sergeidave

Thank you for all your comments, guys! Pretty interesting stuff! C'mon man, at least provide some input to the matter being discussed, don't just criticize the way I express myself.

Yes! That's exactly what I'm talking about! I often feel that I need to focus on something but there's sooo many interesting things out there that I can't concentrate on a single one. To the point of feeling hopeless...

Does any of you out there feel something like this? I mean, maybe I'm crazy or something but I enjoy learning stuff. I mean, not just stuff that you need to know in order to, say, perform decently at your job or because you are acquiring a new hobby, no... I can literally spend hours at a time watching videos or listening to lectures on astronomy and then the next day do the same but on subjects like 'designing websites', 'fixing your car', 'athlete biographies', 'autism', 'chess', you name it. I always feel like I have this insatiable thirst for knowledge. No, no, no!! Don't get me wrong! I'm not some kind of genius, I'm light-years away from owning any kind of guru brain on any sort of subject at all. I'm just a regular guy, I may know a thing or two that most people won't, but who doesn't? I'm talking purely about feeling the need to learn things and enjoying every second of it. And this makes me wonder how big is the capacity of the brain to learn EVERYTHING, I mean, how possible is that? I can think of Leonardo Da Vinci. He was a genius on many subjects and sciences. How many sciences or subjects could a human being master to, let say, an expert level, in a lifetime? What if we could live, say 200 years? Is the 'need to learn stuff' a common feeling out there? Thanks for bearing with my crazyness for a minute or two! Sergeidave

I know this may be a stupid question, at least for us, mere mortals. But I searched for it and didn't find it anywhere on this forum, and couldn't help to ask it myself. I mean, according to Einstein's relativity, any object in a state of movement can actually be at rest relative to another object and viceversa. So, at least in concept, the earth might as well be the one resting and the rest of the universe the one going around the earth once every single day, or am I missing something? If so, practically the whole universe would be moving exponentially faster than the speed of light. What's the explanation to this?? Please forgive my ignorance and I thank you all for any comments that can help me clear this in my mind. Cheers!! Sergeidave

I assume you are replying to zule, as I never said we can't, but rather, I'm asking 'why can't we?' Of course, there is more to that too.

That's the problem I find. If human beings evolved without any intelligent intervention, why can't we create something as complex and marvelous, even though we have the materials and intelligence. I mean, it's as simple as this: Nature is not an intelligent being and yet we are here, evolved by the laws that exist in Nature; and yet we, entities that DO possess intelligence, will not be able to create something as complex or more than ourselves??

I've been always perplexed when it comes to the intricate difficulties trying to explain scientific concepts. This is one that I've been chewing on for some time and it would be great to hear your opinions! Most of us are very familiar with all the interesting debates around artificial intelligence, strong ai, self-awareness, conciousness, feelings, etc. And there is a lot of talk about stuff like "we will never make a learning, self-aware, with feelings, etc. computer program, simply not possible", etc. So I would like to venture with this question: If Nature (Evolution, nothingness, the universe, randomness, whatever you want to call it), which is not supposed to be a sapient entity in itself, was able to "come up with us", human beings, intelligent, with feelings and self-awareness, how come we, the most intelligent known entities in the universe cannot or will not be able to at least match ourselves artificially?? Is it the approach/paradigm (software, procedural, object-oriented, etc) that we are using what's wrong?? I'm positive that I'm not the first to come up with this question, I'm nobody. So, what is the current research about this? And one last question, for good measure: Is there a way to try to speculate how long would it take us to acomplish such a feat, when we theorize that it took nature 4.7 billion years to "create" something as amazing as us, human beings?? Thanks, guys! I look forward to your comments!

Thanks, guys!!

Hi guys, I will be totally honest here. I love science and I sincerely wish to understand it. Actually, everything is great and pleasant, math, physics, chemistry, etc. Tons of rational and logical concepts, everything makes sense (well, at least much of it, unless you are an Einstein or some other rare and luminous brain to understand it all). But then I bump into Evolution and a world of mistery and unclearness unveils. So I would like to post some questions on some of those issues that "keep me awake at night" (ok, not really, but you know what I mean). First of all, I'm still to find a believable/logical explanation about the abiogenesis issue, that is, life coming into existence by a superb-against-all-odds stroke of luck. Anyway, I've heard so many times that Evolution does not have anything to do with origins of life that, ok, let's not go there (let's pretend that we have no idea that there's this big "elefant in the room"). Let's say the issue mentioned in the last paragraph is solved and we now have the first "bit of living stuff" (the very first living cell, or whatever it was). This means we are now in "Evolution territory", I assume. So, life is here and already a ton of questions arise from this "little" fact. For example: 1.- Due to the amazingly high odds that the first bit of living matter had to beat to come into existence, was there just one lonely living cell or, as the "primordial soup" phrase suggests, did many living cells come into existence all at once? 2.- Since all living beings die, did those first living cells "have" a plan to preserve life once their time to die came? I mean, even asexual reproduction had to be "figured out" before "anyone" could "make use" of it. Did those first bits of living matter have enough lifespan or longevity to "figure it out"? If not they must've died without leaving any offspring, so... 3.- Does this mean that life managed to beat the odds not just once but many times to come into existence until it finally figured out how to leave offspring?? This one is tough, even just to think about it . Ok, I had planned to make a big post but my brake time is up. But it would be great to hear some thoughts about this. There's obviously more of these controversial points of discussion but this should be an interesting starting point. I really don't know much about the subject so it's natural that I sound skeptic. I would really like to know if science have explanations or answers to this issues. Thanks!

Hi guys, I just remembered a question that bugged me for a few days, months ago. I was watching cool youtube videos of the electric arc phenomenon and I noticed that the noise they produce was always a "b flat" (musically speaking). Does this mean that the frequency of the waves that the electric arc is producing is always the same, independently from the source? Why is it always the same? I mean, in one video there's a huge arc more than a meter across making a thick b-flat tone/noise, and other videos showing smaller arcs from different sources on different places, but all of them producing b-flats!! Did I, by a strange coincidence found only the ones producing b-flats or is there a pattern when it comes to the noise produced by electric arcs? Thanks! David

Well, I also realized too late that I was posting this on General Biology. Of course this topic may be better placed in a more appropiate category but not pseudoscience please. You would agree with me that true science also studies the behaviours of all living creatures, which this thread is related to. I meant things like, for example, murder. Surely most animals kill other living creatures some time in their lives, but you have to agree that their motives are different that many human murders. Animals may kill to get something to eat, to defend their offspring or themselves, etc. Of course humans many times kill in self defense, but, there are many murders which are commited just for pleasure or for no other "excusable" reason. Just an example.

I mean, aren't we humans supposed to be the most intelligent creatures on this planet? And I am not talking about morality here, I mean really the scientific aspect of it. Why do things like genocide, serial killers, sex crimes, tons of really weird 'philias', and much more, happen mostly among human beings? I just remembered a song by Roberto Carlos which mentions somehting like "I would really like to be civilized like the animals", it makes you stop and think...