Phi for All

I don't think what the families feel is the most relevant point here. If the patient is resuscitated but has no memories, and is essentially an infant, is it really even the same person? Memories aside, would personality be the same, and if not, would that person be entitled to the same life as before if they recovered fully? And now if you think about the families, how do you stem the resentment that's inevitable when different people walk out of the hospital in Ed and Mary's clothing?

As long as we can avoid the obvious pitfalls, which I'm not sure is possible. Because "life" isn't well defined, we have a lot of people who think they're initiating life when they have sex (procreate), rather than simply perpetuating a cycle that uses living sperm and living eggs to form a different living thing that might one day also perpetuate the same cycle of life. Those people don't see a seed as having life until it flowers. This definition of life has caused a great deal of problems, so I wonder if a better, encompassing definition of spirituality would avoid some of those pitfalls.

Except the way you define these things, the animal can't lose, so humans are automatically going to fail in your eyes. The way you define "offend" is probably unattainable by any animal we normally come in contact with (i.e., offense requires intention, but animals never intend to offend). Animals can't speak so they can't say anything, mean or nice. The way you define greedy and corrupt are standard to humans only. Why isn't a bear gorging on stored months of honey considered greedy? Why isn't it corrupt for a cowbird to lay its eggs in another bird's nest so it doesn't have to raise its own young? And you're really setting up confirmation bias with a phrase like "for no reason". You always assume animals have some natural reason for doing bad things to each other. It's OK for male lions to kill another male's children, because that's natural for them, right? And orcas can play with a seal until it drowns rather than just chomp on it after it's too tired to fight anymore, because... well, there must be a reason, right? This kind of thinking automatically favors any other animal over humans, for none of the right reasons.

Color is not helping us understand what you're asking.

Yes, but that's not what this thread is about. The rest of my post addressed that.

It's not that the journal is weak. The journal doesn't publish papers like yours. As an analogy, if you wrote an article about better ways to fly an airplane, you would have the most interest from a journal that published papers on flying. BUT, if you submitted your paper to a journal that published papers about better ways to build airplanes, they might send you a letter like the one you got from ecancermedicalscience. Does that make sense?

She didn't say there was no doubt about the technical quality. She said, "We do not doubt the technical quality", meaning that the quality is not what they are questioning; they rejected the paper based on another reason, that they are primarily interested in the methodologies used in the lab, NOT in answering biological questions themselves. This journal publishes papers on techniques that improve basic laboratory research and testing. They're saying the journal isn't the correct one for your paper.

The link in the OP leads me to: Page Not Found If the planet has water on both sides, there could be currents that bring hot water to the cold side and cold water to the hot side, keeping it from being either a cinder or an ice cube even though it's tidally locked. Red dwarfs have enough sunlight for photosynthesis, so life is possible. I remember reading an article recently on this, but it may have been about a super-Earth sized planet that started out farther away from its sun but gained enough sized that it worked its way into a close orbit that was tidally locked. This planet may not be big enough to be covered in water.

In the very beginning, there was pasta....

! Moderator Note Please repost the question here, so the members don't have to click a strange link or leave the site.

The fish in the lower center of the pic looks as if his eye is more on the bottom of his head, suggesting he's upside down.

I'm not sure it matters as much which type of sugar you're getting compared to how much you're getting. Small doses shouldn't trigger insulin massive insulin production, which is what you want to avoid. On the other hand, folks forget that the complex carbs in the pasta are turning to glucose over a longer period of time. Add too much refined sugar of any type on top of that and you overdose. Blood pressure rises. More fat and salt and water get stored. Cells start making their own cholesterol, ignoring what's already in the blood. So I would say to the OP that it probably matters more what you're eating with your pasta. The differences between white and brown don't seem significant.

So people would keep bringing it up for weeks after the convention.

The thread is about exposing whether there are rational reasons why you currently don't have a girlfriend. But the only reason that matters is your steadfast denial that it's even possible. An idea in science has to be possible, otherwise there's no point in discussing it. I don't see how we can help you in this. If you need reassurance that it IS possible, I'd rather do it in a thread with a more positive spin. But this one seems to have become about people offering help so you can pee all over their suggestions. It seems to depress you even more, and it certainly isn't fun for anyone trying to toss you a line so you don't drown. So I would say the scientific reason you don't have a girlfriend is because you don't do enough of the things that put you in contact with women to give you better odds at finding someone you click with, because you're convinced something is wrong with either you, or them, or the process, making the concept impossible. It's hard to get anything done with that perspective. Whether you're applying for a job, or driving a car for the first time, or trying to make friends with a woman you're attracted to, if you're convinced you can't do it it's FAR less likely you will. You don't start a journey (at any age) by nailing your feet to the floor.

I thought molasses added the color, as well as a few extra minerals. I still wouldn't say it's healthier for you though.

! Moderator Note This is a science discussion forum. You should start a blog for posts like this.

People with poor critical thinking skills rely much more on their emotions to tell them how the world works. They pose a question to themselves, figure out something that "feels right", and consider that question answered. No amount of reason is going to change their minds on the subject, and might actually make them believe their own gut feeling even more. You need to learn how to deal with folks like this via emotion. Reasoning does little. If she's convinced Breatharianism is real, tell her you heard that Breatharianism was started by a Big Pharma company with a treatment for skin cancer, as a way to get people to stay out in the sun too long. When she presses you for details, tell her that's all you know about it. Don't give her data; let her emotions work on the information. As for the chakras and yoga, do you consider this an obsession? You don't say how old your mother is. I can tell you that as you get older, you need some extra stretching and movement to keep your body limber. On the other hand, if she's not eating right, she's going to be feeling wrong no matter what. If she's not getting the right nutrients, the extra sunlight doesn't have the right materials to work with. Figure out how to make this an emotional appeal that dovetails with the idea of light being sustenance. You can make this work, but you need to modify her behavior by first modifying your own. Try a different approach.

We see this phenomena here too often, where someone objects because they perceive a lack or a wrongness in certain theories, but are unable to say exactly what is lacking or wrong. It usually ends up being a lack of knowledge about the theory, or a misunderstanding of its fundamentals. Is this some kind of popsci backwash we're experiencing, where people think nothing has been written if they haven't read it? This smells a lot like no research has been done to confirm that no research has been done.

Why don't you come up with a term for your "something different entirely", and leave the definition of intelligence as it is? It's not a presupposition, it's something that's been studied quite intently.

While I agree that one can't simply claim humans are the smartest animals, our high intelligence is unmistakable and was paid for in stark evolutionary terms. We gave up a lot to get it, and when it's combined with our cooperative nature, our communication skills, and our tool-making ability (to name a few of the most important traits), it paves the way for the kind of advanced societies we have today. I don't think it takes away from any other animal's amazing abilities to say that about humans. I don't think you need to invent a "true intellect of the universe" just because humans can be arrogant about their intelligence. Especially instinct. Instinct is amazing, but it can be pretty blind for a "true intellect of the universe". I'm thinking now of a documentary I saw where a big fish is munching on a medium fish. While his tail half is being eaten, the medium fish is still being driven by instinct to munch on a tiny fish that wanders too close to his mouth. Is this an example of the instinct to eat overriding the instinct to flee? I'm human. I'll take cognitive reasoning for the win.

It's important to realize how important high intelligence is, but we should also be intelligent enough to understand that any single aspect of our abilities means nothing by itself. In some situations and contexts, humans are the most successful species known. Humans are the only species capable of leaving the planet. But put us naked in the middle of the ocean, without access to tools or tool-making, and we'd be less successful than a herring. We also need to realize how we're supposed to fit with the rest of life on the planet. The herring provides the basis for an enormous and intricate food chain responsible for billions of other creatures. Our intelligence requires us to use it reasonably, imo.

! Moderator Note Please provide a direction for discussion. This is not a blog or a wiki. It's a science discussion forum.

I don't see any evidence for god(s), but I also don't see that those definitions of energy are all that different. The second one gives a source for the energy, and the first one seems more about attitude, but both describe how it's used for work. If a god is using chemistry and physics for energy, how do we tell the difference between its work and what goes on normally in the universe?

! Moderator Note This thread is in Biology. If you wish to discuss religion, we have a separate section for that. Please don't take this thread off topic.

Very unscientific. Your position should be supported by evidence. If you're having trouble with science, look no further for the culprit. You're right to call this process ass-backwards. iNow's position is supported. Have you ever seen some of the studies on chimps and visual memorization? Chimps can beat humans in certain games that require you to match numbers and placement, and they can do it with astonishing speed. In some aspects of intelligence, chimps are smarter, and so your conclusions were inaccurate. As iNow pointed out, in a non-hostile, attack-the-idea sort of way.