John Cuthber

"Can science simulate the subjective experience of tastes, pain and other qualia using a neural network as neural network is designed based on the model of Brain or does it end up in creating philosophical zombies who don't feel anything internally.?" Who cares, and why do they care? I could, for example, set up some theoretical model and run a computer program that simulates that model. It could tell me if a given molecule is sweet or not. There's already a simplistic model http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweetness#Historical_theories_of_sweetness and it works quite well. If you want to call that model a zombie, that's fine by me but it doesn't answer my question. "Can science explain the ontological nature of time, space and matter which seems to have much relevance as we penetrate more into the depths of nature? With out such an explanation the knowledge given by science is incomplete." Not yet, but they are working on it. Unless you can show that they will not and can not succeed you have not answered my question. "It is better for science not to make claims for which it cannot give credible answers. " The commonest claim from scientists is "We think it's so and so, but more study is needed" "Scientists can hold on to scientism once they've answered all questions but not before that and there should be room for new ways of thinking about this world." That seems to be self defeating. If you don't hold that all things are amenable to investigation then you don't investigate them. If you don't investigate then you don't find the explanations. So, once again, what things are there that need a new way of thinking?

"OK, let's get back to square 1 - What is the significance of 230V?" It's half way between 220 and 240 The UK uesd 240 and most of the rest of the EU used 220 so they decided to compromise. They changed the nominal figure http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1994/3021/regulation/4/made but the tolerance is such that they didn't actually have to change the voltage. The true origin's of the UK's preference for 240 are probably lost in history but, fundamentally, it was an arbitrary choice. They chose 240. Possibly because they were born on the 20th of December and they multiplied the numbers together . Perhaps they consulted their astrologer but I think it's most likely to be because it's an easy number to do arithmetic with.It makes calculation of currents and resistances easier . Incidentally the numbers you show 110V:115V:120V:127V:220V:230V:240V can be explained as nice round number, their multiples of 110% (with or without a factor of root3 for 3 phase systems), a political fudge, and 240V or half of it. 100 or 200 V would be nice round numbers, and they are arbitrary. 110 is what you get by adding 10% to 100 115 is what you get between phases on a 200 V 3 phase system 120 s another number with lots of factors- it's half of 240 127 is the voltage between phases on a 3 phase 220V system 220 is 110% of 200 230 is a political fudge 240 has lots of factors. It is the number of old pennies in a pound or the number of hours in as many days as people have fingers. It's a score of dozens. Those are not coincidental. In the days when you had to do arithmetic the hard way, there was a lot to be said for numbers with many factors. What other reason can you give for 240?

Including the utter dross you cited earlier.

well, perhaps that's what it is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tungstic_acid it reacts with alkalis to produce tungstates.

OK, so what you said was "I'm sorry, but the following link gives a completely different "History":- http://en.wikipedia....ins_electricity" but the link doesn't give a different story at all- it gives the same story for 110 and no story for 240. As for " would have expected to have come across it if you are correct." Perhaps you just did. You came across it here. Some (I think most) high voltage transmission and industrial power are distributed in the UK at multiples of 11 volts (such as 11KV and 132KV) One of the voltages available industrially is 440V 3 phase. I think that would give about 254 V between phases so that's not it. The fact remains that if I measure the mains voltage it will be pretty close to 240V and someone must have decided on that, even though it made for slightly odd ratios in the transformers when they stepped it down from 11KV.

I think you would be better asking a doctor than surfing the net.

You said nothing was real, and you keep on saying it. To whom do you think you are talking?

If the reality is that you are dreaming then the reality is not that your house burned down. But that's at odds with the original assertion. You have just solved the wrong problem. Reality is still real. Our uncertainty about it is our problem, not reality's problem.

First, it has been tested. second that page is trying to make money (by selling a book). Third, imagine that H2O2 works for some condition- say prostate caner since that's one of the examples they cite. I could look up how much the UK government spends on treating prostate cancer and how much of a loss to the economy that illness causes. If some magic cure would treat that then there would be a huge financial incentive for the government to use the stuff. It's possible that no company would make much money directly from the research, but there would be a lot of money saved- well in excess of that needed to fund the testing. So, would you like to explain why you are favouring the opinion of a site that can't do simple arithmetic over the combined wisdom of the existing research? Oh, BTW, if you want to repeat their "experiment" don't bother with buying a glass eye dropper bottle. The glass is alkaline and will decompose the peroxide quite quickly (which, of course, means that they have been using cold water and getting results. Do you plan to patent using water, diluted with water, as a cure all?)

"but in my opinion nothing is real" Then you seem to be talking to yourself. Perhaps you should stop.

OK, so wiki says " Edison selected 100 volts for the lamp as a compromise between distribution costs and lamp costs. Generation was maintained at 110 volts to allow for a voltage drop between generator and lamp." which is essentially the same reason I gave. And it gives no explanation for 240V so it certainly doesn't state or imply that I was wrong. So, it's completely different in the sense of being the same.

That website is almost entirely composed of nonsense. Highlights include "Hydrogen peroxide should really be called hydrogen dioxide." says who? "It is this hydrogen peroxide in rainwater that makes it so much more effective than tap water when given to plants." Again- says who? " In nature oxygen (02) consists of two atoms--a very stable combination. A single atom of oxygen, however, is very reactive and is referred to as a free radical. " Ordinary O2- the stuff we breathe is also a free radical. "The ability of our cells to produce hydrogen peroxide is essential for life. H202 is not some undesirable by-product or toxin, but instead a basic requirement for good health." There's a time and a place for everything. A pair of feet is very helpful to our life and health, but not if they are stuck in the middle of our face. The reason the body produces H2O2 is precisely because it is very toxic. I was particularly amused by this one "A 3.5% solution can be made quite easily by first pouring 1 ounce of 35% H202 into a pint jar. To this add 11 ounces of distilled water. This will make 12 ounces of 3.5% H202. " They can't even work out how to divide by 10. There are plenty of other examples of complete bollocks, but I got bored. hydrogen peroxide isn't very stable. It is easily broken down into oxygen and water. The body produces an enzyme called catalase specially to do this. The enzyme is there to protect us from the H2O2 that is produced by some reactions in the body. It's very good at its job. Hydrogen peroxide in the bloodstream is destroyed very quickly- far too fast for it to have any beneficial effect. However it's important to realise that if you decompose a 3% solution of hydrogen peroxide it suddenly gives off a lot of heat and a lot of gas. If it does that in the stomach you will be in major trouble.

In many cases- probably the overwhelming majority, the names were chosen before the structures were known. If one scientist thought it was a hydrated oxide he would call it that. Another scientist might consider it to be an acid. It gets worse when you consider that some acids (which themselves are made by hydrating an oxide) form hydrates.

There were two systems, one based on 240 volts- because people like things in dozens and, more practically, it's a multiple of 1,2,3,4,5,6,8,10,12 and so on. The other system was based on 220 V- this dates back to the days when supplies were not well built and could easily lose up to 10% and so, for a nominally 100 volt supply at the user's end of the cable , they added 10% to give 110 volts at the generator's end. Two of those in anti-phase gave a nominal 220V system. The first was adopted in the UK and the second in much of Europe. When they came to harmonise the two the split the difference and came up with 230.

"Good question. Yes there is something that science will never be able to explain it is called as Qualia(Universals). Qualia are aspects of our perception that don't exist in the external world, for example:- Colours, tastes, pain etc." Taste exists because there are sensors on our tongues that respond to materials such as salt or sugar. A more detailed explanation would include the nature of the receptor proteins http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TAS1R3 It would also cover how that information is sent to the brain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensory_nervous_system#G1_.28gustatory_-_taste.29 The brains reaction to those signals http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reward_system And our emotional response to that. As yet, science does not fully explain taste, but it seems to me to be most of the way there. This excerpt shows that you have not fully understood my point. "The point is our current understanding of Brain biochemistry doesn't provide any mechanisms what so ever to simulate the qualitative aspects of pain and other similar subjective experiences." Neuroscientists are working on the details of synasthesia. The current working hypothesis is that it is due to crosstalk between areas of the brain. I have checked some of the references you have given and none of them seems to me to indicate that there are things that science won't explain. So, once again I ask, what is there that science will never explain?

No It's an unusually silly thing to do. Why bother poisoning animals to prove it?

Could you rephrase the question please. At the moment it doesn't seem to make any sense. An answer to it would be "Because God created food chains". Another answer would be that, with or without any intervention from God, evolution created food chains.

That article fairly precisely defines the structure of the stable hydrated antimony oxide. Specifically it says" Sb6O13 has a cubic structure of the defect pyrochlore type, a0 = 10.303(1) Å, x(O2) = 0.4304(14)." On the other hand, "H3AsO4.½ H2O" isn't a structure- it's a molecular formula. The same is true of As2O5.4H2O The problem is that you can get all sorts of odd species present http://www.oldenbourg-link.com/doi/abs/10.1524/zkri.2007.222.7.321?journalCode=zkri aand even getting a sample of the "obvious" oxides can be tricky http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/anie.197703142/abstract

Incidentally, whatever the girlfriend said, I think the vet should have known better.

Just curious. Did they call it octal or octagonal?

"What are the limitations of Raman spectra, X-ray crystallography and other techniques for determining the structure of those substances which result from crystallization from aqueous solution of such acids?" Why assume there are "limits"? If you can crystallise the material you can generally get a structure by XRD.

Are you sure about that? China and India have plenty of scientists, but (I suspect) rather fewer Christians.

Don't drink hydrogen peroxide even if it is food grade. That's not what food grade hydrogen peroxide is for.

"Because you know 62 percent of children who enter college with a faith conviction leave without it." Good to see that they are learning. I wonder what the comparable figure is for children entering nursery school and faith in Father Christmas.

I can't be certain, but I'm fairly sure that for partial derivatives (just imagine these are all "curly" ds and all the derivatives are taken at a constant value of the other variable) dy/dx times dx/ dz times dz/dy =minus one. If they were ratios it would be +1. On the other hand, it was about 1985 that I last worried about partial differential equations, and I wasn't good at them then. BTW, looking at the poll results, he seems to have voted for himself.