Phi for All

Yes, but why do you think your idea is more likely, what questions does it answer that mainstream theories don't? What you need to do is figure out a way to test your idea, otherwise it's just guesswork, and that's not what science is all about. We need to know enough about the universe to see how your idea would manifest itself, then predict what would happen if your idea is right. Then you can set up an experiment to test your predictions. Nobody's time is wasted on discussing a wrong idea. It's only when someone clings to a wrong idea irrationally when faced with a preponderance of evidence against that time gets wasted. Most ideas are wrong, did you realize that? When we trace the flow of that energy just after cosmic expansion, we see that the universe at that point was incredibly hot (energetic) and dense (tiny). It wasn't an explosion; that's a fairly typical mistake. It was an expansion.

Potential red flag. You seem to have developed some non-mainstream, speculative ideas you call "my theories of the universe". But in trying to validate them mathematically, you find that your ideas don't work. Now you're trying to claim your ideas must be right, and that the MATH must be wrong. Danger, Will Robinson!

But that's absurd. The impression in the ground wasn't designed to be a puddle. It only became a puddle when the water arrived. The water was wrong about that, didn't see the truth, and evaporated in ignorance. By the same token, it's absurd to think the universe was designed around us. It was here long before us. The events that led up to our development may seem highly improbable, unless you realize that we could just be the one in a trillion, the lucky formation that yielded these results. Results that only seem improbable, but the probability, since it did happen, is just 1.

I can't tell what's exactly what is going on with arguments like Dr Funkenstein's. The uber-religious often justify their stances in bizarre ways, since much of their belief system was arrived at by irrational means. And I think today's media has taught people to look for sides in each issue, and to give equal credence to each side, regardless of the preponderance of evidence. And then there's the crackpot stance, that our knowledge is incomplete, therefore everything we know could be wrong, which automagically puts their arguments on an equal footing with the scientific mainstream. The only thing I know for sure is that there seems to be a correlation between a) how much a person actually knows about a subject, and b) how likely it is for them to realize they're wrong about it. And how much time that will take is inversely proportional.

Are you freaking kidding me?! This seems deliberately obtuse, and you've probably decided just to troll for a reaction. How about instead, the gist is (look this up) preponderance of evidence. If one explanation has lots, and the other has none, one is more trustworthy than the other. Both still exist, one thing isn't all there is. One seems much more likely because of all the reality involved.

It's really not. This is a science discussion forum, and you're obviously in the wrong place if you feel this way. All you have is wishful thinking, backed up by an "anti-academic" clinging to ignorance. Why would anybody here want to discuss that with you? All you do is ignore reality and keep soapboxing about your "wisdom". I really, really, really think you should start a blog, somewhere else. We obviously have nothing you can learn from if you're "anti-academic".

Regardless of your anecdotal experiences. there are no physiological mechanisms for any of what you're talking about. I don't know why you've come to a science discussion forum to air these ideas, since they border on ignorant mysticism. Science is not going to help you improve this idea, it can only show you (if you're willing to see) that it's wrong. It reminds me of the new age medicine peddlers who tell you they're going to pull "toxins" out of the soles of your feet with an electrolysis bath. It all sounds plausible, unless you understand that there is no mechanism for storing toxins in the feet, no mechanism within the body to pass things through the cell walls through electrical stimulus, and btw, the electrolysis bath electrodes will corrode and turn the water murky whether your feet are in there or not. Your idea is much the same. It sounds good, until you know better. Toxins aren't pulled by gravity to the feet, and the heart is not where your emotions are.

It follows no accepted methodology. Scientists don't base explanations on degrees of skepticism, they base them on evidence. The preponderance of evidence forms the foundation for predictions which can also be verified, further supporting the explanation. Even one piece of viable evidence against can refute an explanation. You have none of that. You have wavy hands and nothing more. Your stance is misinformed. You aren't skeptical about whether evolution or creationism is a better explanation, you're ignorant about whether evolution or creationism is a better explanation. Big difference. The best part is, there's a simple cure for ignorance. Study up on the things you're criticizing before you criticize them.

Wait just a minute. Before, you were assigning a bare minimum of credence to creation stories, just because "no story, can/have existed with out some basis in a reality or fact". You even claimed "This may be weak". Now, despite all the mountains of evidence evolution has in its favor, and that much of that evidence directly refutes most of the major claims of creationism, you decided to claim that "we don't know enough about either of the two points to rule out either or fully support one over the other"?! If this is truly your stance, then you haven't really read any of the literature. That you can even hint that both sides of the argument are equally valid shows me you understand neither side adequately enough to be skeptical about this issue.

That's disgusting, frankly. You're trying to support your argument by imagining you're right. What the hell is anyone supposed to do with that?! How about you search for some studies on heart transplant patients being less excitable, and if you don't find any real evidence to support you, you won't have to imagine you're wrong about this.

Wow, it is written! More evidence it's true! I've seen this argument a couple of times lately. I don't get it. You're basically saying that, because we don't know everything, we don't know anything. You're also hiding your "partial comprehension" behind a skeptic's stance. If you only have a "partial comprehension", what on Earth are you being skeptical about? Do you do this with any other areas of your life, learn just a bit and then assert that you have doubts? Is that an honest approach to explaining the world around you?

Bleh. Answering a question with a question (especially a big fat Red Herring question)? Q&A helps people learn, not Q&Q. Discussion, please. I can listen to Beck or Limbaugh if I want unproductive obfuscation. Why do you specifically call out blame on Social Security for a practice used by many successful insurance companies? Here's what you wrote: This is the only productive way to set it up. This type of insurance works because those who need it longest are offset by those who need it for the shortest. The rest of us fall somewhere in the middle and that also averages out. So in order to grow the fund, you need to offset the average somehow. Adjusting the age when one is eligible is one of those ways. So again, why do you specifically call out blame on Social Security for a practice used by many successful insurance companies?

This differs from any risk pool in what way? Actuarials predict the average age at death (which was ~59 in 1930), so of course the eligibility was set higher. The pool can't grow if the benefits age is the same as retirement age (and lots of other retirement risk pools at the time put eligibility at 70). Why do you use this standard, accepted practice as a way to make Social Security sound bad? Because this is EXACTLY the kind of punditripe that confuses so many of the American public, and keeps them from using their brains to figure out how intellectually dishonest these arguments are.

This completely bypasses the problem. The problem is that too many people with personal agendas are labeling these stances either conservative or liberal to evoke certain emotions. They're deliberately trying to turn some of these objections into opinion in the eye of the public, so they can "agree to disagree" (more BS that sounds like diplomacy). I agree that these pundit talking points are virtually useless for anyone who's interested in reasonable solutions. I think it's up to the individual poster to decide if they want to pollute the conversation with crap. People need to start using their critical thinking skills to sift fact and evidence from mere opinion. And they need to stop labeling their entire perspective as right or left or red or blue or whatever nuanced version of life they think they subscribe to. EVERYBODY knows people aren't that simplistic in reality. In reality we're a mix of many leanings and flavors and perspectives.

If the car belongs to you, that's the preferred way. So, I mention that the engine needs the starter, and that "ruffled your feathers". Do you mean it made you question your idea, or it made you upset?

You need to amend your cut and paste habits for a forum like this. You're preaching to the choir, and the choir is ready to move on. And since the data this perspective is drawn from is supported by scientific evidence, there really is no opinion involved. In this instance, it's not a racist "opinion", it's just wrong.

No. I've never heard such an argument before in this context. Do you realize you essentially said, "We shouldn't even discuss how traits change over time until we know everything about human life!" Is this seriously your stance in this matter? Please note that I'm not basing any kind of argument on my personal incredulity. I just wanted to see if this truly is your perspective.

I was unable to find a reference to your reference. The only instance of either key or "key" on this page is in your last post.

But you could say the same for any major part/organ. The engine won't move the car unless it gets a spark from the starter, and the starter needs the battery. Be very careful about assigning importance to the individual pieces of a system; they're usually ALL important. The brain doesn't send synchronization signals to the heart. The heart regulates its own rhythm internally, via the sinoatrial node. The brain does signal a need for increased heart rate, like when you're running and need more oxygen. But that has nothing to do with synchronization.

The chemicals that are carried by your cardiovascular system don't start at the heart, they aren't made there, and since the emotions we feel are regulated in large part by these chemicals, how can the heart be the source?

There is nothing scientific about any of this. Your use of "heart" is not a biological one. I don't know why you use terms like "...cause my heart to align with the cat's heart", since cats have a heart rate that's more than double what a human's is. There's no mechanism in the heart that could account for what you claim. I've studied the charts in my cardiologist's office. There are signals coming to the heart from the nervous system, but the only signals the heart sends out are kept within the cells of the heart itself, mostly to promote sinus rhythm. You seem like you're trying to tell us this is the way things are rather than might be, and yet you're using concepts that can't be/aren't supported by evidence. In essence, you're turning your opinions into assertions, which takes all the meaning out of discussion. All we can do is agree or disagree with you, since none of it is testable (except for the obvious parts like heart rates). You should start a blog somewhere.

! Moderator Note OK, I thought this was going to be a quick review, but it looks like this is now firmly a non-mainstream speculation. Since we can't leave this in the mainstream fora where students might mistake it for test answers, let's head on over to the Speculations section. GeneralDadmission, please read the special rules we have for it. Thanks for understanding.

! Moderator Note Thanks for not including the links I would have had to remove, since advertising isn't allowed here. We wouldn't mind seeing a video of what you're doing, as long as it isn't obviously commercial. If you can stay to discuss your work, that would be best, since we're a science discussion board.

So we're polling strictly for intelligence, but we're discussing all mental functions?

Ah, OK. I'm not used to putting quotation marks around paraphrasing.