Fred56

...foot on the left pedal, "con passione"

There's already a bit of 'worry' about the land changes occuring in Asia (the plateau region too, and the glaciers), and Indonesia, etc. The monsoon is under threat, apparently.

Deeper Understanding of the MJO The Madden-Julian Oscillation (MJO) is a large-scale (1000-kilometer) atmospheric disturbance that propagates slowly eastward through the tropics from the Indian Ocean to the western Pacific during the course of 30 to 60 days. The MJO affects precipitation over the tropical monsoon regions and has been implicated as a trigger of El Niño-Southern Oscillation events. It is coupled with the upper ocean through its effects on surface fluxes of solar radiation caused by changes in cloudiness, and on evaporation from the ocean surface caused by surface wind speed changes, which can heat or cool the ocean mixed layer by up to 1°C during a strong MJO event. Nonetheless, important aspects of the MJO still are unclear, such as how deep into the ocean its influence extends, in part because the range of scales of the processes it involves have made it difficult to simulate in models (see the Perspective by Hartmann and Hendon). Matthews et al. (p. 1765) used a data set of unprecedented size obtained from autonomous, free-drifting instruments, called Argo floats, to show that the surface wind stress associated with the MJO can force eastward-propagating oceanic Kelvin waves that extend to a depth of 1500 meters and that have amplitudes of as much as six times those of annual-cycle Kelvin waves. These amplitudes are significantly greater than those predicted by ocean models, so that the MJO could affect a much larger volume of the Pacific Ocean than just the ocean surface. Miura et al. (p. 1763) address one of the shortcomings of contemporary global meteorological models--cumulus cloud parameterization--by using a model that allows direct coupling of atmospheric circulation and clouds to simulate an MJO event. Their results show that MJO predictions extending 1 month into the future soon may be possible. This Week in SCIENCE, Volume 318, Issue 5857 dated December 14 2007

Light (a very narrow, life-tolerant, part of the spectrum), colour (frequency), and so on are "thrown" at us randomly; they "collapse" on a screen in front of us, somehow. We select those events which point in the most available direction. Reality is like a resonance, or a note (or music) playing all around us, sort of thing. Or our mind is like an "enclosed cathedral", kind of like the one Achille-Claude (deBussy) found in that wood, "la cathedrale engloutie" But who is playing the organ, type of thing? Is 'god' the conductor, as it were... something inside, and outside us also? I posted that elsewhere, and didn't get flamed for using "that word". But, hey, feel free...

There you go Light or photons, is that E stuff.

I had another look at the post this was in; so it all starts with a bit of dangerous thinking, or radicalspeak? Symptoms of Groupthink Janis has documented eight symptoms of groupthink: 1. Illusion of invulnerability –Creates excessive optimism that encourages taking extreme risks. (brainburping/visionary 'thinking') 2. Collective rationalization – Members discount warnings and do not reconsider their assumptions. (BeliefSystem B) 3. Belief in inherent morality – Members believe in the rightness of their cause and therefore ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions. (establishment of BeliefSys B) 4. Stereotyped views of out-groups – Negative views of “enemy” make effective responses to conflict seem unnecessary. (incorrect filtering or processing -wrong algorithms; B is incorrect function set linguistic/semantic toolkit) 5. Direct pressure on dissenters – Members are under pressure not to express arguments against any of the group’s views. (feedback and control mechanisms to enhance a 'signal') 6. Self-censorship – Doubts and deviations from the perceived group consensus are not expressed. (doctrine -formalisation of B) 7. Illusion of unanimity – The majority view and judgments are assumed to be unanimous. (delusional belief -B doesn't map, except if B is 'upheld': maintained by delusional cycles of inference) 8. Self-appointed ‘mindguards’ – Members protect the group and the leader from information that is problematic or contradictory to the group’s cohesiveness, view, and/or decisions. (maintenance/control of dogma & doctrinal discursion -co-option of 'agents'; isolation of the 'source')

Light is energy: Science 14 December 2007: Vol. 318. no. 5857, pp. 1748 - 1750 DOI: 10.1126/science.1149066 Reports Stored Light in an Optical Fiber via Stimulated Brillouin Scattering Zhaoming Zhu,1 Daniel J. Gauthier,1* Robert W. Boyd2 We describe a method for storing sequences of optical data pulses by converting them into long-lived acoustic excitations in an optical fiber through the process of stimulated Brillouin scattering. These stored pulses can be retrieved later, after a time interval limited by the lifetime of the acoustic excitation. In the experiment reported here, smooth 2-nanosecond-long pulses are stored for up to 12 nanoseconds with good readout efficiency: 29% at 4-nanosecond storage time and 2% at 12 nanoseconds. This method thus can potentially store data packets that are many bits long. It can be implemented at any wavelength where the fiber is transparent and can be incorporated into existing telecommunication networks because it operates using only commercially available components at room temperature. 1 Duke University, Department of Physics, Box 90305, Durham, NC 27708, USA. 2 The Institute of Optics, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627, USA. * To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: gauthier@phy.duke.edu

Cracked it -shit my fingers are sore. Get this: I can 'hear' it now, I must have heard it before back in the dim dark. Cool huh? On the hit list on my brain station after all.

No, 'you' are just more convinced that 'you' understand something (some knowledge). But maybe 'you' don't really, maybe what 'you' think 'you' understand is all just being projected from 'your' own mind. Maybe it's all wrong? Maybe 'you' don't really know a thing... Individual existence (the notion of individual ontology) is possible because of the existence of others. This could mean that if you were the only individual (there were no "others") around to observe, then observation and learning would only be meaningful to 'you', so why bother to "record" it (externally or internally)? In other words the "principle" of knowledge extends beyond the concept of individuality.

Are you thinking about behaviour of external objects (i.e. mechanics and dynamics) and what the relation is to QM, or about experience (how we perceive the world)?

Actually there are a few here too. People who think they understand things, when they really don't, I mean. You really should watch out for people like that, cause ignoring them doesn't always work. People with fixed ideas, even about what an idea is, or where it comes from, or what a memory is. Nothing is fixed. Fixed, or static simply is not a feature of the world, and especially not of things that are alive.

Language is a problem for Science. Because the idea is precision, and accuracy of observation (the act), this means that understanding of what is, in fact, being looked for, and how too 'see' it, are crucial to the methods employed. A scientist needs a bag of precision tools; ones which he is confident will prepare him with something with which he can do his job reliably; language, something everyone else (who may not be as concerned about their toolkit) uses, must be prepared similarly: jargon and terminology appear, and a model, an idea of the necessary work involved, is easier to construct for the practitioners of any method. All technological and research endeavour is itself "prepared by" the tools of science, of course. A bit like a tradesman being prepared by preparing his tools properly, or something. One big problem is the way we constantly substitute nouns for verbs, or actions for the products of those actions (English, in particular, is chock-full of such terms). Even the word "action" is used to mean some work or cycle, and also to mean its result, i.e. the thing it produces. Even in Math.

Ah, yes. The 'good one', like that one for a certain method that 'scientists' use. The one that some think they know all about? It's a tool, right? It's a static thing. Something that doesn't, by itself, do anything? It's a set of rules - a "body of techniques". No more, no less. And it works. Who wants to have a go at sorting out the problem with none of the words I bolded being any sort of static thing, but a process. A method is a process, like using a tool. Like I've been saying.... A tool isn't anything until it gets used. Entropy: is change. Thermodynamic entropy is a change in heat in some system, or part of a (closed) system. -entropysite.com Those links you think I should read: can you paste anything from that refutes the statement: Entropy = change ? P.S. I would say being correct would also imply not accusing others of being incorrect if they aren't.

You mean instead of any concept or notion of an 'internal' agent? Many Christian scientists -cosmologists, astronomers, biologists- 'believe' or think about something like:Is belief in God wishful thinking? If you talk to someone who believes they have experienced something, that is only explicable in terms of an "unknowable" power, or experience that the mind simply cannot rationalise, it's obvious they are "convinced", certainly it must be pretty powerful "wishing". You may have had a similar experience at some time in your life. Lots of people do, and sometimes this can change their outlook dramatically. I don't think such people are deluding themselves, so much as trying to explain it (which can't really be done). -Mr. Robin Parsons physorg.com Or you could say that the science and philosophy of Life and its evolution is, in fact, the understanding of something like "God". Religion and the codifying and dogma of this non-ontological feature of science/philosophy is the extant issue, or problem. But I don't personally believe it can be 'defined' out of existence. I do believe that what fundamentalists and religious people try to do is convince everyone (proselytise) that they are the only ones with the right 'knowledge'... P.S. This is why I do not prescribe personally to any 'organised' religion, or canonical set of beliefs, or any doctrine as such, regarding this, whatever it is... "I now wish to give some reasons why I regard Darwinism as metaphysical, and as a research programme. It is metaphysical because it is not testable. One might think that it is. It seems to assert that, if ever on some planet we find life which satisfies conditions (a) and (b), then © will come into play and bring about in time a rich variety of distinct forms. Darwinism, however, does not assert as much as this. For assume that we find life on Mars consisting of exactly three species of bacteria with a genetic outfit similar to that of three terrestrial species. Is Darwinism refuted? By no means. We shall say that these three species were the only forms among the many mutants which were sufficiently well adjusted to survive. And we shall say the same if there is only one species (or none). Thus Darwinism does not really predict the evolution of variety. It therefore cannot really explain it. At best, it can predict the evolution of variety under "favourable conditions". But it is hardly possible to describe in general terms what favourable conditions are except that, in their presence, a variety of forms will emerge." (Popper, Karl R., [Emeritus Professor of Philosophy, University of London], "Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography," Open Court: La Salle Ill., Revised Edition, 1982, p.171) "However, Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test. There are some tests, even some experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the famous phenomenon known as "industrial melanism," we can observe natural selection happening under our very eyes, as it were. Nevertheless, really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry." (Popper, Karl R., [Emeritus Professor of Philosophy, University of London], "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind," Dialectica, Vol. 32, Nos. 3-4, 1978, pp.339-355, p.344) Mr Popper got it wrong twice... Looks like a bit of contradiction (or something) in there...

Chromatography is a rather large discipline in lab work. A simple chromatography example would be putting a spot of ink on a tissue and wetting it -the ink runs as the water 'spreads' along the tissue paper, because the paper 'attracts' it. Water is a polar liquid: it has a slight dipole moment. Look up "dipole moment". Water (H-O-H) has it because electrons tend to stay closer to the heavier oxygen nucleus, and the two protons (hydrogen nuclei) tend to have a slight positive charge. So, a central moment, and two external moments, of charge, a dipole. Lots of chemicals also have -OH groups, ones that don't tend not to mix with ones that do, and so on. And there are a lot more polar 'groups' that organic molecules can have hanging off them.

Someone's point about arbitrariness in our experience: (YOU REALLY NEED TO READ THIS) To demonstrate that Evolution is an 'agent' All I really want to do is cook some eggs, here guys, what's the big problem? ~moo

Science is context-free, supposedly? There is no context except the one we 'see'. This is the only conclusion we can ever draw? Saying "Science depends on context" sounds like a 101 lecture in Tautology. P.S. You don't care about this enough to tell me that nobody does, as well. (and that means 'everybody' else)

That's not necessarily true. If you misbehave, the mods can close your threads, and if you misbehave a lot, they might ban you. So you might not be able to keep going on with this. Wouldn't want to do anything like ask a tricky question, then. Like this one: "w.r.t. context, what defines a 'context', as such (I mean in terms of the conditions available, or whatever)." Or get condescending, or call you all a bunch of thickos (something you appear quite happy to accuse me of with surprising regularity -don't get me wrong: it cracks me up quite a bit, in fact), I might get stopped, or something, right? What process or technique (method) do we apply to this? What do you think observing is? What's an observation? Do you think you understand what this question is asking? Do you think you know the answer? No-one has posted much that has added anything to the 'standard' ideas, do you understand what the ideas are? Should I be asking if anyone is able to supply some notion of what they actually think, instead of what Wikipedia has to say, or some book or other?

However; this thread was meant to be a more general kind of question to think about: When does Life start? What does this mean, or what does it mean that we can ask this (of our own existence, and others' existence, or instantiation of life). Does Life actually stop, or is it something that is obliged to "keep going", and reproduction assures its continued "success"?

Sure, no problem. Plainly all I have to do is believe absolutely in 'the posts'. Nonetheless, if you, or anyone else who happens to look at this thread, thinks that there is nothing to discuss here -it's all been said, I acknowledge your opinion. I also acknowledge my ability to keep going, if that's ok (or even if it isn't).

Chaos is what happens when some force is allowed to act without restraint, at least that's how Aristotle & co saw it.

"...there are no answers, only choices." -some philosopher Do we perceive ourselves as able to choose (as all lifeforms are), to expend effort, or conserve it instead? To direct this effort (energy) to some goal or plan? What does a man hunting some animal, tracking it and wearing it down, doing? What choices are made and why? Is there a method being used, or applied to his science of hunting prey?

Once information has "arrived", it is measured against knowledge and understanding ('philosophy'), the next measurement or observational step, involving a communal mind i.e. the scientific community. Or don't call it philosophising but rather "the application of scientific thinking". Knowledge, belief, objectivity, are all in the realm of scientific enquiry, but all scientists are also philosophers. I think claiming that science is the observational side of the equation, and philosophy the application of pre-existing knowledge/belief to connect the observed information to a worldview (belief system) is perfectly ok. It does, however, probably jar with what most of us understand by "science" and "philosophy" (since the Renaissance, possibly). Most would understand Philosophy as thinking about what thinking is, or what meaning is, or ('gasp') what Science or Philosophy is, and is metaphysical. This is only a convenient distinction, which was probably made to separate religious thematics from scientific endeavour.

Synasthesia is, (without looking at a wiki) the 'crossover' of sensory experience into areas of the brain that are meant for another sense, type of thing; as if the signals go to the 'wrong' place. Some 'see' sounds, or 'hear' colours; right? I believe something like this has happened in my brain (in past episodes that I can still recall)

So then it's: sometimes we do, sometimes we don't?