Phi for All

Can you give me more than just your opinion? Do you have any examples you can point to where Islam is better represented by the extremists who typically make the headlines because of their radical-ness? Because I can point to the fact that Christian extremists also grab headlines with some of their radical stances, and they do so based on their interpretation of the Bible and what it compels them to do as Christians. Northern Ireland has felt one interpretation of Christianity. The Ku Klux Klan in the southern US teaches another interpretation. Some Christians are able to justify killing abortion doctors. The anti-gay stance among those with extreme Christian views has led to many deaths. Rather than targeting Islam, isn't it true that almost any belief system can be warped and abused by taking either a literal or fundamentalist approach to it?

If you're using the daily news as a metric, we're all warmongering savages. Except maybe Canada. I think you're going to find that it's the radicals and fundamentalists in any group that grab headlines; they're the loudest and scariest. The news is a business now, completely, and I doubt they truly feel the need to accurately inform us these days. If a few wackos can be made to sound dangerous and unpredictable, we're not likely to change the channel, and that's what it's all about with the daily news.

Set your calendar ahead by a week. That will be/has been/is working for me.

If you're sick, consult a doctor. For this, I'll echo EdEarl's advice to consult a lawyer. There's probably some good boilerplate language you could use to secure the rights to use what others join your site to post. This sounds like it has the potential to be a critical issue for you, so I'd make sure to get professional advice.

Is there much of a current on the ocean floor? Trying to remain stable fighting a current builds muscles. Could the ability to move along the floor finding tasty tidbits without being carried away eventually lead to crawling up out of the water?

The Lounge section is not as formal as the science sections. Posts here don't count towards overall post count, so we don't mind if your posts are shorter or more "chatty" while in the Lounge.

It's easy to grab the sad, there's so much of it. Bitter is too frustrating to maintain, I find myself missing out on too much when I'm too bitter. I rebuild at that point. Start from scratch, hop in the shower and revel in the feelings of hot water pressure. Take a walk and focus on the smallest details. I can be a cog in a machine or I can be a hub at the center of life. Perspective is all.

You tend to overdo most things, like having too many emoticons where one will do. You also tend to jump on every battle like they all matter the same. Is that true? Is this really a battle you choose to invest a lot of time and energy in? Or could it be true that you really do know the work and others who don't would benefit more from time with the computer? You say others have a pc at home, but does everyone? Could the teacher be right but you're just complaining because it doesn't seem fair to you? Could the teacher be trying to be fair to someone else? The comedian Craig Ferguson commented once that, after three marriages, he's learned to filter everything he says using three questions: Does this need to be said? Does this need to be said by me? Does this need to be said by me right now? Learn to pick your battles. Sometimes it's better not to fight.

The conscious mind is only recognizing a few bits of information per second, but the subconscious is taking in millions. I don't think of hypnosis as a state; to me, it's an extremely willing person opening themselves up to the suggestion that there's more to remember about the event. You don't "go under", you just relax with the intention of remembering in detail. How reliable this type of memory recovery is, I can't say, but I've had success helping relax and refresh people with suggestions like this. It works becaue they want it to work. However, taking people back to past lives, physiological damage from hypnotic suggestion, those things, I believe, are totally Hollywood, but I see no reason why relaxing and being willingly and gently led towards remembering something better wouldn't bring some benefit. As always, remember that it's extremely easy to fool yourself when it comes to your own mind.

It's an interesting idea. It's hard to engineer it so it doesn't become part of the problem itself. As you mention, it has to avoid contact with functioning satellites. Currently, the biggest problem is that no country wants another country capturing parts of their satellites. They don't want the responsibility of cleaning up their own mess, but they don't want anyone else to clean up their mess and discover their secrets or copy their technology. Nobody wants anyone else to have more power in space than they do, so they mostly avoid dealing with even responsible efforts to clean things up.

For me, that part was just another piece of evidence that mounted up to a preponderance. This god is perfect but creates imperfection (and would then curse it for being so), and deceives its followers by making the universe appear to be billions of years old but entreats them to follow its Word to the letter (which calculates that the universe is mere thousands of years old). When you start interpreting the Bible literally you run into hundreds of contractions as well. Fundamentalism creates more questions and answers nothing. I allow for that small possibility I may be wrong about gods overall, but I'm as certain as I'll ever be that fundamentalism is wrong in all its aspects. Quite frankly, if the Abrahamic god required a fundamental approach to worshiping it, I think it would change my character so much that if I were a god, I'd reject me for being such a hypocrite.

I think that's just your talent finding its "zone", that place where you seem to be doing things without conscious thought, but in reality it's just that easy for you to slip into the zone where mimicry is practically automatic. The baseball pitcher doesn't think about every single move he's making when he decides to start his pitch; it seems like he's on auto-pilot, but it's not completely unconscious. He's just gotten so good at what he does that he makes it look like he doesn't have to think about it. Consciously, you can only handle a few bits of information per second; the subconscious picks up over four million bits per second. Personally, I don't believe the subconscious is truly unconscious. When someone sticks out their hand to shake yours, some say that if your hand comes up automatically in reaction that it's an unconscious act, but I think it's just conditioned response. I also think conditioned response is what makes you so good at what you do. It seems like a transformation to you, rather than mimicry, because you're internalizing the whole thing. I got an opportunity to do an acting workshop with the late, great Cliff Osmond in my younger days. He could do what you describe, effortlessly moving from character to character, making it all seem like an unconscious act. His range was incredible, and though he was mostly known for dramatic roles, his comedic timing was awesome. Sasha Baron Cohen is even better; some of his characters are so completely different from each other that I often don't realize who I'm looking at. He also makes it look effortless. I'm not trying to diminish what you do. I'm just trying to give you some perspective, because you seem like you're looking for an explanation that defies reality, but I can assure you this is nothing supernatural. It's still special and cool, though.

Thou canst beseech me anon.

I'll tell you tomorrow.

Hypothesis. A theory in science is the most trustworthy explanation you can ever get. Every time someone says, "This is just a theory...", a researcher loses his grant money.

In my analogy, there are things that have more mass than the force from the end of the vacuum hose can overcome, such as my couch. We can assume that if the sun became a black hole, nothing that massive would exist to overcome the force of the gravity at the event horizon. Does that make sense?

I understand that gravity isn't a "sucking" force, but I often think of the increase in gravity near the event horizon of a black hole as being like the end of the hose on a vacuum cleaner. The force pushing something towards the hole at the end of the hose isn't really felt until you get very close, and then it becomes irresistible to anything without the mass to beat it. Is that an accurate way to look at it (as far as analogy ever goes)?

Please, attack the argument and not the person. Any comments attacking you as an individual, rather than your claim, are going to stop, per the rules everyone agrees to when they join. I know other staff members who will insure this. First, this is a science discussion forum. No one is "implying" anything. Even the personal attacks were very straightforward in what they said, so please take what people say here at face value, good or bad. Do NOT try to read anything more into anyone's reply than what they post. Second, please be aware that the mind is notoriously untrustworthy when it comes to what is done consciously and unconsciously. Outside the autonomic systems, very little is done completely unconsciously; there are usually lots of stimuli we're unaware we're reacting to. All that said, as long as you're not stating that your transformations are physiological, it sounds like you could simply be an excellent mimic. I can't rely on your subjective assessment of your internal mental process, at least as far as how much you're doing this unconsciously, but there's really no need to reach for some supernatural explanation. What you describe is a version of the Stanislavski method of acting, drawing on personal memories and sensory input. Many great actors start out as mimics, learning foreign accents, language patterns and mannerisms. Eventually, you can get so good at it that you can make up a character you don't know, or one that is fictitious. Out of a million Hamlets, yours would be unique. I'd like to see a video of you doing this with someone most of us would recognize, a celebrity perhaps. We wouldn't know how accurate your imitation of Stella is.

Removing limits is probably not the way to look at this. This assumes it's possible to be simultaneously super strong, super fast, lightweight, super tough, super stamina, etc. Usually, excelling in one aspect means sacrifices in others. Birds can fly but have so much invested in flight that they can't do much else. You can bulk up to increase strength, but past a certain point you're going to reduce your agility. As iNow mentions, there has been some work on cell repair, and it's believed we're close to identifying and manipulating an enzyme that could unlock embryonic cell regeneration. I like this best, since it could mean extended life in a more fit body, adult teeth could be regenerated, amputated limbs regrown. I'd be interested in seeing a better spine design.

Can you do it with famous people? Impersonators can make some big bucks. "Baby, it's just you I'm thinkin' of." [/being in the building] As imatfaal asks, how much of this is corroborated by others? Does Stella think you can laugh "exactly as she would laugh"? Also, I don't see how you can say you're not doing it consciously if you're concentrating on visualizing faces before you laugh or otherwise "act" like that person. It seems like a very conscious act that you've fooled yourself into thinking is involuntary. It actually sounds like an awesome ability for an actor to have. Can you visualize someone you've never actually met, someone who doesn't really exist (except perhaps as a character in a movie or play), imagine how they would laugh, talk, walk, and react to various situations and dialogue? This is what a lot of actors do to prepare for playing a part in a show.

! Moderator Note It looks as though discussion has ground to a halt. Is there a way to get relevant questions answered, or is it time to close the thread?

Done.

This seems like a silly argument, if I understand it correctly. You seem to be saying that physics falls short as a solution to suffering, therefore it doesn't deserve your attention. And I'm sorry, but the whole "I understand things beyond what any language can describe" sounds like some kind of special pleading, like you shouldn't have to bother studying math because you're so enlightened. Meditation? It's good for calming, but trying to learn with only yourself as input? I can see why it appeals, it means you don't have to try very hard.

I don't have any examples, but I heard mentioned once that some fruit trees end up being guarded by a benevolent species (one that only wants the fruit) from more harmful species like rats (who might be much more destructive on the bark and leaves). I could see selective pressures making the fruit more and more desirable for the benevolent species, since this gives the tree a better chance at survival.

Also, I think saying you're moving your own idea from hypothesis to theory is like giving yourself a nickname or proclaiming yourself a superstar. It's not really for you to do. Almost by definition, it would be others who would grant you those distinctions.