jimmydasaint

Thank you for the replies and links guys - this is interesting reading. I used to be a perfectionist and, naturally, became paranoid about making mistakes of any kind. However, I have learned to turn it around a little by assuming that people are not perfect and are prone to making mistakes and procrastination. This came from the 'One Minute Manager' series that I came across accidentally, and which made a bit of sense. I also turned around negative emotions by setting off another script in my head. Instead of thinking: "Can't I get ANYTHING right?!", the replacement script says: "OK, I messed up but I can learn and improve." This does help my situation because I am trying to re-train the brain away from the danger of perfectionism. Luckily I am not an air traffic controller, but I can accept mistakes from myself and do not, normally, beat myself up mentally for days on end.

I have been taking some interest lately in NLP - neurolinguistic programming and positive thinking in order to counteract a pretty screwed-up childhood, the memories of which I have suppressed for a while. I reckon, I am relatively sane and mature but I have to change the script that runs through my head and keeps me condemning myself whenever I make a mistake. Now I consider that there is no easy solution to this problem, no short-cuts and no simple acrostics that can turn it all around, but .... I am tempted to read these easy-fix websites which can turn you into a millionaire (mostly by selling books on quick-fix solutions) and solve all your problems with a few tips. Question is, is there a scientific basis for NLP and Positive Thinking? Is it related to the placebo effect or are there actually new neural 'highways' set up in the brain as the internal script changes. Any (positive) thoughts? http://www.nlp-now.co.uk/tips-n-tech.htm http://www.successconsciousness.com/index_000050.htm http://www.healtalk.com/public/10.shtml

To the O.P. - I think this site may help you. Why not read it first and then give us all your feedback and understanding of sugars? http://www.umanitoba.ca/Biology/lab2/biolab2_2.html

This thread has been taken over by middle aged men with bad backs - I am also in this select group. Guys this thread was about laptop back-up methods... or transfer this thread to Biology where everyone can comment

I don't think this is an attempt to create an unknown form of life, because they had the basics of a cell to start with, and then inserted a man-made chromosomal sequence, probably with deletions etc... to prevent it actually infecting anyone. However, it is superb science but too early to worry about multicellular Frankensteins at present. Remember that scientists have to work from an ethical framework and would bring their reputations (and funding) crumbling down around their heads if they tried to alter human genomes with this approach. My bigger fear is of making transgenic chimpanzee embryos with human genes. It all seems so pointless somehow when there is a network of genes operating in a hierarchical manner with each other, e.g. homeotic genes http://www.learner.org/courses/biology/textbook/gendev/gendev_6.html.

I am a film buff, of sorts, but also a fan of classic American films. 'Things to do in Denver When You're Dead' resonated with me because I had met characters like those in the film growing up in a tough part of town (psycho's and general nutcases). However, I liked the main character - Jimmy the Saint. The username box wouldn't accept the full name, hence the abbreviated version in a Bronx accent : jimmydasaint.

Whether or not one feels that the story of Adam and Eve is a metaphysical allegory, the paintings certainly depict the final takeover of humanism over the idea of a Christian vision of God. What you ave shown is the placing of man in a position as his own god, from the readings of the ancient Greeks and Romans. The use of form, colour and metaphor are stunning and probably unmatched up to that time (mid 14th century onwards), or since (in my opinion). Stunning is the only word I can come up with. Man seen through a poetic lens - the bellybutton is of little importance here.

Thank you for clarifying your beliefs. I have read part of the source but find it quite heavy and it seems to be a syncretic spritual belief that resembles Bahai belief but draws heavily from Judaism, Hinduism and Sufi Islam. Does the strong symbolism come from medieval English tradition or from the Knights Templar? Being a reader of Milton (Paradise Lost, Samson Agoniste etc...) he also uses symbolism heavily; I take it that medieval people would have recognised the symbolism immediately but it does not translate readily to the 21st century in my opinion. 'ever-sear. Never withered. 1638 has "never-sere". Laurel was considered the emblem of Apollo, myrtle of Venus, and ivy of Bacchus.' http://www.dartmouth.edu/~milton/reading_room/lycidas/ This symbolism would have been lost to me had I not researched it but it resembles some of the statements you have made about triads which seems to reflect a pagan theme.

Trinity is an addition to the original faith. IMHO, it makes sense that early Christianity bent over backwards to accommodate Pagan Roman customs and to strike a compromise which would make the Pagans happy to follow Christianity. (emphasis is mine) http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/trinity.html As to coming up with an emergent God from three - I'm afraid I don't buy into the idea. However, the OP should realise that this is a matter of faith and should state their own position on this issue.

I don't know if these are relevant but you can cross-reference: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;286/5447/2159 However, the papers are relatively old. I assume you know all about this one as well: http://journals.pasteur.ac.ir/JIMMUNOL_2001/vol167-n4/1862.pdf Also this effort: http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/meeting_abstract/116/16_MeetingAbstracts/II_1

I wonder if supporting Democrats, Republicans or Libertarians is due to genetic predisposition or to environment, or, more likely due to both. People of a certain mindset, IMO, tend to look for people of the same ilk, I suppose and this reinforces certain belief structures. Science Forums are an example. Incidentally, I just wondered which genes are in play when I speak to my wife and end up with my words totally unheard...???

I entered this discussion late but would point out sheer human difference - social, behavioural and genetic. It is difficult to imagine that Science would be objectively used to provide each human with what he/she needs to be happy. IMHO, I regard happiness, contentment, safety and achievement of potential as central to morality or the establishment of a moral system, which, I think, is what we are talking about as the eventual outcome. I want to throw up a question which Science has to answer otherwise I regard it as less than perfect in solving moral questions. What are five criteria of a human social system which are considered not only moral but necessary for the sanctity and happiness of life?

Is there any chance of making the logo animated? For example for an 'electron shell' to slowly move just to add to the great-looking logo (I voted for this incidentally). Also, can we see a preview for the all new SFN forum set-up? Good luck with the changes.

What if an entity from the beyond wanted to make contact and communicated with you? This is the position I hold at present, after years of (shallow) reading of philosophy and religion. If there is a God, He wants to communicate and the religious books are evidence of His existence. In my view, I can prove the existence of God to my satisfaction. Agreed. In my opinion, the only true freedom humanity has is in our thoughts. Take that freedom away using 'thought police' and you have complete oppression. In regard to induction, I may be wrong but, as a researcher, I experience the 'Aha!' moment which seemed to come from nowhere. Actually it may have been a generalisation built upon deductive reasoning. This reasoning may have occurred 'silently' using models that were internalised but never expressed. A better example would come from the stock market where decisions by some stockbrokers are uncannily accurate and may depend on a form of inductive reasoning. http://www.myarticlearchive.com/articles/8/118.htm That is a neatly tied up conclusion padren . However, I think there is still a lot to be learnt about the evolution of instinct and I would argue that this form of evolution is not well explained, and that sound scientific conclusions are also problematic. However, that is a separate thread.... Agreed. I actually regard this particular world-view as both honest and logical in the absence of proof of the existence of an unseen God. As such, I respect it but wish to disagree - you see, I think I have found the proof. Thanks for the Nietzsche link. I will read it. However, reading a bit of Nietzsche from his writings proved to be a roller-coaster ride full of contradiction and confusion. I could not find a strong consistent thread in what I read except for his contempt of the religious man (possibly a rebellion to his Lutheran upbringing) and a strong sense that man needs to overcome his own suffering and weaknesses stemming from a morality based upon religion up to that point (correct me if I am wrong here). I would like to agree to differ on our world-views but to agree that beauty and peace are one to a believer or to an atheist. With that thought - Peace. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged In other words, are you saying that the idea of a 'self' is an emergent phenomenon from the noise of neuronal firings that comprise the epiphenomenological 'pond' of the brain? Are you sure here? I thought the idea of a blank slate, or tabula rasa was a now forgotten hypothesis and that babies are born with certain 'archetypes' already in place. Certainly educationalists seem to recognise that babies at a young age are aware of certain 'cause and effect' relationships. Quite a romantic idea here pioneer, I see you are trying to think from your own particular paradigm:)

It's good that you found someone. I think the best approach is to approach Universities directly. Lecturers will be happy to pass on the name of impoverished PhD and postdoc students. You can then ask them for a trial run and see how it goes. Good luck mate.

Phytophthora cinnamomi - a blight in rainforests in Auatralia but not as widespread as it could be. http://http://www.jcu.edu.au/rainforest/infosheets/rainforest_disease.pdf The phyopthera cinnamomi and related species seem to be damaging plants in Africa as well as Asia and Australia. To my eternal horror: http://www.apsnet.org/online/feature/cacao/ However, I am uncertain on the likelihood of the rainforest species being destroyed by these or other non-human pests.

Of course you are seeing it from the perspective of selection and from a materialistic perspective. Science provides a wonderful explanation of the material, an objective truth about material phenomena - I agree with you entirely. However, there is no 'beyond' and therefore no explanation or no desire to explore anything outside of the material world. So, I take it that you believe ego/mind/self to be epiphenomenal in origin? Again, I see that you are using a scientific and materialistic basis for your answer which I would expect in a science forum. However, you use deduction and not inductive reasoning as a method of recognising the patterns around you. I would argue that inductive reasoning and insight have a bigger part to play in Science than we would collectively think. Surrender to leaders is a strongly built trend in our social systems. It is taught and quietly internalised and then propagated. We are breeding generations who do not want to think 'out of the box' because of the fear of what is outside. It is social engineering in my opinion, not an automatic instinctive process. But we can agree to differ... padren, I know next to nothing about Nietzsche, apart from a couple of his books but his thoughts on the death of the human 'God' seem to point towards the reconstruction of thought and desire. I agree with you. However, let's be quite clear that his message was nihilistic (life is meaningless etc...) and that the 'God' figure is replaced by man himself by his reconstructive process to reconfigure his 'hard disk drive' so to speak. Your knowledge of Nietzcshe is quite correct in my limited view. I was wrong on that point, it was not logical to get to the point of world domination and destruction, but the Nazis miscontrued the Nietzschean message and disaster followed anyway.

I just wonder why religions ultimately lead to the dissolution of the ego- look at Taoism as an example, and other, theistic religions also believe that submission to a greater ego is an ideal. In other words to recognise one's extreme limitations and to eradicate the feeling of self adoration. It seems to me, perhaps wrongly, that the existentialists put the ego in the place of God and the 'Nietzschean' man becomes a superman. Take this thought to its logical end and it creates an Aryan superman whose task it is to dominate all lesser men. http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/philosophy/nietzsche_philosophy.html Taoism http://www.taoism.net/theway/ego.htm

Are you referring to Penrose here? http://www.dhushara.com/book/quantcos/penrose/penr.htm I think the above means that a single conscious moment occurs when proteins in the neurones of the brain behave like mini computers and that the whole brain behaves like a super computer. Penrose and Hameroff have a hypothesis which is hugely attractive, but, as yet, have no direct experimental evidence to back the hypothesis (called Orch OR - Orchestrated Objective Reduction). http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/

In such a state the God of both religious and theological language disappears. But something remains, namely, the seriousness of that doubt in which meaning within meaninglessness is affirmed. The source of this affirmation of meaning within meaninglessness, of certitude within doubt, is not the God of traditional theism but the "God above God," the power of being, which works through those who have no name for it, not even the name God. – Tillich , Systematic Theology Vol. 2 , p.12 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tillich In other words: 'Don't limit God by referring to Him, don't consider Him as anthromopomorphic, I don't really know the answers but neither do you? A wise man indeed!

I agree with the posts which agreed that falsifying a theory is a type of 'truth' and leads to an increase in understanding the experiment. Eventually, by falsifying and modifying the experiment, it leads to a truth about nature. I think this is called the hypothetico-deductive method. http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/3b.html For example, if you are examining the effect of mineral deficiency on plant growth, the experimenter would take away one nutrient at a time and see the effects. Others would reproduce the experiment and check your results against their own to see if the results were resproducible. You would now be half way towards a theory about the effects of nutrient deficiency on plant growth. If you look around you, you will find that educational theory was founded on the same basis - called the Piagetian Spiral after the educationalist Jean Piaget. http://http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-18582094.html However, there is a limit to such deduction and this is seen in the field of human behaviour where the experimental method fails to meet the needs of human society. Tinkering with the systems of society which should guarantee happiness for all, or most, human beings have failed due to their short-sightedness and reliance on trial and error. We can all see the lamentable effects on education, health and politics of the experimental method.

You could also introduce acid or salt as separate experiments. The acid would be relevant to acid rain conditions; the salt water would relate to conditions where metal structures are close to sea water. Also include a control with nothing in it except for air (ambient air conditions). It is a great experiment with so much that can be related to real life. Good luck.

Sorry but this topic is not in accordance with the rules of the Forum and needs to be moved or changed into a question that can be answered by scientific means. The question belongs to a religion forum our SFN's sub forum. Why not ask a more suitable question, for example: The word 'yaum' in Hebrew means 'days' or 'aeons'/'phases'. Is it possible that the Creation of the Earth occurred in 6 aeons or phases? Does science back up this assertion? Incidentally, the 6000 yrs premise is not held by many believers - there are also Old Earth Creation believers. Please rephrase and re-post in a more suitable section. You are much more likely to get the responses you need. BTW I am not a Moderator...

Great find. These species seem to be markers for when the Earth evolved from an anoxic to an oxygenated environment more that 2 billion years ago. However, it is seems to be quite common for early embryonic stages of multicellular organisms to undergo anoxic stages: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1552013/

Genecks, I read a quote in a trashy newspaper which actually had some merit. It was from a retiring T.V. producer who said that when you do a job you love, you never have to work a day in your life. This, to me, is the crucial determinant of a research or non-research job. It has got to be the sort of work which you look forward to in the morning, and are reluctant to leave at night. The summer job is like a trial for you and I would highly recommend it to you. Even if you decide not to follow it up, it looks good on your CV/Biodata.