jimmydasaint

An old grey whistle test 47. Former scientist, former security guard, former telemarketer and current teacher. I know nothing but am willing to learn from those who know something.

Of course I have, but just for a second. I think I am trying to apply some reasoning to my beliefs and then coming to a faith, rather than relying purely on faith. The basic reason I don't consider the possibility that I have a modified form of Stockholm Syndrome is that I believe that I have found scientific proof of the existence of the metaphysical. I can elaborate on that if you wish. Therefore, I believe that I have found a truth. And that I am not trying to please an unknown controller but a very well-known Creative entity that I choose to please as a free man. I find your point valid as an absolute statement but, and it is an important point, if God controls everything then where is the guilt of the thief or murderer? There is no question of guilt. You might as well throw away the keys to the jail and sack all the lawyers and judges. The simple plea would be: 'God made me like this.' However, in my belief, and it is held by some others, God gives us both predetermination and an appearance of free will. The appearance of free will is indistinguishable from actual free will, and therefore it serves to give us a measure of choice over our lives, regulated by scripture to moderate the excesses of behaviour - not a bad thing. The determined end can be approached by any route in an infinite manner, each with its own outcome. For example, I chose to be a teacher and it has taken my life down one route of many that I could have freely chosen. In short, the control element is unseen, because God is unseen. These are all my private thoughts though. I believe that you were drawing a parallel between the isolation of a captive and the philosophical isolation of Theists. I think suggesting that ideas made you remote from others does not hold water when we all freely mix on a daily basis with people of many, or no beliefs. Most of the time, I feel that we can get along as people, regardless of belief, due to our gregarious nature.

I think what we are both discussing here is absence of death as a threat. The giving of life is quite a positive and emotional act. I have seen my children being born and can vouch for that. As a believer, it was an intense event. The other factor I can think of is that believers have a perception of free will arising from the fact that we have to have faith in an unseen God. Many believers may feel that they are actually in control of their lives, rather than an interfering God. However, people who are highly religious may think that they have no control and attribute everything to God instead. That is a form of scary extremism and may be closer to your modified Stockholm Syndrome model. Fig. 1 and 2 seem to show a definite trend of less fear of death as your faith increases ( based on a relatively controlled amount of faith). The scale on Fig 1 is uncertain and can lead to a poor interpretation but Fig. 2 shows a definite lack of fear of death in late adulthood. I think it was one of your American philosophers who said something similar to: 'When it gets dark, men look to the stars...' However, I am puzzled about what a moderate level of belief actually constitutes? This is the weakest part of your modified model in my opinion. I will concede that a believer and YEC is tragically isolated from Science and therefore may be more suitable for your model. However, isolation of ideas is decreased because of the number of individuals with shared beliefs who inhabit the Internet airways. People of a certain belief may always find others in large numbers at a few strokes of a keyboard. You comply out of fear. But there are two types of fear. One is a fear of being killed or treated badly, the other is a fear of the displeasure of a good and caring father. The second type of fear should be more likely (in my opinion) in a believer. However, both would suffice to mould a certain type of character. Remember, that I have seen, and used, the carrot and stick methods extensively and find them very effective in controlling behavioural excesses. Finally, you have interpreted the absence of cruelty and the presence of kindness as important factors in 'whipping' people into line. I would maintain personally that this seems to assume a picture of a vengeful God rather than a just God. IMHO justice is much more important than pure kindness. I would wish the Hitlers and Stalins of this world to suffer for the torture and murder of innocents.

pers comm Mr Skeptic. I based it on my own personal experience and opinion so n=1 in this case. I will rephrase it to: 'In my opinion, religious believers are more ready to face death after cancer etc...' I will trawl to see if my opinion holds water though... Hang on... here's one that is a bit bizarre and qualitative but may help: The Hebrew/Christian tradition, to which the B interviewed belong, does not provide instructions on how to face this very passage, nor does it describe the process, as it is done in other religions like, for example, Tibetan Buddhism or the ancient Egyptian religion [38]. What happens between the moment of death and the one of re-birth is obscure and, thus, generates anguish. The NB attitude seems, instead, to appeal to the epicurean sentence: "If I am, death is not; if death is, I am no longer: why, then, fear death?". NB reveal also a different aesthetics concerning death and dying. Things, objects, the environment become almost gifts that the dying person leaves to the living, gifts precious because intrinsically beautiful, thus assuming an autonomous importance. B, on the other hand, underline "decorum" as appropriate style of both the dying person and the bystanders. The NB interviewees, even if perfectly aware and proud of their own ethos, acutely felt the lack of a socially recognized and accepted secular way of dying. Secular rituals are lacking, and realizing scenes of death which contain and respect their conception of life is difficult when not totally impossible. Link

iNow, once again, original and thought-provoking. Well done. I don't know if I quite agree with this proposal. It seems to me that true faith uplifts an individual and can change him or her, sometimes from an abject state to one where they are very useful to society. So giving life, by not taking it does not apply. Religious believers are more ready to face death after cancer etc... because they have faith in an afterlife where the ego/personality carries on after death. The fear is removed, not held like a Damoclean sword over the 'captive'. . True faith communities are helpful and charitable to each other. There should be no isolation because of church, synagogue, mosque etc... interactions between people. . The threat is terrible suffering after death. I remember a 'Sopranos' episode where one of the made men experienced death in hospital and was sentenced to going into a bar every night. The hellish bit was that it was Irish Night, every night! To be a bit more serious though, I have never seen people more motivated except by a carrot or stick. IMHO it is universal in human nature. What better way to regulate behavioural excesses than the threat of Hell?

I think you need some additional information (but I am trying to think back a large number of years). Hope this helps: http://www.wellesley.edu/Biology/Concepts/Html/initialvelocity.html

A couple of useful animations may help, as well as the mnemonic: When Shall I Close The Umbrella I'll give you a clue, the 'U' in 'Umbrella' stands for urea. Homeostasis Temperature

I think you need to do some further reading 'beyond': Schrodinger's cat Penrose Hameroff Consciousness Model

My thoughts exactly, so I won't reiterate the above post entirely. What matters is that we think that we have choice. The program called Life v1.1 still runs. Even if we are driven by powerful genetics, social and behavioural factors with experience as a modulator, it would be a comfort to know that we have an override switch; a way to reprogramme ourselves into a new way of thinking. I think it can be done. http://www.quotegeek.com/index.php?action=viewcategory&categoryid=686

I hope to come to this later padren but 'all the problems' caused by religion are obscure compared to the works of others. What about the non religious neo Hegelians? Lenin - 7 million deaths, or more Lenin Stalin - anything up to 8 million deaths Stalin Mao Tse Tung - anything up to 20 million dead Mao Tse Tung/ Mao Zedung And as for Hiler, an apparent member of occult societies, 5 million dead. Hitler Let's please keep in perspective that the first three above were based on certain philosophies. The Socialists believed in a system where opposing forces would inevitably indulge in conflict until the best system won. Moreover, the winners would then enter into another conflict ad infinitum, until a new type of human arose from the ashes of disaster with a new philosophy based on collective good. Hitler seems to have been influenced IIRC, but correct me if I am wrong, on the belief of Nietzsche's in a 'superman' and also influenced by the occult beliefs of the Thule Society. Thule Society Nevertheless, these represent a type of logic. Christ, Moses and Mohammed represent a logic that is metaphysical.

I don't know about Athene Donald and Jerry Cowhig, but I think if Professor Cox can continue to convey a contagious enthusiasm for science to the general public, he deserves his OBE. I found his programmes to be fascinating and driven by his enthusiasm. The kids I teach loved his programmes, and the girls, in particular, found him to be great 'eye candy.' (He is a pop star turned scientist). http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=bbc+series+brian+cox&hl=en&prmd=v&source=univ&tbs=vid:1&tbo=u&ei=_I4cTNKlNsK64Qbx_PjtDQ&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&ct=title&resnum=11&ved=0CEUQqwQwCg

I think this might help you as a starter: Link. Then this to provide some animations and text: Link to more info

I'm sorry I can't add much value to your very first post (but welcome to the Forum anyway). In my haste, I will refer you to this article and see if it helps you. I think past observations of mutations suggest some predictability. http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/163/4/1519

. Easy version Scholar article Spermatogenesis in fish

Great topic, but I have to digress. I remembered reading about an artificial gill that was like a box with membrane wrapped around it to allow oxygen to flow into the chamber containing the human. So the real advantage was that humans would not need sophisticated diving equipment to stay underwater but could meet their oxygen needs from the surrounding water. I found it fascinating that the guy who was interested in this equipment put his dog at the bottom of his pond in such a device - and it survived happily - if a bit bemused. I thought I would never find a scientific paper actually reflecting this story yet here we are: Link to article

iNow - I think that the find is actually politically and economically motivated rather than being a scientific coup. Last time NASA needed funding we lived in financially straitened times. Funding for non-essential projects seemed to be decreasing. NASA is an excellent source of intellectual activity that demands funding non-stop. And, suddenly, there were reports of the Martian 'bacterium' Martian 'bacteria' This time, we are still in a recession. funding is short, non-essential projects are losing funds and, strike me down with a feather, we may have found new life on Titan! I think it shows that NASA are show political nous in funding their well-deserved projects. Is it ethical to come up with dramatic scenarios to drum up financial support? Absolutely not. But we live in strange times...

I like making mind maps to summarise information. Others like lists or diagrams and that is absolutely fine with me. However, I need freeware to allow me to make mind maps based upon the method taught by Buzan Mind map images Can anyone help out, or is it back to the old-fashioned use of pencils and paper again?

What you need is a good animation with explanation and also to beat into your own head that meiosis only occurs to make gametes (sex cells - sperm and egg cells). Mitosis and here Meiosis and here also meiosis Good luck mate. jimmy

Wonderful stuff Cap'n. However, given the times in which the ontological argument was originally proposed, most, if not all people would have been believers. The statements proposed are not necessarily applicable to someone who does not believe in Absolute attributes as Anselm, Kant or Descartes would have suggested. Conceiving of Absolute attributes or properties such as Omnibenevolence or Omnipresence seem to appeal to someone for whom these features have value. For example: 'Cap'n thinks of God' only holds water if Cap'n is a theist. I will return to this once I can wrap these arguments around my tiny brain.

The answers are much appreciated ajb and have saved me a bit of reading. My problem would have occurred by the many body problem where many stars, objects would be attracting each other in a complex way. I did not understand the maths involved but got the idea that modelling can present a possible solution. The mass problem was also clearly explained, and it makes sense that our Sun is estimated to last for another 5000 million years. Gravity is a funny thing though isn't it? Is it true that humans also attract each other gravitationally and that gravity has no limit of distance?

I don't understand the original question. Can you please rephrase it for me and why I am an 'Innie' or 'Outie?' And if people have outie bellybuttons, do you collect as much fluff as my innie?

I hope the day went well and that more of the public have been educated about biodiversity. From a selfish point of view, biodiversity could find cures for human ailments. But from the more unselfish view, we have a responsibility to the planet to minimise the damage from human activities to the animals and plants around us. Good find.

I want fancy hypertext links Here goes: Fancy Linky h44LIiaZhHE&

As a Physics newbie, I am puzzled at how textbooks tend to come up with masses (and, I suppose) chemical composition of stars, comets and asteroids. Also, If a star is converting mass into energy, isn't it losing mass (and therefore gravitational attraction)? Any elucidation welcomed.

Whilst I agree completely with the OP about hindsight bias and that it should be avoided in obtaining scientific evidence, I would like to open up the debate to the use of hypotheses in science. During my post-doctoral, and pre-doctoral work, I don't recall making a single unbiased, non value-laden hypothesis. In short, all my guesses on what was going on depended on what other people were doing in related fields of study, not completely independently and objectively. Now, if other researchers are also using value-laden hypothesis and then hindsight bias, then scientific research becomes less objective, more subjective, but...more human than we realise. And perhaps that is not a bad thing.