MonDie

The distinction is that of a proximal cause versus an ultimate cause. In biology, proximal causes are physiological whereas ultimate causes are based on adaptive function. Itoero might think that a relationship to premature birth only hints at a proximal cause, it also hints at homosexuality being a developmental abnormality. As Itoero's hyperlinks to NIH explain, pre-term birth is related to stress. Stress increases inflammation, and inflammation causes tissue damage. Thus infants born pre-term likely suffered more tissue damage as a result of high inflammation while in the womb.

I was surprised to see the D.A.R.E. logo painted on a police car the other day. I thought, "Wasn't it five years ago that I read in my psychology textbook that D.A.R.E. actually has the opposite effect?" Apparently the ineffectiveness of D.A.R.E. has long been known, and yet the program persists. Was D.A.R.E. Effective? (Natalie Wolchover of LiveScience) http://www.livescience.com/33795-effective.html

I do not think the smoking age should be the age of consent. I suspect that cigarettes are sometimes used to advertise being "legal" to have sex.

This post is confusing. The quoted content beneath the Wikipedia link cannot be found in the Wikipedia article. On the other hand, I do not trust ViewZone. https://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/viewzone.com The links to National Institutes of Health (nih.gov) do not mention homosexuality and you have provided no quotes. My own idea on the matter is that homosexuality is within the range of tolerable mutation or variation. Most mutations are deleterious, yet we do not devolve with time. Although I need authoritative confirmation of this idea, I think we do not devolve with time because there is a fitness cut-off below which we are not fit enough to perpetuate our kin. Thus, we are all slightly above this fitness cut-off. In addition to the sexually antagonistic selection hypothesis, we also know that homosexuals can provide resources for their kin. For example, a sister with too many offspring may allow a homosexual sibling to adopt. Thus, homosexuality is still within the range of tolerable mutation or variation. There is little reason to think that homosexuals should have a preponderance of other mutations as if it were the result of pre-term exposure to mutagens. Incidentally, homosexuality is not related to rates of atypical handedness (e.g. left handedness or ambiguous handedness), but pedophilia, hebephilia, and other psychiatric conditions are. Robert Full: Robots inspired by cockroach ingenuity (TED Talks)

Other than introducing better terminology, your post has reviewed what I knew. Incidentally, I just applied the method above to Schaum's equations and got the same result. Furthermore, I applied that method to the integral of sin(x) from 0 to pi and got virtually the same result as I got from taking an average. I cannot understand why that simple method should output accurate results, but it does appear to do so for my test cases so far. At this point I can no longer tell you where I want to go next.

Come break my leash and we can talk elsewhere. Goodbye.

I hope some day you'll join us, and the world will be as one.

D'oh I take that back.... The variable is in the function in the integral, not in its interval. There is nothing in the integral's function to suggest that the range of x is bound. Thus the apparent interval after the brackets is still mysterious to me. Do not second guess myself. The integral takes the average value of x for that interval, so it only has one possible output unless the interval is left undefined too. Uh, no. If the integral only has one possible output, then it is not equal to a function but equal to a value. A delimited function is still a function and not a value. I did the common sense thing: I searched for more examples. It is clear that the integral is being solved by: finding the antiderivative of the function in the integral; solving the new function for the bottom and top interval values; and then subtracting the bottom's output from the top's output. I still do not know what to call that thing, but I see what is happening.

I am interested by both, but my primary concern is electrical engineering. Regarding post #10 above, I do not know the Maxwell-Faraday equation. This equation is referred to by allaboutcircuits as "Ohm's Law for an inductor." https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/textbook/direct-current/chpt-15/inductors-and-calculus/ The equation is also used in Schaum's to describe the behavior of an inductor. Perhaps it is over-simplified and I will see a more complex version down the road. As I think about it more, I realize that you can graph a function or graph its integral. The interval after the brackets is useful when you are graphing the function—or its integral since they are equal and have the same graph—rather than generating an output from an input. That is to say: [math]\int\limits_0^1 {xdx} = \left[ {\frac{{{x^2}}}{2}} \right][/math] That would be incorrect since the integral is bound but the function is not. If I had to calculate the reverse, to calculate the integral from the function, I could not determine what interval should come after the integral except some undefined variables like t1 and t2. Thus the interval after the brackets: [math]\int\limits_0^1 {xdx} = \left[ {\frac{{{x^2}}}{2}} \right]_0^1[/math] Regardless, I still need to understand the final conversion in equations 5 and 6. In the case of 6, I still do not even know how to interpret the brackets in the last piece.

The calculus may be overkill, but I still want to get a grasp of this math since I already started and since it will help me comprehend the book. Anyway, the odd thing about the brackets is how they have an interval like the integral has an interval. I have now seen two examples that are clearer than the example in Schaum's. These examples clearly show that the content in the brackets is the derivative of the function in the integral across the equal sign. It is puzzling why the brackets also have an interval after them. For the integral, the interval is static but the variable in the function is dynamic. The integral essential says to take the average output of that function for the given interval—once x is given a value—and then multiply that by the width of the interval. In contrast, the derivative says to determine the slope of the line at a particular value of x—once x is given a value. This bracketed content appears to be some sort of inbetween, between the integral and the derivative, even though I do not know what it would want me to do other than solve for y at x as if it were an ordinary function f(x).

If they are designed for exam cramming, then that might be the problem. Anyway, I posted the squared brackets in the opening post. I do not think it matters that the original content has brackets that are taller than the fraction inside the brackets. Anyway, it looks as though you found the derivative of x^2/2, which is x, and then set it equal to the integral of its derivative, as if the antiderivative of a derivative is equal to the original, undifferentiated equation. Is that right? Regardless that is only the first step, whereas I am still baffled at how the second step mysteriously removes the variable from the equation.

I did not use a particular source to understand how the integral is the antiderivative. I guess I just had to get my mind on math once again. Distance traveled versus speed is more intuitive than work versus power. For motion along a straight path, speed (s) is the time derivative of distance traveled (d), which we might express as s = dd/dt, because speed is the rate at which position is changing. Why should this imply that you can calculate distance traveled from the integral of speed? Assuming that the integral of speed has time spent traveling as its x-axis, then the integral of speed for an interval of time is the average speed for that interval multiplied by the length of that interval, or the average speed multiplied by the time spent traveling, which will give you distance traveled. Thus s = dd/dt and d = integral(s dt) as long as our x-axis remains as time, thus the dt. Note that you can put an undefined k into the integral since the starting position does not matter if we are trying to calculate total distance traveled rather than position traveled to.

It would seem that part of what I want is a good explanation of the fundamental theorem(s) of calculus. I found something on berkeley dot edu, but it is actually a proof and not intuitive at all. https://math.berkeley.edu/~ogus/Math_1A/lectures/fundamental.pdf I am confused by page two by the primes inside the functions: f(x') instead of f'(x).

I decided to actually do a search for NIH articles via the Google search engine. Looking at research from 2000 onward, I found 3 pro and 4 con. 2 of the 3 pro-findings are free-to-read, but unfortunately we cannot read about the null findings unless we pay up. The second one appears to come from a Polish journal. That is Polish. PRO Evidence that the lunar cycle influences human sleep. (Current Biology, 2013) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23891110 The lunar cycle: effects on human and animal behavior and physiology. (Postępy Higieny i Medycyny Doświadczalnej, 2006) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16407788 Gout attacks and lunar cycle. (Medical Hypotheses, 2000) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11021320 CON Do lunar phases influence menstruation? A year-long retrospective study. (Endocrine Regulations, 2013) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23889481 The influence of lunar cycle on frequency of birth, birth complications, neonatal outcome and the gender: a retrospective analysis. (Acta Obstetricia et Gynecolegica Scandanavica, 2008) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18607814 Birth rate and its correlation with the lunar cycle and specific atmospheric conditions. (American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2005) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15970864 The effect of the lunar cycle on frequency of births and birth complications. (American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2005) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15902138

I am not sure why Phi posted, but Phi spurred me to get myself caught up again. On March 28th, Trump signed an executive order to roll back the Clean Power Plan. The EPA is holding hearings with the supposed intent of hearing out the public on what they want rolled back, but apparently the hearings are being announced with short notice, held at awkward times, and having more stakeholders and lobbyists than ordinary citizens. According to Ars Technica's John Timmer, it will be quite the lengthy task to reverse the "greenhouse gas Endangerment Finding". Unless they can reverse it, they cannot repeal a plan unless they replace it with something else, and the replacement plans will probably involve reduced regulations on the grounds that the regulations are economically costly.

That is very, very helpful! However there is still a lot unanswered with regards to the time derivative with the empty numerator, the changing integral interval units, and the mysterious use of square brackets.

I am reading Schaum's Outlines, Electric Circuits Fifth Edition having taken both precalculus courses but not calculus. Firstly, I am confused by the definition of power as the time derivative of watts (p = dw/dt) even though watts is a unit of power. More importantly, I am confused about how this derivative is reversed into an integral of power as below: [math]w = \int_0^t p dt[/math] I recognize that both have an undefined variable t, but I am baffled at why the below should be true regardless of the value of t: [math](\int_0^t p dt) \div w = \frac{dw}{dt} \div p = 1[/math] I get even more confused by some equations given to describe the behavior of an inductor, which stores energy in its magnetic field, charging when current (i) rises and discharging when current drops. I think I understand Ohm's law for an inductor, stated below with the constant of inductance L. [math]v = L \frac{di}{dt}[/math] [math]i = \frac{1}{L} \int_?^? v dt + k_1[/math] I get confused at the inductor's equations for power and for the amount of energy stored in its magnetic field. The energy in its magnetic field is confusingly expressed in watts (w subscript L) rather than joules. Furthermore, I am confused by the change of interval from t1-t2 to i1-i2 followed by the change to a bracketed [i-squared-1 minus i-squared-2]. [math]p = vi = L \frac{di}{dt} i = \frac{d}{dt}[ \frac{1}{2} Li^2][/math] [math]w_L = \int_t^t p dt = \int_i^i Li di = \frac{1}{2} L [i^2_2 - i^2_1][/math] The book then concludes that "the energy stored in the magnetic field of an inductance is WL = (1/2)Li^2." Obviously v is converted into the form of inductance times the time derivative of current. Then di/dt is multiplied by dt to get di, and this somehow changes the integral's interval (or the x-axis of the integral's function) from units of time to units of current. I am not sure exactly why this happens even though I see it happening a lot in the chapter. I presume that the function is now being plotted against the backdrop of changing current rather than changing time, but that is all I can say. Lastly, I have no clue what to make of the empty time derivative d/dt, nor the bracketed squares of i. Thank you for any help you can give!

As I ponder this, it seems as though narcissists lack integrity but still consider the consequences whereas the "secondary psychopath" acts without regard for the consequences. This could be why the secondary psychopath exhibits more deviant ("Social Deviance" subscale), or even criminal, behavior. This could be contrasted with impaired honesty-humility. Grit or Honesty-Humility? New Insights into the Moderating Role of Personality between the Health Impairment Process and Counterproductive Work Behavior (Ceschi, startori, Dickert, Costantini, 2016) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5147463/ This could also be framed in terms of group norms. We conform with the group to avoid being punished by the other group members, i.e. to avoid the consequences. Thus secondary psychopaths might be seen as violating group norms without regard for how the group will view their behavior. In some contexts, failure to conform with the group despite the consequences can actually indicate a high level of integrity, something narcissists appear to lack. The prevalence and structure of obsessive-compulsive personality disorder in Hispanic psychiatric outpatients (Ansell et al, 2010) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2862854/

To reiterate my original point, it is okay to say that mental phenomena arise from physical phenomena "just because" in the same way that it is okay to say that anything exists at all "just because". If a second moon suddenly materialized in orbit around Earth, the "why not" would be obvious: we have never seen moons materialize out of nothing; it is a violation of the law of conservation of mass. Each of us sees mental activity emerge from brain activity day after day, so it is not clear "why not." You might have a point if all of the transistors had the same open/closed state and the same spatial orientation, but it is their configuration that causes something to emerge.

My personal opinion is that there is no "hard problem" of consciousness, the problem which asks how mental states can arise from physical states. The problem of mental-from-physical is similar to the problem of something-from-nothing—people are asking "why?" rather than "why not?". Science looks at how things are composed, at emergence. Science breaks things down, or else it adds things up. It reduces causes into smaller causes, or else it adds causes together. What causes there to be causes may be an invalid question altogether, so why do we see problems with causes that connect physical phenomena to mental phenomena?

These celestial cycles probably do affect our circadian rhythms, which would result in biochemical changes. Cortisol peaks in the morning during the "cortisol awakening response" and then cortisol gradually drops over the course of the day. Whereas cortisol has a diurnal cycle, testosterone has a semidiurnal cycle. The cortisol cycle takes a few days to adjust to a disrupted sleep schedule, but renin-aldosterone activity is intimately tied to sleep phases with aldosterone dropping during REM sleep and rising during non-REM sleep. The hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis and renin-angiotensin-aldosterone axis are both related to mental disorders and perhaps bipolar disorder particularly. Don't forget that we probably aren't the only organisms with these internal cycles. We are immersed in and dependent upon the entire ecosystem. Of course our modern world provides more ways to block out these natural cycles, but not everybody takes advantage of this. Those noisy rascles nextdoor might start waking you up sooner when the sun starts rising sooner. The seasonal cycles have more obvious effects that could explain the popularity of "sun-sign" astrology, which uses the month of your birth, but I wouldn't entirely discount the moon phases. People might prefer to stay out late at the beach when there is a giant night-light in the sky creating giant waves. On the other hand, they might prefer the new moon so that they will not be seen. It was thought that womens' menstrual cycles were tied to the moon phases, but this effect, if it were ever real at all, might be weakening as women utilize the power of birth control. But I repeat. Astrology relies on much, much more than the seasons and moon phases, most of which could not be accounted for by modern astrophysics.

I would think maniacs would be more interested in adventure than the depressed, but the two mood states may not be opposites but in fact weakly correlated. The mixed state may be the most dangerous mood state. I imagine some of the overlap may be due to overactivity of the stress response system, the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis (so named because left-to-right each region or gland releases a hormone that stimulates the next region/gland). Depressive and manic symptoms are not opposite poles in bipolar disorder. (Johnson, Morriss, Scott, Paykel, Kinderman, Kolamunnage-Dona, Bental, 2010) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20825373 I would think an overactive DMN would lead to a suppressed EAN and suppressed interest in math and science, but maybe focusing on math and science could be a healthy strategy for making the DMN "shut the @#$% up".

Astoundingly, I forgot to include this. Social and Mechanical Reasoning Inhibit Eachother (Scott Barry Kaufman of PsychologyToday) https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beautiful-minds/201211/social-and-mechanical-reasoning-inhibit-each-other I should add. Schizophrenics also have a lack of social interest, although this is a "negative symptom" and inhaled oxytocin is especially useful in treating their negative symptoms. However, autism is the condition associated with interest in math and science. Thus activation of the EAN in autism could be the key. DMN activity is important to depression research. I don't know what the research says, but I do know that depression is often described as a "turning inward" that implies greater DMN activation. Here are a few links in case you want to know more. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3289336/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3935731/

The only condition I know to be related to interest in science is the autism spectrum, which is still not described all that well and seems to have broader and narrower conceptualizations. Some argue that, in addition to Asperger's syndrome and autistic disorder, the spectrum should also include Pervasive Development Disorder (PDD) or even Childhood Disintegrative Disorder. It has been conceptualized as three-dimensional: social deficits, verbal ability deficits, and repetitive behaviors & restricted interests. I am not sure exactly which explains the interest in science. Being less interested in social behavior and less affected by peer pressure, perhaps they prefer concrete subject matters to the socially derived trivialities of small talk: fashion trends, fictional media, gossip, etc. They are more prone to depression, but I am not sure how this would be related, but both depression and autism appear to be connected with oxytocinergic abnormalities that impair the capacity to enjoy social interaction.

This idea is essentially astrology. Astrology was paired with astronomy since the beginning of civilization, but modern astrology is hardly like the style of astrology that was predominant at least as far back as Ptolemy (100-170 AD). These astrologers thought they could predict events by how the planets were be aligned. They used ecliptic longitude because most of the planets in our solar system move along this plane, and they looked at the angle that was formed by two planets with Earth as the vertex. In this system, the full moon is an "opposition" (180 degrees) of the sun and the moon. At some point astrologers switched to personality readings to avoid the persecution associated with being a fortune teller. These full moon ideas are probably a remanent of this obselete science. Some celestial bodies do clearly influence our affairs. The sun determines our seasons as it traverses the plane of the ecliptic each year. The seasons influence sun exposure, food availability, the tides, etc. This doesn't mean the other 99% of astrology is accurate.