StringJunky

Here's what wiki says about galactic collisions:

Much of what we do repetitively is hard-wired through neuroplastic processes and these actions will be performed automatically and that is what is likely being seen in the MRI images: the process of learned behaviour, which probably doesn't require a lot of cognition. i would like to see what the brain is doing in totally novel situations.

Got it. Cheers.

Thanks. That at least clears it up insomuch as there is a change. Can that exchange cause a wavelength difference between the incident and exiting photon? Does that preserve the momentum of the photon; the difference being they have different energies?

I'll look into that as well.

You mean within the system it's conserved as a total? I was initially thinking the momentum was conserved within the photon and it has to exit with the same momentum. i think i need to read more of JC's suggestion into Raman scattering to figure out the difference.

What's happening when there's a change of direction if it's conserved?

Cheers.

i'm trying to learn about bacteria and their interactions with their host, either pathogenically or commensally, and get stuck when a reference goes into chemical detail. Can anyone recommend how I should proceed from scratch. I have rusty basic chemistry knowledge, as in 16-18yr level, but not organic or biochemistry in particular.

I've asked that question before and it's treated as the same photon, since how would you distinguish them? I kind of wonder the same thing and wonder if there is a change in momentum, dependent on the properties of the incident photon, which causes a predictable exit angle.

I think your question could be rephrased as: what determines the exit angle of a photon when it interacts with an electron in an atom?

You need to read some science books and realise definitions are not negotiable.

Right. Cheers. I shall have a gander about it. I don't think it's really necessary to go playing with them for microscopy since I couldn't get better images than I would find on the internet.

Would a rather stagnant, algaefied pond be a more suitable habitat for more it than a well oxygenated clear one? Does it prefer more anaerobic conditions?

It's a good job we've got you and CR that are familiar with the guts of running a website. I wonder how many IPB site owners are having these problems and not knowing where to look?

I said it could be in the future not that it is now. My comments really are just my attempts on trying to clarify for myself the idea of emergence. Biological systems hinge on it.

The internet organism will probably develop a homeostatic mechanism to preserve the well-being of all its functional parts, just like our bodies do and cities do, countries do etc. The slightly ominous bit is that the whole may eventually 'act' in ways beyond our control.

Consciousness is a system of sufficient complexity, of which our individual conscious, embodied in the data of the internet and its hardware may give rise to the emergence of another more omniscient form of consciousness by virtue of the fact that it has more inputs. If we think of emotions as drivers towards particular goals then, currently, that is what the internet is lacking to reach this new state... it doesn't have autonomous objectives. Whatever the overall pattern is of our combined behaviours on the internet will eventually be the identity or consciousness of the internet. We are the bees that make the hive but individually we don't proactively design it... it's just a consequence of combined behaviour. That's how emergence works.

Could it possibly be the latest software upgrade is too demanding on the server because it seems to me it has to do a lot more than before.

It will make 'sense' of the data that comes in based on how it's intrinsically wired and what data it already holds in its memory. It will use the bits of incoming data that are useful to pursuing its objectives. What is 'useful' has been determined by evolutionary processes and experience. What we see is not a perfect mirror of what's outside.

The other thing is our brain will filter out what it considers extraneous information. It actually sees two images and merges them into one, for starters.

It does say 'radioactive products of radon' in my quote. It's me remembering wrong in my posted comment. I wrote my post from memory which was slightly in error, then I found the article link and edited it in without correcting my comment.

The original research speculation was that the emf fields concentrated the naturally occurring radon that accumulates in enclosed spaces sufficient to increase the likelihood of cancers.

Go with the latter because he's supporting what he's saying with expert references. The other guy is just hand waving and magnifying any risk into a tangible one that one should be seriously concerned about.

I suppose, what I meant was the overall balance of influence is shifting Left, even though the current government is Right. the government is fairly restricted in being able to pursue it's desired agenda. The election result was a good one, I think, in the current climate.