Glider

Line charts are best used to illustrate changes in the same measure over time (e.g. pulse, temperature etc.). Bar charts best illustrate differences in central tendency (e.g. mean, median, mode) between different samples.

I'd agree with that. It doesn't take a large physical difference to make a large functional difference. Genetically no, we're not. But we are highly specialised. We evolved down a unique path (as did so many other species). That makes us functionally very different, but physically, not so different. I never bought into the old 'Human dominion over nature' thing anyway. I think abstraction and the concomitant use of mental symbolism probably is. But I also think it's a question of degree rather than a dichotomy. It is unique to humans at the level humans have displayed it for at least the last 30,000 - 40,000 years or so (i.e. for which we have archaeological evidence in the form of carvings and paintings) and probably a lot longer, up to 350,000 years ago (See here). But that's not to say all other species are completely devoid of the ability to abstract reality in some way, or are at least moving down that path. mental abstraction and symolic thought require language and the resulting 'internal dialogue' that all humans have. It's a bit 'chicken and the egg' though. Did the development of language result in the ability to abstract reality and represent it in symbolic form, or did those abilities drive the need to express them and thus the development of abstract language? It all helps.

Insofar as the prefrontal area is associated with the mental representation of external reality, planning and so-on, yes, but therre must also be other differences, e.g. in association areas between limbic structures associated with affective - motivational responses and the singulate gyrus associated with response selection and prefrontal areas associated with planning and inhibition of 'inapropriate' behaviours. There must also be differences in areas associated with memory (medial temporal lobes, hippocampus) and certainly in areas associated with language (Wernike's and Broka's areas). In fact, it's highly unlikely that there is any one area that makes 'the' difference. Prefrontal areas are certainly involved, but not alone as cognitive function is more a result of circuitry than activity in any specific area(s).

No, that's true. At a fundamental level ther is a lot of overlap, certainly between behaviours. The thing that really makes the difference is the mental processes underlying those behaviours, and that is always going to be difficult to infer. There are 'obvious' examples, e.g. termites build houses. By scale, these are massive skyscrapers 'designed' with cunningly subtle heating/air conditioning built in and powered by entirely natural processes (if only we could do that!). However, it's fair to say that these amazing structure are not the product of abstract thinking and problem solving. But where to draw the line? In higher primates we see examples of tool modification, but what are the mental processes underlying it? Is this behavioour the product of abstracting a problem and mentally picturing what would be required to solve it and then making it, or is it entirely a learned behaviour acquired from watching the parent's behaviour? Is a combination?

That's true. Raccoons also wash their food. But do either know why they do it? But the tools those primates use are also products of their environment.Those primates didn't produce their environment. Yes, it's the difference between tool user (that uses or adaps an object in the environment) and tool maker. A tool maker needs to be able to mentally abstract the problem and create an entirely novel object that would solve it. [/QUUOTE]Squirrels do hoard nuts, but again, as with the maquaques and raccoons, do they know why they do it? Another factor that significantly influences human behaviour and differentiates humans from other animals is theory of mind (that ability attribute mental states to others). I meant to raise this in earlier posts, but forgot (been very pushed for time recently). Self awareness allows one to think 'I think', but theory of mind allows an individual to think 'I think he/she thinks...'. This has a massive impact on our behaviour because, with ToM, our behaviour is also influenced by what we think others in our social group will think of it. So, a lot of our behaviour is driven by short-term hypotheses such as 'if I do this, he/she will be happy, or 'I won't do that because she/he would be upset'. This too is subject to reciprocal determinism as, to a large extent, we choose our social group(s) (most people have several) and ideas of what constitutes acceptable/unacceptable behaviours differ between groups. Thus, our behaviour will differ depending on what group you are with. Your behaviour with your family will differ from your behaviour with your friends, which will differ from your behaviour with your boss/colleagues and so-on.

I don't know. Can they? When primates act, are they aware of possible alternatives? Have they made a conscious choice between these alternatives? Are they aware of the implications of their behaviour? Would they choose, for example, to reject immediate reward, or undergo short term suffering for longer term gain at some undefined point in the future? Your dog's behaviour has been conditioned. I doubt very much that these conditioned behaviours are the dog's choice, or that the dog understands the rationale behind them.

Quite, but 'complex derivitives of' does not mean 'the same as'. We are very much the exception when it comes to behaviour. We have the choice. We can predict outcomes and plan behaviours based upon those predictions. We can override inital behavioural urges and behave contrary to them (e.g. sitting in a dentists waiting room or waiting for a blood test). We can even override reflex actions (e.g. when picking up a very hot cup of coffee when standing on your mum's brand new carpet).

Yes, but the OP is only lamenting humanity, not the whole of nature. I don't see that really. The things Lockheed mentions specifically seem unique to humanity as far as I can see: I think it’s entirely meaningless to apply such constructs, particularly those relating to morality, to species other than humans. I doubt it. Hunting is extremely hard work, extremely dangerous and more often than not unsuccessful (the precise failure : success ratio depends on the species). When successful, a predator will get the basic reward (in the biological sense) from the successful completion of a motivated behaviour and the negative reinforcement that follows (removal of hunger), but enjoyment? I doubt there’s much time for that. Once a kill has been made, there’s usually a race to eat as much as possible before the kill is taken by other predators and scavengers. Life in nature is a knife edge; a fine balance between success and failure. Enjoyment is an indulgence that most animals can’t afford. I doubt any predator ‘enjoys’ its success any more than any prey animal ‘enjoys’ its escape in an unsuccessful hunt. It usually gets back to the business of eating asap to replenish the energy expended during the hunt.

Ahh, there's no malevolence or shame in the natural world. There is only what is. Some people view the reality of nature and "Oh, cruel world!" springs to their lips, but that's only because they're applying human values to what they see. A more accurate exclamation would be "Oh, indifferent world!". Malevolence and shameful behaviour are entirley human constructs. No predator acts with malicious intent or cruelty. Its primary intent is not to cause suffering, it's simply to eat. Leopards do not hate gazelles. Lions do not hold a vendetta against zebra. No predator is sadistic. No animal is immoral as all animals are amoral (morals are human constructs and so do not apply). Constructs such as cruelty, avarice and hypocracy are entirely human and it is these that truly separate humans from other animals. Chief among these, I would say, is hypocracy. As I've said before, the only thing that approaches the ideals that humans set for themselves, is our signal failure to achive any of them.

I didn't mean that I wanted the rest of the species to disappear. I meant that it is a wonderful world, but if there is anything about it that is going to push a person towards dispair, it will be people. I quite like the world. I quite enjoy living in it. I don't need a big house or a huge car (or any car for that matter) or a fifty-six inch plasma TV to help me enjoy it. I like my job (I enjoy teaching and research). I like the people I work with (even the students ). I live in a one-bedroom flat in a fairly nice part of North London. I have 2 cats, 47 bonsai and my Harley. But, each day, like everyone else, I am presented with more crap. For example: British gas, who have increased their prices by more than five times inflation, announce profits of £571 million this year (up from £92 million in 2006, i.e. a 520.65% increase). According to the consumer group Energywatch, since 2003, the average gas bill for British Gas customers has risen by 76.7% and electricity bills have risen by 74.3%. Millions of people, particularly the elderly are now forced into the choice beween heating or eating. A tory MP (Derek Conway) 'hired' his son as a research assistant (although there are no records of his actually doing anything. In total, conway siphoned £1,535,716.70 of our money into his family coffers. His punishment for this fraud? A 10 day suspension. Scotland Yard are asking why they were not called in to investigate (they're not alone in this). David Miliband (foreign secretary) admitted that exraordinary rendition flights had been landing on UK sovereign territory. He says it's down to the US who withheld the information. CIA officials are saying they're 'as confident as they can be' that no other ER flights landed there (the CIA don't know?). This means we are being asked to accept the idea that bloody great jet planes can land on UK territory without our having any idea of where they're from, where they're going, or what they're carrying. Either the US is lying to us, or the UK government is (again). It's things like this that make it hard for people just to enjoy their lives. Most people just want to get on with stuff. Yet, for some reason a part of getting on with stuff has to include being lied to and ripped off by the people who were elected to represent them and by anyone else with enough financial clout to get away with it. Is it any wonder people start to feel like mushrooms (kept in the dark and fed on bullshit)? Bred wholesale into a system not of their choice or making, cropped regularly through ever increasing taxes and largely forgotten once they're beyond generating enough income to be worth taking from them. If they're lucky, they'll die before their savings run out to avoid the risk of freezing to death one winter because they decided to eat rather than heat their homes. While they're waiting to die one way or another, they'll turn on their TVs to numb the reality and be constantly reminded that whilst they live in a country in which obesity is becoming a major problem, somewhere else, a child dies every three seconds through malnutrition, or that last year 10,000,000 children died because they were too selfish to send them money each month (because the world really needs another 10,000,000 people per year). Even in this country, an average of 35 children per year are killed by their own parents, 32,700 are on the child protection register and 79,000 are being looked after by local authorities and you really should be donating something per month because it's your responsibility to pay for the protection and upkeep of all these other people's 'little miricles'. Once the adverts are finished, they'll be treated to another round of rip-off 'reality show' repeats, where spoiled neurotics get to fu*k each other (either over, or literally) on TV, or repeats of 'When Cops Go Mental' or some vacuous game show, driven by some obsequious has-been pandering to the vicarious greed of the viewers. If they're really lucky, they'll pop an anurism whilst laughing at one of the few good shows (e.g. scrubs, although it's hard to laugh at something you've seen three times before), and that'll be it. [/rant] Geez, that feels SO much better

The world is a wonderful place. It's people that suck. It's people that make you think a wonderful world like this sucks, and that really sucks.

Awww shucks, you guys

Not quite. The core of the trunk is fully lignified and provides support only. The layer of xylem under the cambium is technically dead, but the tubules continue to transport water. The cellulose cell walls of these vascular cells are reinforced with lignin and eventually lose the capacity for transport as they become heart wood. Yes. Anything that interupts the flow of water and nutrients to the canopy will kill the tree. However, it is possible to ring-bark a tree without killing it, if you're careful. If you remove the bark from around the trunk and scrape away the cambium only (i.e. do not damage the xylem), water and nutirents continue to be transported to the canopy and the tree will survive. If you keep the wound moist, the edge of the cambium layer at the top of the ring will swell, forming a callus and then begin to form new roots. These will be fed by sap from the phloem until they are mature enough to begin functioning to support the tree. This is a technique (often used in horticulture and bonsai) called air layering. Yes, the same principle applies to the roots. In most trees, however long the roots are (and in some, they can be hundreds of feet long), it's only the last ~1 - 2cm that are feeding the tree. As roots grow from the tip, they move through the soil searching out nutrients. The root behind the tip lignifies and turns brown and loses it's ability to transport water and nutrients across its membranes. Brown roots just anchor the tree. At the white growing tip, using a magnifying glass you will see a fine halo of root hairs. This increases the surface area at the tip and it's this area of membrane that sucks up water and disolved salts and minerals. In the wild, the roots can become so long that the transport of water and nutrients becomes difficult and the tree eventually dies. In bonsai, the roots are regularly pruned as long anchor roots are unnecessary and the tree puts out lots of new fine feeder roots. So rootpruning rejuvinates the tree and will significantly extend its life. For example, the valley larch has a life expectancly of 50-60 years in the wild. As bonsai, there are specimens over 200 years old. No. The cambium layer, xylem and phloem are the outermost layers of both the trunk and the roots. Again, think of these layers like a glove, covering the whole tree just under the bark. No. There is horizontal movement between tubules, but only in the xylem layer. The middle of the trunk is fully lignified wood and does not transport anything. Think of the rings you mentioned in your first post. The lighter (thicker) rings are what the tree develops during its growing season. The darker (thinner) rings are what the tree put on as it enters its dormant period. Very basically, the white rings are the xylem layer for each year. In the spring, the trunk thickens as it forms a new xylem. The cell walls of the xylem tubules are reinforced by lignin over the growing season. At the end of the season, the tree withdraws sugars and other nutirients from the leaves for storage in the trunk and roots (giving a second perios of trunk swelling). The tree will use these stored nutrints to kick off new growth the following spring, when it will begin to develop a new xylem layer. The old one will fully lignify and become wood. Yes. There are two main forces pushing the transport of water and nutrients from the roots to the canopy. One is osmosis, the other is transpiration. At the roots, the contents of cells at the root tips contain higher concentrations of sugars, minerals etc. than the surrounding water, so water and disolved nutrients enter the root cells by osmosis. This is why overfeeding kills plants. The concentration of disolved salts becomes higher in the soil than in the root cells and so reverse osmosis happens, pulling water from the roots, killing the tree. Capillary action helps transport the water through the tree, but also, the leaves are losing water through transpiration and this loss sucks water up from the roots. This action is so powerful that in some trees in the spring, if you puncture the xylem layer with a spike, you can hear hissing as air is sucked into the wound. It depends on the size and depth of the wound. In bonsai, you can buy cut paste (made by Japanese suppliers) to place over wounds from branch removal. It seals the wound and keeps the cambium moist at the point of the wound which (they say) promotes the formation of a neat callus. The tree will naturally form a callus anyway, and this will close on its own over time. Personally, I'm not sure of the value of cut paste, although I use it myself. The calluses that form under the cut paste do seem to be smoother and neater than those that form in open air, but this is just my anecdotal evidence. My own suggestion would be to make sure the edges of the wound are clean (i.e. not ragged). Take a (very) sharp knife and clean up the edges of the wound and the surface of the wood within the wound. You want the surface of the wood to be very slightly concave so as the callus forms and grows inwards, it leaves no unsightly swelling, but heals flush with the rest of the trunk. You also want to prevent any rot beginning in the bare area of wood. You should notice the layer under the bark at the edges of the wound begin to swell and move inwards within a season or two. Over time, this callus will completely cover the wound. How long it takes depends on the size of the wound and the species of tree. If you want to speed up the process, you could very carefully cut into the callus each year. This will encourage it to grow more rapidly.

New growth comes from the cambium. This is a layer of living cells under the bark. Cells of the cambium layer differentiate into either xylem (the inside layer) that conducts water and nutrients up from the roots, or phloem (the outside layer) that conducts sugar rich sap down from the leaves. The xylem lignifies over time and becomes heart wood (i.e. the 'timber') which is dead (although the tubules will continue to move water for a time) and provides only structural support for the tree. The phloem also lignifies, but this becomes bark and is usually shed (depending on the species). So, imagine a tree like a skeleton of wood, covered by a thin glove (one or two cells thick) of living tissue that constantly divides into either new wood or bark. So, as YT says, the trunk of a tree will only ever increase in girth, never in height (that's the function of new shoots at the growing tips), so a scar will never move up the tree over time, not even a foot.

I tend to agree with DrDNA on this. Thinking about it, I can't really think of a bad reason to quit smoking, just another reason. Maybe the existing reasons aren't enough. They generally consist of a bunch of statistics that many people can't really relate to on a personal level anyway. Perhaps she needs the extra impetus of something real and external, that she can relate to that provides a need to care and protect. That would make the need to change personal and 'real' and according to the Prochaska and DiClemente Stages of Change (Transtheoretical) model of behaviour change, making it personal is the first concrete step from the Precontemplative - Contemplative stages to the Preparation - Action stages. If a bird provides the extra push towards a mutually agreed and desirable objective (her quitting), then I don't think it's important that her reasons are not the same as yours. Here are some links to information on the Stages of Change Model: This provides some background information on the SCM. This provides a breakdown of the stages and includes (in the right-hand column) some techniques that you could employ at each stage to help her navigate through them. Mostly, it's about reinforcing her sense of self-efficacy. A major difference between the SCM and other models is that SCM does not view relapse as catastrophic, requiring the individual to go back to the beginning. All that does is to reinforce fellings of helplessness and failure. Rather, it views relapse as a temporary setback and, allows the person (and you) to evaluate the reasons, adjust your plans and devise alternative methods of dealing with the situation that resulted in the relapse. Give it a go.

Parascenders do that too. Flaring in to land is essentially what all flying things do (even airoplanes), the exception being anything that lands vertically. Anything that has foward speed when it lands flares, i.e. increases the attack pitch of its wing(s). This provides greater lift at slow speed and also reduces forward speed. The idea is to deliberatley stall at a safe distance from the ground. In a stall, forward speed drops below the limit that can provide lift, whilst lift peaks at the maximum it can be at that speed, if you see what I mean. In other words, the increased pitch of the wing increases lift and reduces speed, and a stall is the point where these two values intersect (speed drops below that which can provide any lift). At that point, you should be close enough to the ground to just 'step down' out of it. You can see this action in every flying thing, birds, bats, prascenders/skydivers and aircraft, even the space shuttle.

Must have been a lot of soft-tissue damage there. Sorry to hear it.

Yes, there is such a thing as a chronic injury. It's usually used in sports medicine and results from overuse or repeated damage to a particular part of the body, making subsequent injury to that site much more likely (which seems to describe your shoulder). Sorry to hear that. It sounds like the greater proportion of the pain is acute and from repeated trauma due to your chronic injury. However, if there is nerve damage then it's quite possible that there is an element of chronic pain involved. You could only tell if the joint were corrected and stabilised. That would eliminate the acute pain from repeated trauma, but the chronic pain due to nerve damage would persist. I'm surprised so much surgery hasn't managed to stabilise the site. what was the original injury (if you don't mind my asking)?

I think ego padding and status reinforcement are only issues if one considers the human condition to be better (i.e. a value judgement) rather than just different (i.e. an observation). All extant species have evolved differently to fit their niche sucessfully. As with all other species, humans have evolved in their own unique way which, for some reason in this case, has resulted in each individual becoming aware of themselves as an entity separate and distinct from the rest of their specie, and also an understanding of mortality; the impermenance of life and an understanding of death; of other members of their group and their own. The reasons for this are unclear, but it is how it is. It's just an observation and nothing about it makes humans any better or worse than any other species, just different. However, I do think the differences need to be taken into account when attampting to apply human constructs to other species. Suicide (the concept), morals, ethics etc. are all human constructs and don't apply to other species. Dolphins force sex on females, chimpanzees kill other chimpanzees. male mountain gorillas will kill infant mountain gorillas when taking over a group. These acts evoke strong reaction and moral judgment in many humans, but rape, murder and infanticide, and the moral judgment they evoke, are human constructs and not applicable to other species that have evolved in ways different to humans because it's what works for those species. It's in this vein that I don't think the concept of suicide is applicable to other species. I think it is attempting to apply human constructs to other species that is a sign of human vanity.

That's true, but in Edtharan's case, it's not one 'single' pain that has persisted, it's repeated trauma to the same site. I hesitate to put words in Edtharan's mouth, but I would guess that the pain on dislocation is quite intense, but subsides in intensity until the next event. His condition (instability of the joint) is chronic, but the pain is acute, associated with each repeated trauma to the soft tissue of his shoulder, but the frequency of the repeating trauma won't allow the inflammation or associated pain to subside completely. If the site was stabilised the inflammation would subside quite quickly, as would the associated pain.

It's not so much unsupported conjecture as the null position. I would love to see such data too. However, in the absence of such evidence, there is no reason to assume that animals are self-aware or have a grasp of the concept of mortality. That would be unsupported conjecture. Not really. The suggestion that animals prefer Wednesdays over Mondays only provides a choice between two positive assertions, neither of which has any supporting evidence and so both are unsupported conjecture. A more accurate example would be: Animals prefer a particular day of the week (positive assertion) Vs Animals have no preference for a particular day of the week (null position). In the absence of evidence refuting it, the null position stands. So, when it comes to the question of whether animals commit suicide, the assumption that animals are self-aware and have a grasp of the concept of mortality based on the absence of evidence showing that they’re not self-aware and don’t understand mortality is a negative proof fallacy. Until there is some evidence that animals (other than certain primates and whales) are self aware and understand the concept of mortality, the term ‘suicide’ is not applicable to animals.

The difference is that Edtharan's pain is not strictly 'chronic' in the clinical sense. Whilst I don't doubt that it has persisted for a long time, it is more a long-term structural condition resulting in frequently recurring acute pain (i.e. repeated stimuli thoughout the day). There is a known organic cause, structural deformity and recurring soft tissue trama. 'True' chronic pain (i.e. the type chronic pain clinics are set up for) is more often idiopathic; neuralgias and myalgias and so-on. All of uncertain or unknown origin (i.e. no detectable organic cause). Chronic pain is a whole different animal and is much more strongly associated with affect and limbic function than direct nociceptive activity. Depression and chronic pain are very strongly correlated, but the direcction of any causal relationship could be either way.

I think you're right as far as a solid definition of terms of reference is needed in any debate, but I don't know of any such cases. The elephant example above (old elephants starving themselves) is a bit warped. Old elephants still try to eat, but they can't eat efficiently enough to sustain themselves. The pony example is just an example of an accident (caused by the owners). I worked with horses for years and I know they have little understanding of ropes and knots, so the responsibility was mine to ensure they couldn't get hung up, not theirs. To the best of my knowledge, any animal in the wild will always take steps to sustain itself, if it can. If there is a case in which an animal ceased taking steps to sustain itself, the question becomes "is the animal aware of the relationship between (say), feeding behaviour and survival?" Hehehe...guns 'n thumbs..I like it But even posessing guns 'n thumbs, if the animal is unaware of itself as an individual, and unaware of the concept of mortality then what would it do with the gun? Where would it point it and why?

That's the crux of it, yes. Tissue damage will always result in activity in the nociceptive pathways, but that activity does not necessarily always result in pain.

I think there needs to be some clarification on the difference between 'nociception' and 'pain'. Nociception refers to activity in the physiological mechanisms that have evolved to detect noxious and potentially harmful stimuli. However, "Activity induced in the nociceptor and nociceptive pathways by a noxious stimulus is not pain, which is always a psychological state, even though we may well appreciate that pain most often has a proximate physical cause.IASP I would go further and say that the relationship between noxious stimulation (e.g. tissue damage) and pain is only correlational. This can be hard to accept because every time we stub a toe, or cut ourselves or whatever, we are provided with 'evidence' that tissue damage 'causes' pain. However, none of the predictions that are implicit in a causal relationship are true. For example, if tissue damage (A) causes pain (B), then: If A happens, B must always happen (not true). B must always be preceeded by A (not true). The same intensity of A presented to a person on repeated occasions will always result in the same intensity of B (not true). The same intensity of A presented to two individuals will always result in the same intensity of B being experienced by each individual (not true). So, whilst as a general rule, tissue damage will be 'painful', where there are so many exceptions to that rule, there cannot be said to be a causal relationship. The psychological state of 'pain' is associated with tissue damage.