dslc1000

Thanks for the replies. I'm thinking of parasites that are too small to be visible; that can't be removed by simple washing. Interesting points Mokele: the one about reptiles; and about how many parasites in other organisms can actually survive in humans. But aren't there cases where the parasites clearly do survive in the human host - such as tapeworms? In general, I would have thought that, with the biological similarities between mammals, there would be a huge number of parasites that could survive in both humans and their beef, pork, veal, lamb, whatever. Feel free to enlighten me though.

Hi, Haven't posted here in a while ... hope all is well! I've been considering various arguments in favour of a plant-based diet recently. Not being particularly competent in the field of biology however, I don't fully understand some of the health-related arguments - from either side! To be honest, the more I think about it, the more a plant-based diet does seem like the healthy option to me. And to cut to the chase, I was wondering if the 'generalisation' that: The more complex an organism is, the more likely it is to be a host for other organisms, such as malignant bacteria and parasites is true, in your opinions. In other words, aren't animals, in general, more 'bacteria and parasite -ridden' than plants? After all, isn't this is the reason emphasis is placed on the importance of refrigerating meat and dairy products, and then cooking them at high temperatures (in attempts to kill any remaining harmful organisms) - while fruit and vegetables can be left for considerable periods at room temperature?

ok thanks for the info.

Yeah, good point. Do you mind me asking where you got the monitor - over the net? The cheapest prices I've seen are in the US, and I'm not sure if they'd ship to my country. But, as you suggested, I think I'll be waiting a while anyway.

Will do, once I have a chance. LCD monitors are very expensive it turns out - I've seen prices as high as $1,800 for (I think) a 17" (lowest I found was about $420). Would it be worth the investment? Hmmm..I suspect not. But I'll have to think about it. Cheers!

Are fan-less PCs much more energy-efficient than 'fanned' PCs? I've also read that LCD monitors are considerably more consume less energy. So, I'm thinking of getting myself an energy-efficient PC (also contemplating switching to the Linux OS - but that's a separate issue). Can anyone give me some advice? I've noticed that some people on these forums have built their own computer. I suspect that the initial investment for an energy-efficient PC might be higher than it would be otherwise, but I think the savings would be worth it in the long run. So, are fanless PCs much more expensive? And LCD monitors? Thanks in advance.

Hi. Can anyone explain to me the basics of how retinal imaging works, or maybe provide a link to a page that explains the basic process? Cheers!

Glider seems to have answered your question Blike. That's interesting info Glider - I'll have to go away and have a think about it. Before I do though, I guess the proponents of the James-Lange theory would offer the counter-argument that: strip away the phsiological changes associated with, say, anger, such as tensed muscles etc. and it's hard to imagine actually being angry. I've tried it myself, and I have to say, it's a good point. If I try to become angry without actually allowing my muscles to tense etc., I don't experience what I would actually consider the emotion of anger. P.S. My computer is crashing at the mo, so it might take a while for me to get back to you.

The James-Lange theory states that we experience emotion in response to physiological changes in our body. For example, we feel sad because we cry. The Cannon-Bard theory of emotion on the other hand, says basically the opposite: that we cry because we are sad. I've just discovered a new theory: Schacter’s Two-Factor Theory. These are actually all explained on this page. I myself am exploring the hypothesis that there are two components to an emotion (i.e. two things which constitute an emotion): (i) the physiological changes, and (ii) the thoughts (imagined sensations - words, pictures) which accompany these physiological changes. (..similar to the Schacter's Two Factor Theory?) I'd like to hear your opinion on which of these theories is correct. Also, can anyone tell me what the most widely-accepted one in the scientific community is?

Good point Skye. It would seem to make alot of sense to test whether or not retinal has photon-emitting capabilities in vitro rather than in vivo. Unfortunately I don't have access to the apparatus which would enable me to do this. I'm not sure if you're asking me or skye that question Neurocomp2003, but I can assure I have no intention of doing either of those things. Maybe I'll try simply lifting up people's eyelids, and looking at their pupils myself. I don't know if many people would be willing subjects for that experiment however, especially if there was a risk they could be woken up. I also hope that actually lifting the eyelids - and thereby allowing any external light to enter the eye - would not disrupt any photon-emitting activity that might be going on at the retina (a dark room would quite possibly help I think).

Hi Pinch (if you don't mind me calling you that). In one of my previous threads (HERE), I explained why I believe that photons of light are actually required for vision to take place. Now, as far as I know, no light actually reaches the inside of the brain, and it doesn't have a means of generating light that I know of either. One of the things I want to determine in this experiment is whether or not the molecules of retinal in the photoreceptors at the back of the eye have this ability. It is already known that they absorb photons of light; I am suggesting that they might also emit it as well. The devising of the experiment is encouraged by my discovery three days ago that there are actually nerves which travel from inside the brain to the retina. THIS article (section: 5. Centrifugal fibers in mammalian retinas) explains that centrifugal fibers (coming from inside the brain) have been traced as far as the inner nuclear layer of the retina, where they disappear. This is the layer directly beside the photoreceptors themselves. And note: the fibers disappear here; they don't necessarily end here. This is mainly speculation as of yet, but I certainly think its worth pursuing. neurocomp2003: Yeah, I suspect that your doubts are well-founded. And, yeah, damaging tissue is another thing I'm afraid of. To answer your question (I think), I want to test the hypothesis that this (the retina and the rest of eyeball) is: (i) where the images we see while dreaming are actually constructed, and (ii) where we 'actually see' when dreaming.

I want to devise an experiment which has the following purpose: To determine whether or not photons of light are being emitted at the retina during R.E.M. sleep (i.e. dreaming). I'm thinking of using photographic film, or some other photochemical material, which I would place over the cornea - part directly over pupil - of the subject (with their permission of course). Can anyone help me devise such an experiment? Some possible difficulties I can think of: (i) the rapid eye movement could make it difficult to keep the film in place. (ii) photographic film might need to be very sensitive. One of my textbooks states: "The truth is that retinas don't radiate light" ('Neuroscience: Exploring the Brain' - 2nd Edition; Bear, Connors & Paradiso; p. 367). I suspect that this hasn't been confirmed however, and that they were just presuming this to be the case. Having said that, if anyone can tell me definitively that light can not be emitted by the molecules of retinal in the photoreceptors, and refer me to literature to back up their assertion, I would appreciate if they did so - to save me wasting my time. Thanks!

Hi Ice_Phoenix87. I hope you don't think I'm hijacking this thread - maybe it's not the kind of experiment you're looking for - but I devised a visual experiment a while ago, outlined here, which challenges the prevailling theory of visual awareness. If you or anyone else could carry it out and let me know if you get the same results as myself, I'd greatly appreciate it. Just a long shot!

Thanks for the tip! I'd actually enquired/searched on two other sites already, but didn't get any response, so decided to post here. I haven't been to http://www.phpbuilder.com before though.

Ah, I've found the error of my ways! All I need do is replace: $parts=explode("\",$file); $first=$parts[0]; $second=$parts[1]; $whole=$first.$second; with: $whole=stripslashes($file); This doesn't cause a problem, while the other one does for some reason. Fingers crossed that it won't! I was a bit too hasty with my post!