theCPE

Yeh, its pretty incredible. Taste buds have been used for seeing as well in test cases of blind people....the brain can quite incredibly acclaimate to the signals it receives. I still don't understand how a "physical limitation" can exist with a brain and how many apendages it can control. Other than of course the limitation of the storage capacity of the brain, and the firing rate of the neurons. There is nothing special about the nervous system of the octupus that helps it control the tentacles. It just has had since birth the time to develop the pathways and feedback associations with the muscles and the brain. Further...the flexibility of the tentacles compared to our arms is moot point. It once again comes down to what muscles are connected to the brain and provide feedback. The best description I can think of is this: The brain and nervous system of the octupus is capable of a specific throughput of data. A vast majority of that throughput may be a result of the tentacles, but it is still just brain activity. Unless the human brain has a lower throughput than the octupus brain, a human could control 8 apendages.

Very good point, we should ban children from these establishments as well!! On a more serious note, it realy would mostly come down to what amount of exposure begins to create possibilities for long term health issues. Then again...it could be argued that the smoke damages the other peoples property (clothing).

I am not really sure what you are saying. I couldn't tell if you agreed or not with the sensing organs of species being more or less specialized or if the brains of the species were better at abstracting the data? The brain is not a processor really after all, its a block of memory with more or less memory capacity, and effeciency in creating accurate associations. So, a bear can't smell better or an eagle can't see better because their brain was more "intelligent" at seeing or smelling. The sensing organ could provide better data for the brain to store associatively for later prediction making.

Actually, if we stopped GW than we would all die, our planet would be uninhabitable to pretty much every life form on the planet. Couldn't be furthering from the truth. The consensus if any of the scientifici community (unfortunately few climatologist and mostly biologist, zoologist, and oceanographers) is that man is causing significant portions of GW. Did you know that without the natural GW process the temperature on the planet would be about 50 C cooler? Man is completely incapable of causing such a massive temperature swing. In fact currently we have a 1 degree higher average surface temperature than around 1890ish. A far cry from what nature has provided us wouldn't you say? There is no more motivation on one side than the other for offering false results or misleading analysis.

Oh dear, the dramatized IF X occurs than humans DIE arguments. Its the chewbacca defense of GW. "If something terrible happens and could kill people, GW is man made!!!"

Haha. Right. So pointing out someone is being juvenile for calling someone nosy, obnoxious, a liar, etc is an attack, whereas doing the name calling isn't? Excellent logic.

I am baffled. What is it that predisposes the octupi to control these 8 apendages that a human wouldn't be able to control as well? If it isn't neurons, or the architecture of the brain, than what is so special about octupi that allows them to control the 8 apendages? Are you suggesting that the capacity of our brain is coincidentally the number of limbs we have (or any animal for that matter), and that our brain limited the limbs we evolved....and that maybe with an octupi brain we would have ended up with more limbs? foodchain: smell, sight, other sensing that animals have that are superior to a human's isn't a result of better function of the neurons of the animal's brain. It is the organ retreiving the data for the brain. The eye, the nose, the tongue, etc. The superior intellect we developed apparently alleviated the need for such sensitive sensing organs.

Haha, ok well in that case my numerical data stands...especially if post 102 is the standard of "credible" mathematical explanation of how man is responsible for 90%..... Heh.

Really? How so? Is there something unique about the neurons of other animal brains which human neurons are inferior too? Don't think so. Are animal brains or specifically octupi brains constructed in a way that is special so they can handle extra apendages? Nah. The only difference is octupi are born having the 8 apendages and therefore the neural pathways with muscle feedback exist from the beginning so that the animal immediately begins training its brain to control its tentacles. There is nothing that limits our brain to controlling 4 apendages, I don't think that even makes logical sense to assume that because we have four that is the obvious limitation of our brain.

Wow, are you in second grade? There was nothing but civil discussion going on, and then you decided to be juvenile. The right, is the right to pursuit of happiness. Everyone has it, so long as you are not infringing on someone else's right to pursue their happiness. And I agree, if someone builds a private club, restaraunt, etc they obviously have the right to say if smoking is allowed or not. When it comes to public buildings/locations then it is a different story. Further, when it comes to work it is a different story as well. If someone doesn't have the choice as to whether they have to be in a specific place then smoking should be banned, or if it is a public venue as previously pointed out. Obviously people can avoid bars/clubs/restaruants that allow smoking if they desire.

Well yeh, I say ban smoking for the more obvious reasons. It infringes upon others rights to be as comfortable as the smoker is. The added consequences of possible long term health risks by EXTENDED exposure adds into the equation when dealing with situations of longer exposure such as work. There really shouldn't be any requirement for scientists to lie that 20 minutes could cause health risks.

While it is probably accurate that short term (30 - 60 minutes) second hand smoke exposure is hardly dangerous at least in regard to long term effects there is more to the argument for bans than just that. As a non-smoker it is just annoying, uncommfortable, and makes my hair and clothes smelly to be exposed to second hand smoke while at a restaraunt etc. So aside from infringing upon others health, it is also infringement upon their comfort. As far as banning smoking in work places, that seems completely applicable considering 8 or more hours is hardly short term.

Um...yeh....a human brain could control far more apendages than any animal in the animal kingdom....it of course would require acclaimation.

Ever since bill maher said that our atmosphere was down to 9% oxygen during the "earth to america" propoganda show a year or so back, I have had little respect for his blatant mistruths and pathetic attempts at political humor.

Better yet, just point out how hillbilly's numbers are bogus. If you can't provide mathematical support of man causing 90% of GW.

Ok, so you can't provide the link. You can only regergitate the same stuff about how man is responsible for X amount of GW without showing how. Further, no one says scientist are unaware of things, they are completely aware, but it obviously benefits their results to exclude it. Especially when defending such legislation as the kyoto protocol. You keep suggesting that the increased co2 causes an increase in water vapor, well then provide the correlation! If you or whatever scientific paper is making the claim, then show the correlation!! And again it is profoundly entertaining how hence forth any climatic change is due to man when in the past far more drastic changes occured in the absence of man entirely; of course these such events can no longer be natural. Does man add to GW a little...of course, is he responsible for 90% haha, no way. Of course you could always provide the numerical explanation of how.

I don't think coordinating 8 apendages is even comparable to the capabilities of humans. Its like political correctness for the entire animal kingdom;) "No no! They are not unintelligent, they are differently intelligent!"

veedo How is man causing 90% of GW. CO2 doesn't account for but a fraction of the total GW process. And man doesn't even create the majority of that. If you disagreed with my "hillbilly" link than could you provide a different one that shows the mathematical breakdown of how man is responsible for 90% of current GW because that is absurd.

I don't believe I was disagreeing with facts, if anything my average ppm was off by 20ish....shoot me:) What I am asking is what is the defining line by climatologist of a natural vs man made climatatic change? There obviously must be a defining line. Otherwise we have no idea if we are fighting the inevitable or just being tidy campers!

Could you provide the link then for the 280 as the avg, apparently I misread the CDIAC or something. Also, the guy linked tons of sources, he was only using math to make his point, his numbers were from other sources with credentials. Still if the average is 280 as opposed to 300, the idea of an average doesn't change...you can have swings both above and below and they don't have to be constant. Also, what is the defining line between man made climatic changes and natural ones? Or can natural ones no longer occur now?

It is obvious that massive temperature swings have occurred historically, (ice ages beginning and ending) and there is absolutely no reason that swings of far less magnitude couldn't still occur today naturally. There also isn't any reason that such massive ones couldn't occur again. If nature intends on some massive temperature swing to occur what do you GW proponents intend on doing.....stopping nature? Or can nature no longer have these mood swings:) What defines natural swings and man made ones? Or is there no defining line, from now on everything is man's fault?

Right. So its ignore anyone that disagrees, or call them an idiot hillbilly. That makes sense. But your co2 increase is wrong. From the CDIAC historical co2 ppm has averaged around 300, not 280. So our current co2 is 25.5% higher than the historical average. Ofcourse that is how averages work right? You have years above and below a specific level and thus you end up with an average. P.S. I was unaware that hillbillys knew what the internet was! Let alone GW!

Exactly, and the current temperature increase from the trough of 1950s is far less than historical temperature swings. And yet there is the 20% increase in CO2 ppm currently. CO2 probably does effect temperature, but the dynamic is still misunderstood.

Not at all. What I said is when an opponent to your theory provides scientific reason why it is wrong, you should refute the sciencetific reason presented....not point out how many articles back you. I sure hope not!!! Of course.......I really think you missed the boat on my comments. Once again! Pointing out how many papers have been published is not a scientific way of refuting opponents to your theory when they provide mathematical and scientific counter points. Really, a century? No, I hardly think so. More like 20 years of GW "research". Climate records may have been going on for a century, but specific research and exploration on the idea of GW is very young. That is exactly the dramatization that gore tries to push in his policies and movies. It is entirely unfounded and wrong, just like the first "hokey stick" graph for GW produced back in the 80's whereby 2000 the ppm of CO2 would be 600.... How does scientist get research funding.... by saying "this might be a problem" or "the sky is falling"

First, I am not responsible for any other man made GW opponent's numbers. I will provide a link which not only has a list of resources but also does a better explanation than my prior one. Secondly, I am curious as to how the scrutiny of peer reviewed journals are measured and how bascule quantified that IPCC or whatever is by far the most scrutinized especially compared to "piddly" ECE ones:) ipcc sure isn't Nature and next time you ... well do anything in your daily life be sure to remember how "piddly" the field of ece is.... The point to gather from that is that articles and papers being published in peer reviewed journals is not evidence that should be used in debating the correctness of a theory. Which a vast majority of GW proponents do. Anyway, back on topic. Here is a link with some marvelous explanations. http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html P.S. Of course my expertise in electrical engineering isn't directly related to GW...does this mean because of a degree I can't learn, research, and know about other fields?