John Cuthber

I think what makes you look like a loony (right or left) is making vague assertions and refusing to clarify what you meant and why. perhaps you would like to set that straight now. You may remember that I asked this a few times before. Exactly what crap are you saying is being handed out? Who is doing it? What evidence is there to back up your accusation (even if you insist that it's not an accusation)?

So, your summary is "Read what I said: I'm not being self righteous"

Your tacit assertion that part of my house is outside my house is absurd. Can you point to those bits for me? Russell was considering sets that don't include themselves: that's where you get problems.

I didn't say that you were. I am saying that your approach is unscientific. Realistically, you can make observations about the behaviour of 1 person- yourself. You can't exclude the probable selection bias and you certainly can't do blind testing. The you extrapolate to half the population of the world. You continue to do so, even when it has been shown to be inconsistent with observation and established theory. That's not science Which of us is being self righteous?

My house is finite and it contains itself. The set of all possible sets is infinite and it contains itself. There's no difference.

Never mind the sentence structure, you have missed the point. Your example of Jimmy the PhD starts by making an observation- not many baldies at the Olympics. You haven't started from an observation. It has not been observed that masturbation is bad for you. Some religious groups may have asserted it, but they are known to tell lies to gain control over people. Also your assertion "So far, we can tacitly establish that masturbation has drawbacks." is also essentially unfounded.

yes. Read what I said . I pointed out that science would laugh at the idea that Miser is putting forward and I explicitly said that all sex was equivalent. And neither gossip not Buddhism or other religions are science. So he is "claiming much" and that's what " is silly about these two statements"

Over six thousand posts and you only found two to complain about? Anyway, if you think I'm trolling then report it to the mods. I really don't think they will agree with you. This "In Internet slang, a troll ( /ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion" from wiki is probably as good a definition as any. Why do you think I'm trolling? In particular, how can you judge my intent? What part of my house is outside my house? And, as I said, if you don't like that blindingly obvious concrete example. What about my observation that "{the set of all possible sets} exists within {the set of all possible sets} i.e within itself."?

OK, lets' not distinguish. In that case evolution can't help but seek to remove any link between sex and anything bad happening to the body. (because it can't select against sex per se) It's had plenty of time to do this. You now need to explain why it hasn't. (and, incidentally, he has made plenty of silly claims such as " These are accepted variants of the spelling" or "I have provided many sources though much of it are anecdotal and religious, Buddhist to be exact, some are based on science. ")

Or the word "essence" can be meaningless when it's used to peddle pseudo-religious twaddle. Once you tidy up the format of your last post, I might reply to the rest of it.

That's not an assumption, it's an observation. If there was any doubt about it you removed that by saying "It is a question that evolution gives inadequate explanations because all the claims that's made on the basis of evolution doesn't account for its existence satisfactorily."

http://bit.ly/TezEoC

Looks like trolling to me.

Miser, you seem to have missed my point. Evolution selects strongly against "bad things" . If there was a link between sex and "bad things" then evolution would select against that lin. It would have died out by now. In many cases in biology you should ask yourself "What would evolution do?" In this case it would destroy the effect you are talking about.

You say "anyway I need reasearch special in radio waves system" OK, what do you want to know? There's probably someone here who can help you , but the question is a bit vague.

So, you didn't have any idea that I was asking a question. Were the following not hints? The ? mark at the end of the sentence The bit where I said "Would it help me get you to answer the question I asked a few posts ago? This one: Are you questioning that what the supposed Devil wanted has happened or are you questioning the fact that we live longer? " or where I said "So, it's going to be another thread in which Rigney fails to answer any questions. " or where you said "rigney will answer questions John" or where I asked "I asked this Are you questioning that what the supposed Devil wanted has happened or are you questioning the fact that we live longer? about your post." or "I didn't pose my question as an analogy: I asked it to find out what you were on about. It should have been easy enough to answer." or where you said " Others may buy into your questioning, just not me. " or where I said "don't let that distract you from answering my question Are you questioning that what the supposed Devil wanted has happened or are you questioning the fact that we live longer? " OK, what does it take to get you to realise that something is a question, and to answer it? (BTW, "Neither, none and all! " isn't really an answer.

My house exists. All parts of it are somewhere. The universe is split into two subsets. Those parts of the universe which are inside my house and those parts which are outside it. Anything which exists in the universe must be in one of those two sets. No part of my house is outside my house. so all the parts of my house are inside my house. My house is the collection of all of its parts. And, since all those parts are not outside my house and consequently, inside my house, all of my house is inside my house. It is entirely within itself. No problem: no paradox. If you like, {the set of all possible sets} exists within {the set of all possible sets} i.e within itself. It's really not a paradox, though you can get paradoxes with sets of sets that don't include themselves. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_paradox have fun.

Simply not true. The difference between the two images in the two eyes is, whether you like it or not, a mapping of the third dimension. What we see is the image in our minds. We can form mental models of 3D, that's why this picture looks odd. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Escher%27s_Relativity.jpg

" I would argue that an experiment would be permitted by an ethics committee because similar experiments were conducted in the past-notably the Chinese experiment. " Then you clearly don't understand the purpose of an ethics committee. How would you like to be in the (compulsory) masturbating group? To avoid (at least some of) the confounding factors you would need a randomised double blind study (make up your own punch lines folks) "Also, IQ may not the only trait appropriate for measure. Recall, focus, cognition and reflex may all be possible areas of study." which would be relevant if you could show evidence that they are falling, but I don't think there's any evidence for that.

Oops! Sloppy use of language on my part. I should have said that I asked you to clarify your question rather than point. Sorry about that. Please do so. BTW, you were the one who started the questioning that people might or might not buy into, but don't let that distract you from answering my question Are you questioning that what the supposed Devil wanted has happened or are you questioning the fact that we live longer? The reason I ask is that the video you posted tells you that the first is true and the increasing lifespan of most countries is well documented and widely discussed in things like this http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100324142121.htm So, in essence, I'd like to know which one you seem mistaken about.

Slightly less quick research would show that you don't need Fe, Ni or Co. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heusler_alloy There are others http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ferromagnetic_materials

OK, lets do science. The suggestion has been put forward that masturbation causes poor thinking. (The claim isn't new: I think we can say it's at least as old as Plato) It would be interesting to check that hypothesis directly by experimentation . Take a statistically large group of people and assign them (in fairly early adolescence) randomly to the masturbating group or the control group then somehow enforce that behaviour. I don't see the ethics committee accepting that suggestion for a research project. OK, direct experimentation is out. Can we do a retrospective study? Well, sort of. There have been two, and they give contradictory outcomes. I'm guessing that the results were distorted by some sort of bias, probably related to prudishness etc. I can't think of a way to avoid that sort of thing in any similar study. Also (probably more importantly I think) there are many confounding variables which we don't know about so we can't correct for them So retrospective studies are out. What's left? How about a thought experiment? Let's consider a pair of hypothetical populations 1 and 2 where the suggestion is true and false respectively. How will they fair over the generations? We need to agree a few other parameters. As has already been pointed out, there's no way for the man's body to "tell" if it's ejaculating in company or on his own (or, indeed in the company of another man- but that's another story). (In the absence of any plausible mechanism suggesting otherwise, this is the only reasonable assumption) So in population 1 where the suggestion is true men who have a lot of sex won't be bright. (And the corollary of that is that the bright men won't have a lot of sex- especially if they are bright enough to realise that it's bad for them). In population 2 there will be no such correlation. It's reasonable to assume that randiness and intellect are initially randomly distributed. What will evolution do to these populations? In population 1 the children will be predominantly fathered by the fecund men and, in this group that means most of the fathers are dim. In population 2 there will be a random spread of intelligence among fathers- some dim and some bright. Intelligence is, to at least some extent, a heritable trait. So, the children in the first group will, on average, be less bright than their parents. On the other hand, the children in the second population will have the same intelligence as the parents. Let this repeat and the effect will be clear. Population 1 will have a steadily falling mean intelligence. On the other hand, the second group's intelligence will not be affected by this and so should remain constant. Now, let's compare our theoretical populations to the real people. Is I Q falling? No, if anything it's rising http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect So I conclude that our populations observed rise (or, at least not fall) in IQ with time is 1 consistent with sex not being bad for the brain 2 inconsistent with the original suggestion by Plato and others. 3 consistent with the idea that sex is good for the brain. We can , therefore, on the basis of the available evidence, reject the suggestion implicit in the OP.

I asked this Are you questioning that what the supposed Devil wanted has happened or are you questioning the fact that we live longer? about your post. I'm sure that others will understand why I asked you to clarify your point. Paul has nothing to do with it. I didn't pose my question as an analogy: I asked it to find out what you were on about. It should have been easy enough to answer. Why not do so now rather than making up stuff about Paul and analogies?

So, it's going to be another thread in which Rigney fails to answer any questions.

Well, you introduced the word solutions: if they are solutions that are not actually solutions I guess that's your problem. Re human analysis: Would it help me get you to answer the question I asked a few posts ago? This one: Are you questioning that what the supposed Devil wanted has happened or are you questioning the fact that we live longer? Would human analysis help me to understand that you have realised that I won't have any serious difficulty evincing those points and that would make your question look silly?