questionposter

No, I did a research paper for an English class before on ways to increase cognitive thinking abilities. Tetris is bull, at least from what I could gather. But I had checked with me, Spanish professors and a math teacher that they agreed with the survey of Spanish helping with math.

As I have found by meeting many different people who have exceptional talents and skills at young ages and developed them from childhood, some of whom who even work for my LLC, you can accomplish a lot if you just put the work into it. The biggest problem for a 12 year old would probably just be getting stressed about how much work it actually is. But if they really go for it and try hard with a lot of determination, they will learn it. Besides, younger brains are better at learning anyway; the earlier the better. I'd recommend they also learn another language, because studies have shown that learning a foreign language actually stimulates the parts of your brain that use math and that also proved true for me, as whenever I studied a foreign language more, thinking in terms of math also seemed easier. But then again, they'd have to be really determined to do that much work at that young of an age.

It kind of sounds like your suggesting viruses are living things. But as far as I heard, there was a consensus that they aren't, or are they?

Plants are green because of evolution, because that is the most efficient wavelength for them to reflect. The actual reasoning for it appearing green to us is again because of the light's wavelength. White light will hit a plant, and only green will be reflected, and that green then hits the retinas of our eyes. When light hits our retinas, a particular wavelength will only excite the receptors in our retinas a certain way, so every visible wavelength is perceived as a color that corresponds to how it excites the receptors. Most wavelengths however do not excite our receptors enough or excite them too much, either not sending a powerful enough signal to our brain or just destroying and ionizing a receptor. And some wavelengths can't excite every receptor and only excite certain ones, like red blue and green. As I understand it, red pigments don't absorb blue light because the wavelength is too high, and this has to do with the structure of the molecules of the retina. Maybe red does absorb blue I can't remember exactly how it works, but the reason for any particular eye pigment only picking up specific frequencies of light is the same. Black isn't efficient because that absorbs too much light and would over-heat the plant too fast. In the jungles in along the equator, there are in fact darker colored plants that contain purple or nearly black pigmentation, and that's because those plants don't receive as much light due to the canopy.

I might not have formal medical training, but I've had those exact same things happen to me and the doctor said it was nothing.

I think what he is saying is that there isn't actually consciousness, that it's just a bunch of fancy mechanisms somehow formulating thoughts and only mechanisms that create good thoughts will survive. I can agree that mechanisms such as the ones that cause compulsions perceived by consciousness and mechanisms that create chemicals for emotions can themselves be effected by evolution, but there is little evidence to suggest that your subconscious itself actually "thinks". It's more of just a boiling pot of millions of different signals that are almost randomly generated, some with more strength than others, it's actually a lot more complex than he is giving it credit or that I was giving it credit for. And then, he takes this a step further by saying on the organisms with the "best thoughts" survive, which to me still doesn't make sense, as you can't even determine if a thought will actually end up getting you killed or not. Perhaps compulsions such as depression are caused by mechanisms and he's saying people which those mechanisms will just die out, but if they are here after 3.8 billion years of evolution they probably actually help in some circumstances, which just does to show that you can't determine if a thought will actually lead to something good or bad anyway seeing as how something that would be as *seemingly self-destructive as depression is still around.

I already stated that what I said wasn't 100% accurate, and unless you can find someone that is saying that direct description is wrong, I don't see what's wrong with using it for this topic. If you have an easier description to understand, then as I already also said, post a link. Put the effort into progressing the topic if I'm actually wrong. Every time I've posted "instruction", all the staff members or scientists were free to correct it, and they didn't even after two weeks of so little posting that those posts were in the top "most recent" for two weeks, which leads anyone to believe they are at least over 70% accurate, so what specifically is wrong with my general description considering I already know it's only a very basic general overview? Help progress the topic or stop posting. I asked someone to find what is generally wrong with my description and if you have a better one, so either do that, or stop being rude. I'm not the only person you do this with, you do this with other people whom oppose what your saying, just get over the fact not everyone automatically agrees with every single thing you say. I even interned for a real scientist and they weren't as bad as you.

Are you just not reading my posts? I already said the mechanisms are subject to evolution, but there is little evidence to support that consciousness itself has much to do with that. The mechanisms that cause compulsions can mutate, thus leading to different higher and lower probabilities of different actions, that's what your describing, not what consciousness is. Even at this point though it's still muddy. Why do you think after 3.8 billion years that organisms can still want to commit suicide?

That is absolutely not true. I've taught algebra to farm girls, music to graphic designers. All you have to do is put the effort into explaining it different ways. It still seems like your in the old way of thinking. I bet even mentally retarded people could have some kind of grasp of the properties of QM. You could show them the wave generated by a pebble in a pond, or run that wave through a panel with two slits to see how it acts for themselves. If you don't want to put the effort into explaining things in a better way, then instead of being rude, find a topic you want to post in.

It might be true that what is being said isn't completely accurate, but the logic for the argument that was false has to of come from somewhere anyway. I run into instances like this where there's misunderstandings and what he's doing only makes it worse. I'll admit that often when I run into it, it's usually with religion, and I just hate it when particularly atheists (OR orthodox religious people) act like they are better than everyone else, and don't even try to help religious people understand their point of view, they just say religious people are genetically inferior or unintelligent or don't have will power or w/e, and that only makes it worse (and I'm currently an atheist, so yeah). It doesn't matter if DR is right if he can't actually communicate it the right way. If Newton only knew how to speak Esperanza I doubt we'd have calculus. It's also this principal that is partly why I think it is just as important to be a good person as it is a scientist.

I know my understanding isn't completely accurate and I think the way I explained is only generally why it works the way it works ( I wanted to avoid direct usage of quantum fields to make it simpler, but if someone has an explanation is easier for people to understand, I'd definitely like to see it), but the fact that he maybe helped you doesn't give him an excuse to just go around to threads with misunderstandings and say "oh, your crap, and oh, that guy's delusional, no, everything that anyone but me says is complete rubbish and is based on science fiction". It's like saying helping the poor gives you the right to go steal a TV.

W/e, I don't know about you, but I posted to try and figure things and settle some things down and answer a question. I have no idea what your even doing on this website.

Ok, you gotta stop doing this, your going to choke this website with posts of "rubbish" "no your rubbish, "no YOUR rubbish". Things don't get solved by just saying "rubbish, your delusional because you don't understand my scientific point of view". Not that I think the other guy is right, but this thing doesn't appear to only happen with me. Just give a good explanation and let it play out. The HUP can be translated as other people are describing, but what it means essentially is that if you know the exact position, as in you know only a single point, then that means the momentum is completely unknown, and it has to do with its mathematics. When your mapping out momentum and positions, your using complex equations, but they can be generalized as simple sine waves. Just imagine a sine wave on a graph: let the x axis be distance away form the nucleus, and let y be probability. If we graph y=sin(2x), you'll notice, there's consistant peaks of probability at infinite distances away from the nucleus (which represents exact momentum and undetermined position), however we completely know its momentum which is why we can graph it as y=sin(2x). Where it get's muddy is when you take into account multiple probable energies and add them up. If we add up sine(2x)+ 2sin(x)+4sin(.3x), we get weird looking sine waves, but you will notice that as we take into account more probable positions (representing the unicertainty in momentum, since we aren't just using one momentum to describe the particle's location), we only get peaks in very specific places. The real math is harder than that though and uses some kind of division to create a horizontal asymtote at x=0. The exact momentum looks like this See how the peaks only go up the specific point, yet they contain a whole wide range of distances? THat represents knowing the exact momentum but a completely undefined position. If we know the exact position, then it's a single point and not a sine wave. So knowing the exact position would be the same as The exact position is (1,3), but because we have only 1 exact position, we have no idea what the equation is. There could be any number of different sine waves that pass through that point, and thus the position is known but the momentum is completely uncertain. In order to create a momentum, we need more points, and we only get more points by looking at other probable locations. After enough time of picking points, we see a better pattern for the momentum, but lose a single exact position.

I'm pretty sure we're arguing different things. You say consciousness is some fancy illusion or magic trick like the matrix or something, and your connection to animals I guess could be interpreted multiple ways, because based on their actions they either also have consciousness similar to humans or don't have consciousness and somehow have mechanisms that generate something that is somehow fooling itself into thinking it exists in the universe (which to me personally don't make a lot of sense) like humans. I can also say that your claims are also not actually on as much ground in reality, and obviously not everyone who accepts evolution automatically agrees with everything your saying. I already completely understand the notion of mechanisms causing compulsion and already see the point of view of which you perceive how thinking works, but what I don't actually see is much evidence for is that those mechanisms themselves that are what consciousness is and that we can predict what something will think solely based on their genes, which is what your saying should imply. It should also imply that after a certain point, all the people who would think things that would get them killed would disappear from the species, even though an organism acting on mechanisms that should lead to survival could still get killed just as easily as an organism without as "good" of mechanisms and thus any random process thought will survive anyway. Even if consciousness is a fancy illusion which I don't think it is, acting or not acting on different thoughts still can't be determined to be successful, so there won't ultimately be "perfect mechanisms for thinking" or even "optimally adapted" ways of thinking, and there could easily be different environmental changes, which means consciousness itself is not actually a part of evolution since there can't be many more "fit" or "unfit" consciousness. There's no better or worse mechanisms for what you would call the illusion of consciousness, all of those different "consciousness mechanisms" one way or another could eventually get reproduced or destroyed with equally unknown probability. I think that perhaps it is a balance between what we're saying where every action and/or thought is in some way influenced by chemical reactions that generate feelings or compulsions but they usually aren't strong as there's millions of them that don't follow deterministic paths, because you can't really have consciousness without a physical body of chemical reactions and mechanisms to make it up, but at the same time those mechanisms themselves can't do everything of which we call free-will or "self-awareness" or "consciousness" or "thinking". I don't see how something can know it exists in the universe without it being something other than deterministic reactions.And as I already stated before, mechanisms are subject to evolution and species over time can adapt different compulsions, such as with group mentality which is what you were saying before too. I can agree that every action can be "influenced" by mechanisms, but your going to need a lot more evidence to suggest that that's the only possible thing going on. I think that all the compulsions and influences are nothing more than just that, and there's not much to suggest they are actually much more than that, which would leave consciousness as a whole different entity.

I'm not saying selfishness doesn't exist, at this point individuals need both in some amounts to survive or at least reproduce, but I think the same questions can be applied to the group mechanisms. Like what about in a war? People give up their life to save other people from something like a grenade... I think there are social mechanisms, and you can apply whatever reason you want to them, but really they just exist because they randomly appeared and happened to cause compulsions that are more likely to lead to actions that have a higher probability of surviving.

Yeh, I was thinking that too. But I don't think he has to worry about it being bad.

I'm pretty sure other people have these experiences too, which is why I don't think it's a disease. The muscle spasms your describing, are they really slight or really big? I mean I'm no biology expert, but it doesn't actually sound like a big deal based on what I know about these occurances. In fact, I'm pretty I even have things like what your describing once in a while. There's nothing wrong with me at least that the doctor has ever found. Could just be different habits, stress, maybe your muscles are just adjusting from working out, w/e, but it doesn't seem too abnormal. And based on my point of view its probably not sleep-related because I get very little sleep yet these things still happen to me sometimes, whereas you get much sleep and these things still effect you. Although with that I suppose you could say that because you sleep more it happens "more often", but it can't be sleeping habits alone.

Well, there actually isn't a reason for everything, so it actually is likely that it is an "ineffable mystery". I already understand the type of thinking your putting towards this which is why I don't think it's accurate, but something you didn't consider is that words are not the only way to consciously process or perceive information. You can do this not only with words, but with sight, sound, feeling, tasting, hearing, looking through memory, etc, which means you can do calculus without processing information using words. The way I like to think about it is that there is a way to transpose different types of information, such as that a feeling covers a broader range information put into terms of words by not necessarily the high complexity that words can put information into. Sort of like depth vs. range. Some behaviors are effected by subconscious mechanisms that respond to information running through the system of the brain so that when a specific signal is put out, there are specific probable outcomes for the ways cells act, and not much more, as well as how much of the signal makes it to certain parts of the brain and in what form. Cells can't reason at least in the same sense as consciousness, so the only thing they could be doing is simply be carriers of messages which even then aren't completely deterministic. Also, can't you also "not" catch a ball? And besides, math itself isn't the universe, because math is deterministic and without us to assign meaning to it, it wouldn't be or do anything. Your quest to explain every single behavior under one principal reminds me of Einstein, who failed in his quest to do the same.

Dreams are when some hallucinogenic chemical like DMT get's released by your brain and goes into a mode of reflecting over memories and events and resting. A lot of it is subconscious actions, but your sort of able to act as a bystander through some of it.

Figuring out things about the human brain is hard because you can't look at everything inside, and if you do, it's either dead or you have to be so careful you can't actually mess which much. And then with psychology, your viewing so many different aspects of the brain acting at once that you can't pinpoint which is doing what. My best guess is that we will make many more advances in it's understanding, but like the universe itself we won't ever fully understand it. The best hope for "utilizing" more of our brain is with machines, since as you've probably a heard there are scientists who have evidence to support that the human brain likely won't evolve to anything more complex, and with machines they can process other information for us or potentially just put information in our heads, although it's predicted that in this century there will be machines themselves which can exceed that of the capabilities of the human brain.

In order for viruses to have started life according to this notion, wouldn't life have already had to have been formed? It's a paradox...

Based on what has happened to me before, it sounds like some kind of bacterial infection. I can drink water fine now, but I've gotten food poisoning 5-6 times in my life, and I had to be careful with getting rid of it quickly because whenever I drank water, it made my stomach feel worse and in a lot cases I either threw or felt like throwing up the water. Even if you drink something and it makes you feel even worse, it's not necessarily that thing, it could be something that has been progressing before such as bacteria. I also noticed you said you drink a lot of milk, and even though I'm not clinically lactose intolerant, when I drink a lot of milk, I get a stomach ache, but only after a lot. Perhaps some biology person could tell us if when you drink too much milk in a glass in a room at room temperature that there is a high probability of there being enough bacteria growing in the milk and ingested to cause problems, because that might be it.

I think emotions themselves are linked to evolution too, but I still can't conclude that what your saying is true. Cells can't reason, so the notion that someone does something "because their sub-conscious mechanisms think it will benefit them in the future" is false. Subconsciousness does not have that ability to think or reason, it is simply a culmination of very complex mechanisms and switches, and it's already been shown that consciousness and subconsciousness are separate entities. Complex mechanisms happen, consciousness perceives them, and can then act in agreement to those mechanisms or not by in some inexplicably complex way as to send signals to subconscious mechanisms, although I suppose the mysterious "will-power" can have something to do with that as well. I mean I don't think we're in complete control, but I don't think we have 0 control either.

This is why I'm posted QM questions on the other site from now on.

I didn't say you owned me anything, and it is in fact your assumptions that led to this conflict in the first place, for if you and others wouldn't have assumed that I though I was right, but rather I was only stating what should logically happen based on the culmination of information I have, you and others wouldn't have posted most of the things that were posted. The first two pages did not provide me with enough coherent information to determine that atoms in fact did not violate thermodynamics.