mooeypoo

That isn't the proposed answer, that is mid-debate clarification, along with a note to continue on topic. Quite frankly, michel, this note didn't help to stir the debate back on topic either. If you don't have anything useful to post, don't.

Not really. First off, the brain isn't "largely electric". It's true that the signals between neurons are electric in nature, but they're *tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiny*. Bottom line, there was never anything detected as emitted from our heads, bodies or brains that is remotely close to be defined as any sort of "energy". That are some devices that are claimed to intercept some signal, but they are still in the development stages, are not yet proven to work, and require close contact with a (shaven) skull. That said, this has absolutely NOTHING to do with dark matter, which exists in the farther reaches of our universe and not in our mind.

Stop being defensive, Galindo, your age has nothing to do with anything. You came to a science forum, and the membership is trying to explain to you that the philosophical questions you're raising are meaningless in science unless framed in a scientific manner. And your point, btw, about legality, is moot. We are not a democratic state, we are a private science forums, and while we welcome debaters, we do have our own rules. We would like to have a conversation about scientific topics, but if you keep randomly changing a subject and posting philosophical questions that are unrelated, then maybe you should reconsider your audience. We're here to debate science. We are therefore analyzing all claims scientifically. If you want a philosophical forum, I'm sure there are lots out there. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThread moved to speculations forum.

By all means.

Food in terms of us is also life. What's the meaning of food? It can also be sustenance to us and poison to a lot of other organisms. We happily share our bodies with a variety of bacteria that helps us digest stuff; when you don't have them, you get serious digestion problems -- are bacteria the meaning of life? Galindo, I'm not quite understanding the purpose of this debate. Maybe you need to narrow your question down a bit more.

Not in science. In science, a theory is a collection of laws and evidence. For instance, the theory of gravity isn't just an idea, it's a collection of laws and explanations describing the behavior of gravitational force. Same goes to the theory of evolution; a group of evidence (vast amount of it) that describes the process by which life evolves on Earth. It contains the evidence, the explanation, predictions, sometimes math (in the case of the theory of gravity), and it follows the scientific method. Whether or not it is intuitive or "sounds right" is besides the point. A principle closer to an 'idea' in science is a hypothesis, but in order to be taken seriously it, too, must have some sort of grasp of reality in the form of some evidence it's basing it on. It shouldn't be outright proven (that would elevate its status) but a scientific hypothesis can't be totally removed from reality, either. No, of course not, if an idea seems bizzare, we should research it, but the conclusion as to whether or not it is true stems from the evidence that supports the idea, not from a subjective feeling about it. Quite frankly, there are lots of scientific theories that are very well based and have a vast amount of evidence on their side but are completely non intuitive. They might be hard to grasp, but they are describing our reality better than simplistic notions that "sound good". In the end, evidence, falsifiability and predictions are the factors that make a theory valid, not how intuitive or "right" it feels. That's why we have the scientific method.

Galindo, we're not talking about "a science" as in "a discipline". We are a scientific forum. We go by scientific method and evidence-based speculations. Not everything falls under that, by far. Peer review, falsifiability and the ability to make predictions is the bare minimum of what a theory needs to have to be considered a scientific theory. It's not about being smarter, it's about analyzing our reality in a manner that will allow us to actually make sense of it and utilize its laws to our advantage.

It's vital substance for life on earth. There's no requirement for it to be vital for life anywhere else in the universe.

You're the one who saw it, i would assume you have a bit more information about it. Seeing as I did my due diligence and supplied you with the information you needed, as the person making the claim it would only be fair of *you* to supply the evidence supporting your claim. I don't need to do the work for you, Galindo. You make the claim, you should put up the evidence for your claim. And we're not a mythology forum, we're a science forum. It's not about belief, it's about empirical evidence and the scientific method. I judge claims by the evidence, not by how subjectively true they sound to me.

It's not producing life, amino acids are the basics of life. And seeing as the Earth has an abundance of water, it's little wonder the life it produced has an abundance of water, too. If life evolved anywhere else in the universe in an environment of, say, methane, it would likely not require water but methane.

Can you find a link about it? Read the ones I shared.. the consensus seems to be we are indeed using 100% of our brains, but not all at the same time, and some parts we're not yet certain as to their specific purpose.. if you have a link to this show, or, better yet, to a paper about it, I'd love to read it.

And yet they all share common parts of the DNA, suggesting a common ancestor to all of life on Earth. Aitor, your basic premise is a bit weird. Why do you assume life formed "so easily" on Earth? The fact that life formed doesn't mean it was an easy process, and if it wasn't one, that would explain why it only happened once. It seems you are assuming the process is easy, when it isn't necessarily so.

Discussion about what, Galindo? There's no discussion to be made.. water is H2O. Where's the discussion? Water will not change its nature because of opinion; the discussion is moot.

Really? which areas we don't know how to use? As far as I know, we're using the entirety of our brains. The myth about only using 10% of it is nothing more than a confusion about how much of our brain we're able to use at any given moment. Here, good references about this subject: http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/tenper.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10%25_of_brain_myth http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percent.asp Based on my observations, I reach the opposite conclusion. It seems it's time we stop talking subjectively and look for objective information about this. Agreed. That's also a manner of education, though. It's a huge problem, but I wouldn't say it's *everyone's* problem. You can see this problem being diminished in some European countries where education is to much better and higher standards. Yes, maybe, but not all of us do.. and claiming it's our natural condition requires a bit more evidence than subjective evaluation of a personal experience.

Chriton, you should also do well by reading the speculation policy and the sticky "So you have a new theory". And with due respect, seeing as you've barely participated in it and the direction the thread took for the past 7 pages, it's hardly "your" thread anymore.

Honestly, very few people settle for doing that anymore.. barring a small percentage of the population, most people have the potential of reaching positions and knowledge that they couldn't before (when most of the population was working a land, for instance, for the benefit of a monarch). People know it, and usually aspire for more than just going home and sleeping after school or work. Most people, that is. We can argue about whether or not people use their time to what we deem as good enough causes, but the vast majority of people don't settle for "linear" thinking anymore. Specially with an internet that is so prevalent in our lives, and cellphones, etc, that give us access to information and opportunities we've never really had before.

In science, evidence is counted by their objectivity. "The earth is spinning" is an observable claim, independent of subjectivity of a person. It's absolutely objective. It's not an observation that is objective, though, it's absolutely subjective and requires proof. That's part of the reason why the argument over climate change is so vehement with scientists on both sides of the fense. That claim is not scientific unless it is supported by further evidence. That would be interpretation, perhaps. But look here: The earth is spinning. Can you interpret the observable evidence any differently? That's an objective claim. Testable, tested, proven. The entire point of the scientific method is to aid the scientists (who are people, human beings, prone to mistakes and subjectivity) reach *objective* claims. The point of the scientific method is to strip away as much of the subjectivity as possible. That's why claims need to be supported. That's why there's peer review. That's why there's falsifiability. Etc etc etc. ~moo

Nope, that's just some americans. The world is by far not peaceful, and you don't need to go to so-called "third world countries" to see that.

It's not how much you read, it's what you read. Your presentation of the physical concepts demonstrate that you either don't understand the actual physical concept or have been reading the wrong (non scientific, non peer review, woo-woo sourced) resources about said physical effects. If you want to change the way a particular physical theory is viewed, you need to make sure you know what it actually says, not what some people think it, perhaps, might indicate if they mishmash enough of its components together. It's not crude, it's outright irrelevant. Wait. I didn't say that, did I? If you are talking about the human being observing their own life's bad instances, then.. sure.. you can observe it and affect it. It has nothing to do with the observer in Quantum Physics. Other than the fact that they share the actual word, the concepts are ENTIRELY different. If you're talking about human psyche, sure. If you are talking about Quantum Physics, you need to define what "shared observation" means. In human psyche, the amount of observation probably depends on the desire of the person to better himself. That has NOTHING to do with physics or with quantum mechanics. Absolutely NOTHING. If you talk about Quantum Mechanics, the "observer" is well defined. The observer is not a human being looking at something, the "observer" is an interaction with the particle; in order for us to observe a particle, an interaction (either with another particle or with some machine or radiation, etc) must occur. But by having this interaction, we are changing the behavior of the particle -- hence the non-problem that is the "problem" of Quantum Mechanics. You're mishmashing psychology with quantum physics and the two have no common ground at all. So now you are completely changing the subject from Quantum Mechanics (and human psyche) to cosmology. I am not going to get into that; we will stick to *one* subject on this debate, truedeity. When we're done with one, we'll move to another. You're mixing subjects that are unrelated, and you get confused because of that. Stick to one subject at a time. The 'observation' that quantum physics speaks of has *nothing* to do with consciousness. None. Zero. Nada. Again, mishmash. Quantum physics has NOTHING to do with consciousness. The site is not peer reviewed science, which is also why it's doing a great disservice to the *actual* theory of quantum physics. Yeah, well, that's philosophy right there.. consciousness isn't as well defined as we both probably would like it to be. Regardless, consciousness has nothing to do with quantum physics. And again, I'll stop here. The problem is that you mishmash consciousness with QM where the two have NOTHING in common other than the use of the word "observer", both in *different* meanings. The scientific sites you gave as an example don't link consciousness to QM --> *you* do that inference. They merely speak of an observation made. That observation, in QM is a physical action, not an emotional response. It's an interference. It's well defined. The only resources that say QM has anything to do with consciousness are woowoo sites that have no scientific understanding of QM, no peer review articles and are COMPLETELY misrepresenting the theory. truedeity, pick a subject. If you want to discuss QM, we need to define the observer according to QM. If you want to discuss the human condition and its psyche, then we should discuss philosophical definitions of what it means to observe yourself and others in peril. No matter how many times you repeat your assertion that they do, those two subjects do not mix. ~moo

Yes, that's the point all religions are making, isn't it... Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Unless they're supported by evidence,they're not objective. Not that they should be -- in this cases, I'm not too sure it's a bad thing to have only subjective views, but you should *know* that they are subjective. Because if they're subjective, thy have no room in a scientific endeavor. Just saying, michel. If these are subjective, then whether we(the forum) likes them or not is irrelevant.

You are frustrating, vuquta. We talked about this. You received answers. Either there's a language barrier here that we desperately need to overcome, or you're not really reading.

I doubt that, vuquta. He didn't say he's taking a break. He gave up. Maybe you should go over his answers again. I believe it's about the 4th repetition of the circular argument we've been having even in your last thread. You have a very basic confusion with coordinate systems as inertial references in special relativity. We've been at it. Again and again. For a while. ajb gave up. You are going in circles. I recommend you go back, read his posts to you again, and see if you have anything remaining to ask.

vuquta, it was answered, read the posts following yours...

psychologically, maybe, but not scientifically. The "God" answer suggests a finite answer, one that suggests we stop asking more questions. Cool. Relevancy? Evidence? How does this hypothesis help us make sense of our physical world? Purpose can be subjective, too, so we should be careful in mixing subjects here. The fact that a human being can have purpose in their lives has nothing to do with the behavior of the universe. And you can say a planet has purpose, but that's not really helping anything; what purpose does it have, to sustain life? well, that doesn't follow, seeing as the vast majority of planets we know of has no life. The idea of purpose is more philosophical than scientific. It's an interesting question but it's not really helping a scientific (and therefore objective) examination of our reality.

Sure, but eventually the theory itself is judged by the evidence, and not by the person suggesting it. The theory might get to be tested faster (IE, might be more "welcoming" to other scientists) because of the reputation of whoever suggests it, but EVENTUALLY, the theory is judged on the merit of its evidence. It's called peer review...