neurotransmitters. Action potentials and ion channels. The brain is the result of its medium and it works because of it. To try to implement its function precisely in another medium (electronics) would entail certain translations of form that might easily invalidate that structure. You should utilize your medium for its benefits and limitations. Flesh and circuitry are not the same and it would be foolish to treat them as such. Dna Mauro, By a similar token, emotions are an end product of various processes. They are a motivational factor for more complex behaviors. They can be simulated by various means. Think of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and their "Genuine People Personalities." The first developed was boredom. Once they switched from using a herring sandwich (if memory serves) the rest followed in quick succession. Colin the euphoric robot comes to mind. The point where emotion takes on a new tinge... a more human tinge... is in the interpretational process. And it is here that that the elusive factor of 'consciousness' (human consciousness... I'm not going to get into the problems of nomenclature right now) lies. Heh. Lies. That's what the interpretive mechanism is adept at. Lying. Telling stories. Explaining. Rationalizing. When you can make a machine that lies in order to explain its functioning in the absence of knowledge of that functioning, then you'll be close to 'it'. When you can make a computer that seeks meaning and isomorphisms in the products of its senses, then you'll be on the road to awareness. Self-awareness. When you've designed a machine that can revel in contradictions and explain them away with a wink and a nod, then you'll be approaching human. And not until then can we say that the difference between brain and computer is being bridged.

Yes and no. I'm far from being a herpetologist or a crocodile expert, but I have seen documentaries showing some limited maternal behavior after hatching. For instance, they gather the hatchlings up in their mouth to carry them to the water. For a crocodile who bites reflexively from pressure on the inside of the mouth, this is a pretty amazing feat. And they also allow them to share the same water for a time after hatching as well. Yes. It's not anywhere near the level of mammalian parental care. But it is something. I am sure that there are other examples as well, but my sleep-deprived brain can't clear the headnoise enough at the moment to think of any concrete examples. Which is why I mentioned Baldwinian Evolution. Look up the Baldwin Effect. Behavior over time tends to solidy genetically. It doesn't happen in a single or few generations, but it does happen.

That's how many people who have joined the forum and given you as a referral to why they joined.

I would suggest that you are most likely respected less now after posting a "do you like me" thread. Maybe that's just me. Try a self-banishment poll. That's always a good way of finding out.

Hint: Gaia=nature. That was tough. I understand your confusion.

Callipygous, I repeat. For deaf ears. Read my response to her. It's only a click away. It says, very well, what strawman arguments she's made. Why should I repeat them? If you insist I will repost them for your benefit but I don't see the point as you will most likely just ignore them anyway if your present actions are any judge of future actions. Not really. And if that's all you got out of it, then I've obviously been wasting my time. Which I'm no longer going to do. That's not very surprising. Lance, And this doesn't surprise me either. Such a pity. The eyes. The ears. But they see only echoes of the vast stir of conscience within. So limited they are. These beings of heightened morality Pity. I wouldn't be surprised. Lay off those drugs and maybe your reading comprehension will improve. Pray that it's not too late. Obnoxious, Your reading skills are also excellent then. Yes. She's going to be banned soon. Uh oh. I said it this time. Do I still drink or are you supposed to drink this time? Syphill, You make many excellent points. You also make points that I would dispute. However, the conversation in this thread is pretty much over. You're going to be banned shortly. And who knows, I may follow because I'm now emotionally connected to a troll in their minds. Who knows? Anyway. Maybe we can continue this conversation elsewhere where people actually read the words rather than hem and haw about their emotional complaints. Game?

Aye. We do suffer from our problems, but they are not of the same type. Not infinite loops. An infinite loop would not be suicide. It would be nothing. It would be nothing. You could say that there are instances of psychosis (catatonia, hysterical paralysis, Parkinson's disease as in the movie Awakenings, and others) that could be seen as a sort of infinite loop. But it's not really. It's brain damage. Not a problem with the system itself. This is a very difficult concept to talk about. And I'm no math expert which is where it's illustrated most fully so I lose a lot in my interpretation of the explanations. But if you would care to know more, I can recommend a site or two. First, Godel, Escher, Bach is a most interesting book that delves into the topic. Also, John Lucas wrote an excellent series of papers on the subject you might find some interest in. Here's a site where both his articles and those rebutting him are gathered together. And here's his home page. It's really some slippery stuff to get your mind around, but very interesting. Also, Turing was working along similar lines as Godel when he come up with his Halting Problem. I highly recommend GEB (Godel, Escher, Bach). It's a long read but one of the most intelligent and imaginative books I've ever read. Truly worth the read.

That's definitely one of the problems, but not the only one. And not even the most limiting. A huge problem with 'mimicking' the human brain is that no one understands how the human brain does what it does. We're on the verge of a huge leap in understanding, but at the moment (and for years to come... maybe) we are infants in our knowledge. However, instead of trying to mimick the brain perfectly, they can instead focus on end results and allow the middle layers to take care of themselves. One of the largest problems, I tend to believe, is that which is illustrated by Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem. Computers are the quintessence of formal systems and as such are bound to get caught in endless loops of logic. Humans (and other thinking creatures) are informal systems which can exit the loop when they wish. No blue screens of death for humans.

Yes. And? I've already conceded that. Although 'incredibly' is a relative term. *Edit to add* My 'and...' was in the post. You know. The part right after the part you quoted? The part that you decided to overlook? You know. The various points? Pity. *End edit* You brought it up. Oh well. Meh. You're back on defensive mode. Pity. You were thinking there for a minute or two. Oh well. (Have you read my response to her? Do I need to repeat it?) Bah. This thread is back to going around in politic circles and refusing to get into any meat. Again. Pity. So be it. Your choice.

Callypygous, Did she? She was commenting on the perils of holding a false assumption. Said assumption being that self-confidence deters rape. Yes. She said it crudely. But. Would you equate it to rape? Did you understand why I mentioned nazis earlier? Look again. Keywords: because she thought confidence deters rape. That was the point. The point that we've been discussing and the point which you've admitted to being "in a better direction". What you object to is the crudity of the statement. But that crudity, in itself, said something. 1.) That people get excited by violence and ugliness. (I'll agree that this point is off-topic and is somewhat trollish. But whatever.) 2.) One could even look at her stance as a demonstration of self-confidence. I've alluded to this here and there but no one's picked up on it. Pity. What does her self-confidence get her? Is it protecting her from violence? Or inciting it? 2a.) Perhaps her stance is not so much one of self-confidence as it is arrogance or snobbiness. Several people have interpreted it thus. Could this fact be used in a conversation to elucidate upon the point of self-confidence as a violence deterent? On the nature of self-confidence? No. Sorry. what I meant was are you serious that there could be no bigger insult. Think carefully. This goes towards the point I've tried to make about nazis. Again. Apologies. Too many "she's". Klanger's response was a strawman argument. She was arguing against an argument that nobody is arguing. She's arguing phantoms. AzurePhoenix, Would you like to elucidate on Klanger's post then and point out where her arguments coincide with the discussion at hand? And which are merely constructed from thin air?

That's what I meant. Never meant you advocated rape. But, can't you see how the discussion it turned into was a direct response of what she said and the way that the thread turned? That wasn't what she said. For one thing. And for two. Her statements were in response to some imaginary conversation that never took place. But whatever. Seriously?

Phi, It's pretty obvious that Syphill and I know each other. Yes. She asked me to back her up in here and I have done so. I did so because her point is so obvious but everyone refused to see. I agree that she was a bit crude in her statement, but the point was and is valid. As are all the other points made on the nature of self-confidence and the suppression of violence. Do you think that we have made no decent points? Just provocative? I suspect that now the masses will come out and reiterate your statement, however, just a few posts ago Callypygous, for one, begged to differ. (I'm not judging, however, perhaps the sentiment won't be revoked. He/she did stand up to #2 after all.) Trolls? Really? I have to disagree. But, I'm not surprised by your viewpoint. Lance, True. You assume poorly. Callypygous, Probably not. "I've been warned." And what of Klanger? Has she been warned? The things she's said are far worse than anything I've said. And add to that the fact that she was arguing against an argument that neither Syphill nor I were arguing and I think she should have an additional warning. But. She's the victim here, right? So it's ok? If I'm wrong and she has been warned then I apologize.

Klanger, Por que? Ah. Hyperbole. Wonderful gimmick. Yes? So. Did this latest rape compare to your first then? Really? Are you going to call us nazis next? Uhm. That's exactly what we were talking about. You are obviously taking my comments about how some rapists might love to attack "snotty" women as being me actually calling self-confident (or self-confident-seeming) women snotty. Not at all. I was merely illustrating how this type of rapist might view her. But, much of the conversation has turned towards the difference between true self-confidence and pretended self-confidence. But I guess you're too busy calling us rapists to get past the block. At least you have a reason to gawk, unlike the rest. You just wished a rape on us? Is that a threat? I feel raped... Anyway. Yeah. I don't think that anyone was saying any different. Try actually discussing what we've said. Not what you wish we'd said. Congratulations. Really. No sarcasm. Now. Who's trying to sound important? And where did you get this idea of 'insignificant tramp' from? There's a feature called quotes that prevent you from putting words into people's mouths. Use it. I never said any such thing. Should have sat and read a couple more days. Maybe you could have addressed the points instead of some imaginary conversation. Backlash? For saying that the idea that self-confidence can prevent rape is not necessarily the best option? You might note that I agree with you about it. That self-confidence and not acting like a victim actually is likely to work in many instances. However, the question is how effective will it be. And how does one pretend self-confidence when one really does not feel self-confident. The mind may try but the body will not lie. Many people are adept at reading such signs and might even be a beacon. Add to this the fact that self-confident behavior is often expressed as foolhardy behavior and....

With all due respect (realizing that you are #2 of this establishment), maybe you are. Once you get past the offended conscience that Syphill caused by uttering one statement to which she was forced to respond and to explain for two pages after, the conversation has turned towards a much more productive vein, I should think. Actually, it's not even that it's changed track from what was spoken before her arrival. Even back then it was speaking of alternate means of rape repellent. Now it's focused on the benefits and disadvantages of exuding and air of self-confidence as a rape repellent. And even more than a rape repellent. A violence repellent. But, you're the admin and you'd rather we stick to the topic of the tampon with spike. Ok. :On-topic: Lol. Hey guys. That tampon thingy looks really icky. I bet it would hurt a guy's pee-pee if he stuck his who-who in her hey-hey. It would suxxor to be that d00d. Pause. Can't resist. Sue me. Reminds me of martial arts. However, there is no self-confidence training dojo and you might well be practicing a flawed form. In fact, you most likely are. If it's not real self-confidence then it's not real. Simple as that. And even when real, as I stated earlier, self-confidence is a loud, boisterous, putting yourself in dangerous situations because you can. But. You can't. Not really. It's an act. And one that will collapse quite quickly when your bluff is called.

Glider, Four. Four F's. You forgot fleeing. And it's not reproduction it's fu... fornication. (Ha! Why can't we just say it?) Wow. What a whackjob website that is. Why would you post something like that as a reference? And why hasn't anyone else commented on it already? Anyway, I think it's a bit on the arrogant side to say that fish feel no pain. I'll agree that they don't feel pain as we do and it's even quite possible that the pain they feel is more akin to 'irritation' than what we think of as pain and/or agony, but it's nonetheless an uncomfortable sensation which they don't care for a bit. That's how these things work, you know. Instincts are prompted by sensation. Things that feel bad are avoided and things that feel good are sought after. Why should it be any different for fish? While this is mostly true, it's not entirely true. You've already admitted that fish and reptiles have some limbic structures, now the question is how much and what effect do they have in the various species. Many of the effects that you are attributing solely to mammals would be exhibited in caring for the young. Most reptiles do not care for their young. They lay the eggs. Sometimes caring for the eggs, sometimes not, but almost always abandoning the young once hatched. However, this is not always the case. There are reptiles who do care for their young. This means that these reptiles are in possession of functions that you are trying to say arose only in mammals. In dinosaurs, this trait was even more common. Many dinosaur species cared for their young. In fact, there is a debate as to whether dinosaurs were cold-blooded reptiles or warm-blooded something else. Birds are a direct descendant from dinosaurs. Wouldn't you find it odd that they should possess structures that only developed in mammals after the reptile and therapsid lineages split? Now that would be some remarkably convergent evolution there. I'll agree with you on this... somewhat. Let's just say that mammals, and especially humans with their enormous frontal lobe, are able to 'appreciate' the pain more. They evaluate and dwell on it rather than just experience as a discomfort. But, this is not to say that the fish doesn't feel pain. It just doesn't appreciate the pain. Humans are so appreciative of pain, in fact, that they don't even need real stimulus to feel it. We are adept at translating practically any stimulus (or lack of stimulus) into pain. We torture ourselves with our frontal lobe. BenSon, You're... kidding. Right? I mean that site did have some culled information on it but it was so muddled and just plain odd that it screams crackpot a mile away. Mokele, Crocodiles are also one of the reptile species that is known to care for it's young... somewhat. Edit: Oh. Almost forgot. On the subject of Lamarkian evolution. Try Baldwinian Evolution instead. Behavior affects selection which can imprint behavior into the genome.

Another thing to consider is that phosphate is the most commonly used power source of the cell. ATP. The energy is provided in the phosphodiester bond and powers most cellular functions. There are also some reactions fueled by GTP but, come to think of it, they also depend upon phosphate. Now. As to a connection between phosphate in a solution, I'm unsure. I imagine a quickly growing organism would require additional phosphate, not only for power, but also for the phospholipid cell membranes. As well as for use in the backbone of DNA. Phosphate is a very important molecule for the cell. I'm unsure how to apply this to the needs of your 'investigation' but these are all areas which you might need to consider. But then again, the actual use of the phosphate might be secondary to actual experimentation. In which case you'd just want to set up a variety of nutrient solutions with the only varying factor being the levels of phosphates and to observe the results.

I could point you to a bit torrent site where you can download mass scientific textbooks, science magazines, and other e-books. Yes. It's all by crook. But so what?

Start chewing tobacco instead. Ha! Kidding. I smoked for 15 years. A pack a day, minimum. Many days, a pack and a half, two packs. I quite last year. July 15th. Why? I'd been building towards it for a while. Realizing that so many things that I had been doing to myself were such a waste of life. Smoking cigarettes. Pot. Alcohol. All these self-destructive ways to fill space and time. All pointless (well. Not completely. All of them serve particular purposes and serve them quite well if kept to limited doses, but the problem lies in maintain said equilibrium. The habit tends to grow. And grow. And grow.) Anyway. I was building towards it, but then I met somebody. A wonderful person who lived a life devoted to her body. To her health and to her self. She inspired me to do that which I had never seriously tried before. I had made half-hearted attempts in the past (which I'll relate in a moment) but this was no half-hearted attempt. This was the real thing. And is the only way one can quit (not method but intent. You have to want it. You have to need it.) So. She inspired me. And I quit. How? Cold turkey. I had a pack. I finished that pack. Spent about three days stretching out the pack and finishing up the butts in my ashtrays and from there just stopped. Stopped. The first few days were hell. Constant jonesing. I made sure to keep myself hydrated. And suffered. I told no one what I was doing. Except for her. She knew. And some online friends. I didn't tell anyone else for fear of failing. For being one of those. People love to laugh at people who say they're quitting. And then don't. They love it. Love it. More than anything else... except smoking, that is. And they hate it when people escape. Where they are unable. Anyway. I just quit. First few days were hell. Then it began to diminish. Enough for me to notice a strange phenomenon in my addiction. I wrote a thread about it somewhere else. About addiction and reaching. I found that I'd be sitting there and I'd automatically reach for my cigarettes. And then I'd remember that I have no cigarettes and the addiction would swamp me with frustration and I'd clench my fists a moment and suffer. This was expected and nothing unusual. But what is interesting is that the reverse was also true. I began to notice that craving would often hit after I reached for something. Water. Remote control. Mouse. Pencil. Whatever. I'd reach and then I'd crave. The act of reaching is mentally conditioned to the addiction. It's not surprising if you think about it. What do you reach for most when you are a smoker? How many times a day do you reach for your cigarettes as opposed to anything else? Day in. Day out. Anyway. I suffered. After a week the cravings began to subside. I still craved a bit for several weeks afterwards, but the initial week was the worst. After that was over I knew I had won. I'll never smoke again. Never. I've tried to quit in the past but I was never serious about it then. The main reason for quitting was money and that just wasn't enough. The closest I ever came was by partitioning the cigarettes. First once an hour. Then hour and a half. Then two hours. Etc... I had myself down to only a few a day. But those few a day was all that was necessary to maintain the addiction. And there will always come a time when you just can't help but smoke more. High stress. Party. Whatever. And once you do you're at square one. No. The best way to quit is to just quit. But you have to want it. You have to need it. There is no halfway. It's all or nothing. Absolutely. Tobacco is an appetite suppresent and that is one of its beneficial uses. It also has some laxative qualities. And of course there is the stress relief, but when one becomes addicted the buzz is no longer even felt so this effect is only for light smokers.

Admit it. You get a charge out of being this pariah. Social outcast. You find a sense of satisfaction that you're above those cretins. Look at them. Miserable maggots that they are. Look at them scoffing at knowledge. Watch them as they squirm and fall into miserable little ignorant lives filled with bling bling and fo shizzle or whatever the catch phrase of the week. Listen to their enlightened conversations on American Idol or The Simple Life or whatever the latest craze might be. Isn't that right? You like it. Otherwise you'd conform to their standard.