forufes

just because you think you have answered the question doesn't mean you did.. my main question was: manifested as an example in: and what i get from you is that because animals live in groups, then ones who go astray are bound to die..i mean WTH? I'M ASKING WHY HUMANS FREAKING HOLD MORALS WHILE SOCIALIZING IN THE FIRST PLACE, WHEN THEY CAN STAB EACH OTHER IN THE BACKS AND LIVE BETTER AS INDIVIDUALS..WHERE DID THE SENSE OF A WHOLE WE CARE FOR COME FROM? WHERE DID MORALS ORIGINATE FROM? i mean, seriously, was such a simple concept that hard? oh poor doggy, one who asked for morality outside humans raise their hands please.. nonsense answer. so evolution doesn't work on live beings?:rolleyes: let me help you here..if yes it works on live beings, then why didn't it eliminate death? "play" mean help and be helped, the umbrella of morals. the bit of morals that gives a "clear survival advantage" is the "get helped" part of "playing", the "helping" part wrecks evolutions concept*, it goes in it's opposite direction*, it is against individual reproduction chances*, yet it exists.. just because not all people illogically follow it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. *regarding the individual, but the opposite towards the species. but the umbrella exists, along with the "helping" part...why? how come? i ask you to reread this, if you analyze it correctly, you will find it is the opposite..check post #42.

i ask why has evolution preferred the group's benefits to the individual's, by means such as morals.and i get an answer that starts off like this: ...... i mean, really? ever heard of facepalms? "doh"? circulr arguments? or just cicular, cuz i'm not sure that can be counted as an argument.. heheheheh:mad: you have no idea.. please go check a dictionary for the difference between "why" and "how"... why did evolution come up with reproduction instead of immortality? and i beg of anyone who answers to try not to be a new source of dissappointment to me..

well maybe i have gone overboard..just a little bit.. that doesn't contradict what i said..the "survival [of other] species".. actually, ironically enough..some species going instinct is a necessity for some species to survive.. aim at making all species survive (as many have argued here)..and you end up with none.. evolution didn't do that, because we're here discussing it. if evolution went for single members' survival, we wouldn't be here doing so. i don't know, so i guess you can call it crazy..but it makes the choice regardless, that is a fact. there has never been recorded an event where evolution worked for the benefit of a creature's survival against it's species' survival, and i ask, why? take morals for a simple clear example, what good are they for the individual? they limit him, no? what for? what would happen if all people dropped morality all of a sudden? they would die very normally, from diseases or gun shots or traffic accidents or old age or whatever, sure; more would die faster because of all the chaos, but nothing too unusual.. the unusual thing is that the human race without morals would get extinct in less than a decade(my own approximation, but you can take it for a fact because if i personally dropped my morality i will wipe humans off the face of the earth in less than half that time:D).. so why do we hold morals? where did we "get" them?..why? what good are they, Mr.Skeptic? functions at the individual level for the whole's* good, even more suspicious:eyebrow:. *which is the individual's good in the long run..wait a sec, long run? how did evolution figure that out? *wrong place wrong time wrong conditions wrong everything...;to be truly fatal. taking the larger picture, said bad mutations are insignificant enough to get embedded with total randomness. and hence, it affects survivability as much as anything else does, and so, it shouldn't be ruled out automatically. faster legs can mean heading the herd when running from three wolves, also means the first to be eaten by the ambush of thirty waiting ahead. and vice versa.. so weak legs wins natural selections' sweepstakes.. and so it starts spreading through the population, but wait, the ones with weaker legs die of exhaustion quicker than the ones with stronger legs when crossing desserts or climbing mountains............and so on and so forth with the rest what, billion or two possible traits and mutations, plus their combinations with the rest of environmental factors and each other? tell me what exactly IS a bad or good mutation? it's total randomness man, total randomness.. or someone is remote controlling evolution and natural selection..** **slaps my hand "bad forufes, how dare you think of introducing something we don't find in our biology books? how do you dare question the teachings of our great lord science? you'll be getting no dinner tonight and bad reputation.."

looool... you kinda remind me of myelf about a week earlier...though i can't show my appreciation with a red valentine's card with a "KEEP THE PERSONAL THINGS OUT!!" note.. i also don't know why i'm not reintroduced to the same red card myself, it should be as easy as a click for you.. but on a serious note..: is my post so true and hard to refute for you to go on such helpless outburst? or am i making so little sense and jabbering alot for you not to know where to start? if it's the second one, then i honestly ask you to bear with me.. just try to understand what i'm saying, measure if it's true or not (it could be), and if it's not, tell me why..how hard can that be? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedand what i though that should tell you is that by you and me existing evolution succeeded.. while some can see it a faliure that evolution didn't keep the other 99.9% alive (where they think it should somehow send them to space and have them somehow find food there)..i think that for evolution to actually keep that.. sorry to START that 0.1% out of oblivion is a great succes..

heh, i was counting on someone to say that:D.. 1-what does the fact that you're here to read what i say, or the fact that i'm here to say what i said, tell you? 2-i specifically said "survival of species"..not "survival of members of species"... evolution already "knows" (in a matter of speaking so don't anyone write an essay about it) that the survival of "single" animals is the end of the species, end of the species is the end of its members, as there isn't enough food and space for everyone..and so, trying to keep the single animal alive will actually kill it.. so keep the species alive by controlling how they die(which they do anyway), to give way to new species. if evolution wasn't intelligent and cunning, it wouldn't have done such an OUTSTANDING job of maintaining it's goal..keeping species around, keeping life around.. it has actually went from maintaining stuff to creating new stuff..it hasn't just kept the primates it started with alive, but advanced them to live better, longer.. i've seen the first one before when you posted it, great video, didn't get to thank you for it since the thread got closed.. as for the second one, a very poor magic trick which i hope doesn't represent evolution truely.. while repeating the word "random" a million times, the guy who made the video made the animals with bad mutations die every time, which is really stupid and narrow.. his example of light colors being "better" and dark colors for those with "worse" mutation is extremely linear.. an animal with one extremely bad mutation might survive because he might have another good mutation that helps him to live, eleminating him automatically is plain stupid, no wonder his "experiment" worked out perfectly, eliminate the negative (which doesn't exist in real life), and you're bound to either get zero or a positive, wow, evolution works. the same with the previous video.. 1-i don't think mutations occur in a way which seriously affect the survivability of that animal, a 1 or 2 cm longer neck means nothing if it was between brothers, let alone over billions of years. and as i said before, even by saying a bit longer neck makes eating easier and so it's animal healthier, it must have a lot of other sides to it which are harmful, in the same way other harmful mutations would have beneficial sides, so when they all cancel each other, we are left with true randomness.. with true randomness, species should naturally end, and that's where evolutions' intelligence come in, in keeping them alive.. i think of it as an in-built mechanism, the moving force of life's continuity, not life's natural effects, as nature is too harsh and inconsiderate to leave a creature as it is, let alone improve him. evolution, is a stream going uphill. it's a bit tolerable from one person, but you have no idea how annoying it is when everyone repeats it:embarass:

because "effect" is direct. "goal" happens through multiple steps...look here: what if i put the water ON the fridge, and it leaks and enters the fridge and freezes, i put it on the ground it evaporates and enters the fridge and freezes, you put it in a bottle and still it finds a way to get frozen, then can't you say water has a goal to get frozen? also, water does a lot of things, one of which is get frozen, evolution does one thing only; keep the species alive.. and so you can say that freezing is an effect on water but survival is evolution's goal.. same with lightning if it struck nothing but dead trees and in all types of weather all around the world, CO2 running after people and countering deturgents or whatever and adapting to masks and killing no one but humans...can't you say those two have a goal? and so evolution (hate to break this to you guys:D) has a goal... the real question is, now what? so what if evolution had a goal, in my head it always did..so again; what's the fuss about? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged but isn't that the difference between an effect and a goal? i don't know about fluid dynamics, but back in school we learned through chemistry that the goal is for matter to reach a lower state of energy..

AWESOME...THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT... man i'd give you ten rep points if could, but firstly it says i'm supposed to spread some around first (whatever that means) also i'm not sure if i actually have the ability to affect others' rep status.. but you didn't hit the spot this time..this time it's a bull's eye..this is what i talked about in post #79 but you've got a "magical" way in phrasing things..i'm sure many of my posts seem incoherent to a lot of people(including me sometimes:D) or quantum encoding for example, the code is something so fragile and narrow (if i remember correctly it was a thread of single electrons) something sooo miniature and precise that just by attempting to measure it it gets affected and collapses..because any instrument you use would be relatively crude..like dissecting a microchip with a hammer.. and when you scramble the code, the recipient will notice. i take my hat off for you sir..

theoretically, yes..but in reality, no.. any mutation comes at a price, and some mutation don't pay their price right away, but afterwards when they come in conjunction with another mutation (which also wouldn't be beneficial, and hence a waste, but combined with the previous one it pays off).. oh come on, you should know what logical fallacy that's supposed to called, you're good at naming them.. in a world where everyone wants to get smaller, and not bigger, yes, the wire mesh would be intelligent. evolution does play the description of intelligence and the meaning it correlates to in our world very well..in our world, intelligence is how complex are the means something can devise to reach good or avoid bad, not big and small.. but what you said was something of a moment of enlightenment to how you guys think evolution is without a direction...and the experience is...twistedly wicked.

that is one of the most important points i hold against a "dumb" random evolution.. many mutations are not beneficial in them selves, but when combined with another mutation that comes afterwards, they become beneficial..so what made the trait survive the first "round" of natural selection to team up with the second trait and become useful? keeping the good changes and rejecting the bad is intelligent.

o~k.... same here:D nice.. well, this pushes me out of the ground of proving telepathy logical, as i don't have a conscise mechanism..but i should pull you from the ground of it being illogical, defending the OP's consistency.. so telepathy is not logical, i admit i can't stand up to that. but it isn't illogical either. don't exclude the middle gray zone. what about mine?: we communicate to each other subconsciously(experience ticks) in a way explained by today's science (normal sensory channels), so we may be communicating to each other subconsciously (telepathy being done ever since) in a way yet to be discovered by science (some physical medium beyond today's tools' sensitivity). there could be a better one stored in a brain whos owner didn't view this thread yet, or maybe not even born..don't forget the celestial teapot.. the first underline: says who? the second underline: which are? this paragraph effectively dismantles any present ,known (here at scienceforums)theory for telepathy. it doesn't dismantle the concept, which IMO is not in the "unlikely" realm, but has enough plausibility to be in the 50/50 realm. you can see that by rightfully removing the underlined word. but the effect could have been assigned to some other medium. emotions traveling in the human voice and dissipating even slightly when recorded, i can't prove their the effect of a new theory unless i find a new mechanism, other wise it can be explained for example by sound fidelity.. i can't say telepathy is what moves mothers intuition, unless i can say how..unless i can propose an exclusive mechanism assigned to the telepathic theory, otherwise it could be redirected to experience or electro megnatic waves or any other known medium (which may carry rightfully part of said effect, but might not be the only "carriers"), just like the sound example.. again, just because there is an effect doesn't mean we have to detect that effect..it's an important point... yup, "these magnitudes" for over two decades.. won't "these magnitudes" become "these magnitudes + one or two" in the coming two decades? can't telepathy be on one of the "+one or two" magnitudes? but you don't know that! you may have been unconsioucly using it scince you were a kid, you and a lot of oher people with special odd abilities science couldn't explain.. but unless the medium is found, we can't yet label it as telepathy, though we can't say it's not telepathy either.. mmm..are you sure about this? what do you mean by direct information transfer? what about "love from first sight"? glad you don't find it irritating..

NETBOOK!! asus's eepc comes to mind, although every major computer manufacturing company has it's own netbook, sony's vio can fit in your jean's pocket, but freaking expensive(what else is new with vio?) the oldest eepc model doesn't even have a hard disk, so you can play a movie and wave your laptop in the air without hearing the scratching noise of the needle on the disc's surface, also it'll be cooler, won't suffocate the life out of your lap, and you can sleep with it on cuz you won't be bothered by the vrrrr of it spinning.. i guess there are two models, one with 8GB one with 16GB flash memory. the other more expensive (and heavier) models which come with 40 or 80 (other netbooks 120 or even 160)GB harddisk you should ignore of course. also when wanting Ubuntu..the eepc without an operating system is actually cheaper than the one with XP, so you'll be saving money conveniently.. it has wireless and my guess on the price of a model with these specifications would be around 250$ if not less. check this out: http://event.asus.com/eeepc/comparison/eeepc_comparison.htm the lower the model is in the table, the cheaper and older it is, note that the ones at the bottom are said 7 inch screens, but the laptop is as big as a 10 inch, the frame is disgustingly HUGE, but it's probably the cheapest laptop in the world.. also, so i don't "cheat" you, the resolution is almost half that of normal laptops, you'd have to scroll in all ways to view a web page, especially with a dumb browser. so put that into consideration when checking the table.

they should! why shouldn't they? different metals, different structure, different properties, how will the atoms know it's longitudinal pull and so decide not to be elastic? isn't that's all what Yung's constants are about?

never heard that metals don't have longitudinal elasticity..so i think there should naturally be a difference..

@tar: you hit the spot in explaining unconscious perception through a medium we're aware of. "magic" is what you called unconscious perception through a medium we aren't even aware of..that's my telepathy. AND I'M NOT SAYING IT EXISTS.. @padren: i really liked the following part, and i approve of it a 100%, including the (weak) part..: i agree with the rest enough for my laziness to stop me from pointing out the minor things i disagree upon..also: i don't know how i ended up here either, i was never a fan of telepathy or anything of the sort, didn't hold a special interest in the subject or knowledge, but a mere thing i put in my "mysteries of life" slot.. @edtharan: this is as i gathered the point you stressed out the most, and gave off many examples for..so regarding the proof on nonexistence.. 1-you seem to know enough details about to telepathy to know the exact effects it should have and where they're supposed to be found where they weren't found..isn't that a bit odd for something nonexistent? i think you have a certain model of telepathy which you proved doesn't exist. 2-if telepathy is supposed to leave some trails and we do have the tools and know where to look for them yet didn't find them, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, because me might have not looked good enough. i really rest my feverish case with this post, i've been very argumentative defending something i don't have that much passion for.. i just like keeping the horizon open, i like to say "your logic(or knowledge) isn't 100% correct, knowing that makes your logic 100% correct".. so you either know it and accept it(like me:-D) or you're oblivious to that pigeon shit on your back and i'm gonna make you acknowledge it even if i had to rip your shirt off!. but due to my lack of knowledge in the relevant fields of science concerning this subject, i have to say i do believe telepathy in any form is further away than i thought it might be.

hey guys, what do you think of this?: "I've never understood how "troll" is an insult? What's the alternative? There's trolls and then there's sheep. That's it. I am a troll, I hope. " Dr. Lou Natic.

i can imagine a guy from 3000ad saying the same thing, just replace "Greece" with "scienceforums"(keep "ancient")...replace "light" with "telepathy"... i might have not made this clear but, i don't believe telepathy in the (mind telephone) sense exists, but i believe humans send and receive information to each others' brains directly, that was my idea of telepathy, the mechanism can be as simple as getting a feeling because of influence from someone else, for example, mother intuition. if i got you all wounded up thinking i can look a guy in the eye and make him hear "i'm gonna kill you" without moving my lips or speaking from my stomach, then it's my bad. not that once the general (my) idea of telepathy is discovered on how to work(if it does), the mind phone thingy would still bear the same improbability..hey, people a 500 years ago would condemn you as crazy if you said people could possibly maybe with a small tiny fraction of chance might fly some day.. what about thousands of years before 0ad, could anyone propose a mechanism for how light works? did that stop it from being discovered now? stop being arrogant:-) my proposed mechanism for how my idea of telepathy might work: peer action, peer detection meaning, the more "someone" is doing something, the more "he" can detect that same thing easily, consciousness is required in the someone. of course he'll have to be conscious of the thing he does, but he doesn't have to be conscious of detecting a similar one afterward, actually, usually it is done unintentionally.. the "someone" is the brain or us, the "thing" is thinking. a simple parallel example is a car mechanic or race track coach, they can know a moving car's model and its specifications from wheels to class and speed and a lot of other unimaginable details without actually seeing it, including any modifications or problems in the engine or almost anything else.. they don't necessarily train themselves to match the sound of a car to it's specs, but it comes from doing it casually for many times.. same with guns and gunshots, caliber and distance, the gun used and the setting it was shot from, and so on can be determined by experienced snipers and soldiers with real war experience.. i think it's simply experience.. that covers the repetition factor, then comes the unconsciousness factor.. most of the time, the car mechanic or sniper can tell you the information without telling you what exactly in the noise tipped him off to the certain property he guessed.. a closer example is one i gave before, many times a person can determine that the one who is talking to him is lying, without telling you exactly how he knew. one can say the medium for such deducting process is known; it was body language and facial expressions, but the person in question may have never heard of either, let alone learn a systematic method based on them to reach his conclusion that the other guy was lying.. thinking, or brain functions in general, leave small tiny traces, for the sake of argument, we'll suppose they're on the atomic level (or any other level undiscovered or hard to explored).. these small fluctuations left in the trail of a thought, in it's wake, are most likely (if not surely) to be picked up, or sensed, by one which go in the same trail... the trail of thinking. so when one brain thinks it leaves small details, or causes small fluctuations..which get picked up by another entity doing the exact (or almost exact) procedure, a brain, thinking. i realize my theory has many holes, so feel free to start poking! something like your example of Greece and light. so there's a certain amount of time, which if a theory doesn't offer evidence, it gets scratched? so maybe telepathy will be discovered when we stop looking for it so hard? how can there be evidence that something "never existed"? replace telepathy with UV. this is what i meant by arrogance, and i really mean no offence, but you're implying we're at the peak of science, that 3000ad will bear the same discoveries as the one we're already with. and remember, a negative can't be proven. and ("telepathy" doesn't exist) is a negative statement. you may replace telepathy with anything you want, as long as it isn't the statement itself. ever heard of the celestial toaster? can you prove to me that there isn't a toaster orbiting the sun somewhere? have you looked in every qubic inch in our solar system? also: absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. the OP is about why telepathy isn't that crazy of an idea. not whether it exists or not. that isn't proof that telepathy doesn't exist, what's between brackets is more correct. this is progress.. and yet you are so eager to jump and say the future can't show telepathy exists? i believe your keys are in your hand, you just need to retake a look in places you covered before.. if telepathy exists, it has always existed. the definition seems to be a problem. and as i said, you can never realize something doesn't exist. oh and btw, there's something the japanese call "killer intent", which their warriors and assassins can sense from others who are moving in for a kill..it has survived old myth to the modern day, it's something like just by initiating an action to kill somebody, you get detected by them. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged then i think the word i was looking for is: efficiency. add weight, size, power consumption, maintenance, durability, usability and others to the factors you mentioned, formulate a band score. biological organs would win hands down. no?

wow, you're right, that way using your brain would be less accurate..although i was thinking more along the lines of eyes vs cameras, skin vs pressure sensors, ears vs voice recorders, biological balance vs mechanical balance, and so on.. more of a direct reading of a biological organ and a machine, where both give off readings of the same unit.. but yeah many of our tools which are augmentations of our senses are well, better, like binoculars and hearing aids and the such, so i guess you were right, shedding the light on the other side of the coin..

ok, evidence and a mechanism...although i think my first examples were kinda evidence, but i'll try to give better ones. as for the mechanism, i'll propose one, because i'm not claiming telepathy exists (though i think it should), but rather support the OP, of why it shouldn't be such a far fetched idea.. as for tools' sensitivity versus our biological, i was under the impression it was the other way around, no machine or device will reach the accuracy and efficiency of a live organ, never, i somehow imagine it how the tools are digital(go by 0s and 1s) and our biological senses are analog(?), so they are bound to be way more accurate, exactly like raster (digital) images and vector (biological) images.. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged what about things that will be discovered in 3000AD? where's the comprehensive understanding then? i guess so, yeah.. no man, i don't know if you're doing this on purpose or not.. what i'm trying to make YOU realize is that longitudinal waves might not be the only things our ears hear, they're one layer, sure, but there could be other layers too, ones which get lost when for example you record the voice. and so, to "fully" capture the human voice, nothing can be used best other than our ears. in the same way the human voice might have some yet unspecified additional properties, so can other organs and biological processes, like the brain and thinking, saying all there is to brain activity is electric pulses IMHO is like saying all there is to an artist's work are strokes of a brush..(bait) no we don't. for example the following underlined sound, did you hear it with your ear? (jk:-p) will they be moved by the two sounds to the same degree? will the difference depend solely on sound fidelity?

@ bascule: as Mr. Skeptic said, i would define the mechanism ifi knew it, but think of it as electromagnetic waves for people in 1000AD, the mechanism (medium) was there all along and going and coming,but wasn't acknowledged yet, if you say 1000ad people knew what light was, then they didn't know what UV and IR is, a bee keeper knew his bees can go a long way and come back without getting lost, but didn't know how, same with bird hunters or keepers, actually, they might have even had an explanation, which was overwritten with the discovery of electromagnetic waves, which by turn might be overwritten by something else. you said: and i agree.. but such waves are two dimensional, the same with how light waves were once thought to be, before being found to be actually two waves perpendicular to each other (or something like that:D) my point is, a new dimension was found, was discovered, which carried something that was always there, always in effect, but not acknowledged.. saying the human voice can be fully measured or "captured" by the longitudinal waves medium is like claiming that a camera can fully capture the beauty of a pretty meadow..the camera might capture the relevant spectrum of the electromagnetic waves reflecting from the meadow which makes it pretty, but there's still the smell of the flowers, the feeling of the air, the warmth of the sun, same with the human voice, except that we haven't yet named the "sun's warmth, the air's current, and the flowers' scent"..we don't know what they correlate to.. i think one of them can be telepathy.. the brain's activity can be captured as electrical pulses, but i think there's more to it than that, something our brains are sensetive enough to feel(emit and receive), but our "tools" aren't...yet. something like resonance, just on a very different layer and concept than the known one. but yeah, i know i'm clumsy in my posts , make them long and i feel i'm repeating myself, make them short and i feel some crucial things have been omitted..so any other pointers in presentation are welcome..

just lol but most of the time you don't know who's doing it!