LucidDreamer

I think red is probably a bad example, as are sweet and left. Anxiety is a good example of a qualitative observable. If it was your job to examine a monkey after you gave him a certain drug to determine side effects then there would be certain things that you could measure and get a specific number and other things that you could not. You could analyzed a sample of his blood and determine an exact number for the amount sodium or glucose in his blood, but you could not put an exact number on other things you might observe. If the monkey seemed especially anxious you would mention how anxious, but there is no exact number for it. Another person might say he was about a 3 out of 5 and you might say he was a 5 out of 5. Qualitative observables don't have exact numbers and require a certain amount of judgement. Another example of a qualitative observable would be happiness or unpleasantness. When the author used red and sweat he was probably talking about an experiment where the scientist would just observe with his own eyes to determine if something was red or if it was sweating. In this case they would be qualitative because he didn't hook up the sample to any machines.

In case you didn't already know, Einstein helped explain the photoelectric effect and Planck analyzed blackbody radiation. A search for either of these terms in google or yahoo will bring up lots of good sites.

Yes, there are receptors in the brain that induce sleep. These receptors are activated by neurotransmitters. The way your body is designed these receptors cannot be activated unless in they are exposed to their specific neurotransmitter or a drug that has a similar effect. The other way to activate them is to create an environment where your body will naturally activate them by its own mechanisms. This is the preferable way to get the results you want. My first post listed some of these methods. An important hormone for sleep is melatonin. You can buy melatonin from any drugstore and it does help you to sleep. It is relatively safe, but I wouldn't advise taking any drug for sleep unless you have a real problem sleeping. It wouldn't be worth the risk. The prescribed amounts on the melatonin bottles are too much anyway. You might try milk because it has L-tryptophan, which is an amino acid that is turned into serotonin. Sorotonin has a relaxing effect and it can induce sleep. The only other thing I can suggest is to try brain entrainment. I downloaded a free one called brain wave generator. Chances are that it won't do much, but be careful with this as well because it might have strange effects, depending on your individual brain chemistry

I don't think there is any one thing that can guarantee a good nights sleep because there are several possible things that might interfere with sleep. There are several things that can help you get a good nights sleep including: 1 don’t drink caffeine several hours before going to bed 2 exercise, but not right before bed 3 healthy diet 4 don't lounge around on your bed unless you’re going to sleep 5 don't stress yourself out too much 6 keep a regular sleep schedule These things should work for both getting to sleep and getting quality REM sleep.

Well we should. From what I hear Bush has a form of direct communication with God--kind of like the bat phone from Batman.

YT, do Wiccans believe that their spellcasting affects the rest of the world? What I mean is if one Wiccan cast a love spell do they believe it really affects the person they are trying to get to fall in love, beyond any psychological effects of the spell on the caster?

Every culture has popular myths and there are always sighting of these myths. In Ireland its Lock ness, in South America its Chupacabra, and in America its Big Foot. Smaller, less-known cultures have their own myths with their own sightings. Almost every culture has its own spiritual myths as well. If you added up all of the gods, demons, and spirits that man has believed in the number would be in the hundreds of thousands, at least. Science has yet to prove that all of these myths are false either. Are all these myths real or is it just part of human nature to be a little obsessed with the paranormal?

I voted yes. I think we should have strict regulation on all forms of pollution and environmental issues. Not the kind that will completely cripple business, but well thought out plans that will significantly lower pollution. There are plenty of measures that would cost a mere pittance to big business and cause a significant decrease in pollution. The U.S. would already have these laws if big business didn't have so much influence on the government. America's refusal to make adequate laws about environmental issues has also influenced the rest of the world that is not as willing to make more laws that would put them economically behind the U.S.

Probably because they are too lazy to find out exactly what is on the bill or whatever they call it at the UN. The link didn't work for me. Maybe you should provide a summary of it in a post or copy and paste the main issues.

Personally I think everyone should just put this stuff to rest. Kerry went to Vietnam and Bush served in the Air National Guard. They both served honorably. Let’s just leave it at that and concentrate on the issues. America is acting like elementary kids throwing rocks at each other.

This is a bad idea. You don't want to use anything that will directly interfere with your brain's electrical current. The experimental machines they use in medical facilities are precisely build with a knowlegable staff to operate them. What you could use is a device that will produce sound and/or light at specific frequencies that will induce certain brainwaves. To build one of these you could use one of those electrical sets that include transistors, resisters, wires, speaker, etc. You could also create a software program to do it that would take advantage of the computers internal electrical components. Why do this though? You can download several of these programs for free. Just go to one of those big shareware sites and get one. I downloaded one called brainwave generator once but never tried it. Be careful though; some people have reported side effects such as headaches and insomnia after using one of these.

I think it's inevitable that with man's increasing population the Earth's biodiversity will decrease. There is a limited amount of resources to go around and if we have to clear forest area to make more land assessable for farm area then some species are going to go extinct. It seems there is little we can do to prevent a decrease in biodiversity. After all, how are we going to support all of the species that are dependent on ecosystems that we need to support a growing population? This at least has been the trend of the last century or so. One of the major problems is political. The U.S. runs around criticizing third world countries about cutting down their forest and hunting animals to extinction but we did the same thing and are still doing it. Education is not enough. We need a comprehensive international plan and the power to enforce it or the trend will continue. Here is a site that I found with a really short summary of the kind of things that we would need to do to protect biodiversity: http://www.aultimaarcadenoe.com/biodiversidadeterraingles.htm There is of course only so much we can do because of the difficulties involved in trying to keep so many species alive. I think the Noah's ark programs are a necessary backup plan. I think these programs that are creating libraries of DNA from life that is at risk of extinction will be considered one of the most intelligent things that we did during what will be considered very barbaric times in the near future. These programs will at least give us a possibility of bringing the creatures that fell through the cracks back after we get our act together.

You don't have to. The good thing about glial cells is that you can always make more. If you want more glial cells just keep learning. Einstein may have had a genetic advantage when it came to producing more glial cells. But maybe he had more because he was always using his brain. There are alot of studies going on right now to discover exactly what glial cells do. My guess is that they do more than what was previously suspected. Scientists have already completed experiments that indicate glial cells might have some role in mental processes besides just support. The April 2004 edition of Scientific American has some interesting articles about this. Check it out

I have to admit that when I look at the wonders of life design does come to mind. However, we have never observed any form of intelligent design besides the designs of man. We have observed numerous examples of change through evolution though. These changes are much smaller than the kind of changes that bring about completely different families or classes of animals, but they have been observed. We also see a fossil record that suggests these small changes bring about much larger ones over time. By all indications these processes are occurring through natural means. We have no evidence of a designer besides the complex system itself. You could argue that the system, with all of the forces, matter, energy, etc, was created by intelligent design, but there is no conclusive evidence either way. It is simply here. Whether it appears to be designed or not is just speculation and opinion. But there doesn't appear to be any day to day intelligent influence, only the forces of nature. Just because we haven't uncovered all of the answers doesn't mean that they aren't there. Lack of evidence for either intelligent design or natural processes proves neither side. In answer to your question about wings: Of course the wings didn't just sprout one day on bird-like creature from a single mutation. They evolved gradually from a series of mutations that were of benefit to proto-bird. Have you ever seen gliding creatures that leap from tree to tree? If you are looking for an intermediate between a Raptor and an Ave then a gliding creature is a likely candidate.

I believe that if the process of creating mutations were truly random then we would not see the diversity of life that we see today. I am not suggesting divine intervention; I am suggesting that the process of creating mutations has also adapted and so has life's ability to survive minor differences of the genome in an individual For instance, a common form of beneficial mutation occurs when a gene, coding for a protein, gets an extra copy of itself in an individuals genome. This protein catalyzes a certain chemical reaction. If the overexpression of this protein causes a positive effect then the individual is more likely to survive due to natural selection. If it causes a detrimental effect then this mutation will be removed through natural selection. But there is also a chance that the overexpression of this protein will not cause a significant effect. This is because life has adapted a myriad of ways to deal with variety. This overexpressed gene will simply be broken down by the liver, expelled from the body in urine, or be changed into another form of useful compound. This gene, and thus its protein, is no longer vital to the organism because it’s an extra copy. This gives a chance for mutations to work their magic. Once this extra gene is incorporated into the gene pool of the species it will be worked on by mutations and natural selection over many years. Eventually a mutation will occur where the protein is able to perform some minor beneficial role. This will give the individuals an ever so slight advantage and this mutation will be more likely to be inherited. After this point further mutations will occur that increase the beneficial role of the protein. What beneficial role it plays will depend on its current structure and what role its played in the past (due to probability). My point is that it is not entirely random. Life has adapted so that it is more likely to produce beneficial mutations. It has adapted so that it can sustain a variety in an individuals genes so that not every mutation is detrimental. It has also adapted so that when a beneficial mutation does arise it is more capable of taking advantage of it.

I would say that to some degree it does. If you use reason to help in making a decision, and reason is improved with a more efficient labeling process, then it would effect decision-making process at least indirectly.

I see your point. I guess that decision-making and reasoning are different but related processes.

I think that we would have to have a form of logic to have reason. Logic includes the the kind of mathmatical logic with the, if then, or, nor, symbols. I think it is essential to reason that we make these kind of connections between the different objects in our mind. If we are going to dedcutively reason that since the butler is a canadian, and all canadians love asparagus, that the butler loves asparagus then we must need a kind of logic to deduce this. I'm not saying its any kind of strict system, just that reason impicictly implies logic.

My prediction is that if you and your friend did this every day for a year then by the end of the year your success rate would be very high. Then if you brought in another friend to replace your regular partner then suddenly the rate of success would drop. The reason for this is that both you and your friend give off subtle body signals. Even if you don't consciously detect these signals you are still picking them up and your subconscious mind is evaluating them. After you guys do this for a while you will get better at picking up your friends signals and start to unconsciously project more clear signals for him to pick up. Eventually, you would probably consciously recognize his signals. When they do tests like these to evaluate psychic abilities they use trained workers and a more random selection of subjects. They also try to minimize the amount of signals that they give off. It’s also possible that you guys just had a good run. On average you would have to go through 240 cards to get 6 correct answers. It wouldn’t be that statistically improbable if you went through like 100 cards and got 6 right. Another factor that you could pick up is the order of the cards. If you guys didn’t do a great job at shuffling then you could have been picking up clues from that as well.

I think we do use a form of logic in our decision making process. Early on, either from a natural hard wiring or from an early learning process, we establish an association between a series of actions with the concept of correct. When every we go through the process of making a decision to do something we run through our memories to decide if its a good idea. For example, when we are young we learn that eating is a good thing because it takes away the hunger and gives us energy. There may be some instinctual influences but this is irrelevant because I am only referring to our intellectual understanding of hunger. So this is how our logic goes: correct = good, if full then good, and if I eat then I will be full. Therefore we eat. I believe our minds go through this process when we make most of our decisions. The difference between our logic and the logic of a computer is that our logic is malleable. It also makes comparisons between two pieces of logic. Later on when we are middle aged and we are deciding if we want to eat that piece of pie our logic might go bad = incorrect, if we are fat then that is bad, if we eat that pie then we will get fat. So we don't eat that pie. But sometimes we do because we compare the two sets of logic and we give values to how bad it is to be fat and how good it is to be full. I agree. I believe words are just a means to label concrete and abstract terms. I think they are more than just a means of communication because they give abstract concepts a definite title that allows us to more efficiently categorize and store our data.