Prometheus

It is a bit weird to send out of the blue (at least it's a nice picture - i was expecting worse). It might be innocent - i have a circle of friends who share some pretty gross stuff (i know the meaning of some words i can never unlearn, try as i might). It might be an advance. It might be sent by mistake? The most important thing is that it is making you feel uncomfortable so it needs to stop. Can you tell your friend it's not acceptable? Might continue otherwise.

Should clarify - induced hypothermia is not used during an arrest, it would interfere with the effectiveness of the drugs given and would be impractical to achieve anyway. It's only done after the heart starts beating again. But yeah, why not try. I just found it slightly uncomfortable. Everyone has some things they don't like doing, this was one of mine.

Yeah, that's one of the parameters. Approx. 3 mins at normal body temperature. Always hated putting ice packs on people - it just felt wrong.

The brain is the most sensitive organ to ischaemia, i think 3 minutes before irreversible damage. But that's the point of chest compressions in CPR - you are trying to force blood to the brain until the heart starts beating again. How long someone can be kept alive by doing this depends on many parameters. By artificial heart machine do you mean a bypass machine? These are only used for relatively short periods during heart surgery, not in CPR. More common is to use inotropes and other drugs to support the heart post arrest (the heart needs to be beating). Intensive care units are full of people on respirators though, and can be kept alive for ages. I agree it's grim, i'd rather be allowed to die if there is little prospect of a good recovery. An EMT will try to get your heart beating if possible, but otherwise will try to keep your brain perfused by CPR until they can get you to more definitive treatment. Most EMTs in the UK are trained to intubate but there is debate in the profession whether it is better to attempt such things or just get a patient to hospital ASAP.

A word isn't necessarily exactly the same as any of its synonyms: else why would the English language have such a diverse pool of words to choose from. I agree that faith and trust both require us to believe something. The subtlety here is that faith compels us to believe something regardless of the evidence. Science asks us to believe something so long as it accords with the evidence.

I think it's the assumption of laziness that comes across as rather unedifying. Imatfaal perhaps couldn't be bothered to find a list, but i think it safe to assume the grammatical error was just a simple mistake.

I think that first sum is related to the Riemann Hypothesis, or at least the zeta function, and i believe uses a different summation method - i don't know nearly enough to comment further though. The second case is just a manifestation of it being possible that probability zero events can occur. This is uncontroversial, if somewhat clumsy language. I'd go further and say that without infinity, particularly the idea of limits, statistics would be unable to progress beyond it's state several centuries ago. The Law of Large Numbers and the Central Limit Theorem are absolutely fundamental to probability theory and both rely on asymptotic results. Are you saying these theorems are incorrect and we should throw away the last few centuries of statistical knowledge reliant on them?

No, i'm saying it depends on the general health of the person, how soon and how well CPR is administered after the event and whether you mind being a vegetable upon resuscitation. There isn't a definitive cut-off point: the resus team will decide how long to continue CPR case by case.

It also acts as a growth hormone, which is why mothers with gestational diabetes will have larger babies at delivery.

Acknowledge the Quran is not a credible source on biology (or science in general). Why don't you just learn some actual astrophysics? That way you can decide upon the accuracy of the Quran for yourself rather than trying to confirm what you already believe with pseudo-science.

Greek and Roman knowledge was far superior than some book telling bees to make homes. Aristotle classified 540 animal species, and dissected at least 50. Quranic scripture was near a 1000 year step backwards even when it was first written. And it's a little discourteous to 'explain the things the way i see it for at least once', then not respond to people who attend your platform. Would you at least try answering some of the questions and points put to you? Else why are you on discussion forum?

In turn: What is the 'usual spirituality'? Why does it need an alternative? Science is not a democracy: consensus may form a parliament but evidence is a dictator. Nothing wrong with coming up with better ideas: let's look forward to new and better ideas then, rather than clutching to the past. It mostly still relied on Greek and Roman knowledge in the Western world. Unsure about other civilisations. What has this got to do with God did it alternatives to evolutionary theory?

So because people believe in Scientology there must be something correct about our souls being possessed by aliens. Right? You better go to auditing (please don't). Humans can construct cubes, therefore 'Allah did it' is a viable alternative to evolution? You will have to run that by me again. Science is a process, not an object we can directly look at. Microscopes might be a symbol of science, but they are not science, just as stethoscopes are a symbol of medicine, but they themselves are not medicine. It's interesting that the second nation that will stop teaching evolution is Turkey another Muslim country (Saudi Arabia being the first). I thought the USA would win that dubious honour. Trying to conflate science and religion is a bad idea. You hold science back. You hold religion back. You keep humanity in the dark ages.

Depends on the general health of the person, how soon and how well CPR was administered after the event and whether you mind being a vegetable upon resuscitation. Longest i've seen is about 2 hours, but then he died so not sure that counts. Interestingly doctors are more likely to not want to receive CPR. A pre-cordial thump - basically a punch to the sternum - will occasionally work, depending on the underlying arrhythmia. Yes. Just about everything else you do in an arrest is just to keep a person alive before a defib works. I forget the details but old defibs send unidirectional currents through the chest, while newer, better, ones send bidirectional. However, Automated External Defibs are everywhere now. They are used by ambulances and in hospital in most arrests - manual defibs are only used in particular circumstances. I'd guess that the ease of use and ubiquity of these machines has saved more people than any recent technological improvements. A shot of adrenaline (maybe other drugs) can sometimes jolt the heart into an arrhythmia that can be shocked. Good CPR is needed until then.

The link between the development of intelligence and meat consumption is irrelevant to the debate of whether we should continue to eat meat. Unless the claim is that we need to consume meat in order to realise our potential intelligence? In questions of ethics emotional responses are perfectly valid. There may be rational reasons to protect children from abuse, say, but emotional reasons are in people's thoughts when they see it. Why should issues of animal welfare be exempt from our emotional reach? Perhaps a more compelling reason to reduce meat consumption is the development of antibiotic resistance - i can't imagine meat producers will change practices unless there is heavy consumer selection. p

I came across this paper which explains confidence regions quite well, particularly chapter 3, and references Seber and Wild. I'm still not sure why the F distribution describes the joint sampling of the regression coefficients though: maybe the ratio of normal distributions. But don't think of it as generating two values of t*•SE. It's rather that independently finding the CI of each regression coefficient like this will give a confidence region, which is a multivariate extension of a CI. So where you can visualise a CI as two limits on a line around a point estimate, a confidence region for two regression coefficient estimates will be a rectangle around a point, a cube for 3 regression coefficient estimates, a hypercube for more... We would want the property that if we have so found the 95% CI for each regression coefficient then the hypercube for all regression coefficients will contain the true population parameter 95% of the time (on average). Seber et al. are claiming this is not the case, that finding the 95% CIs separately and just putting them together does not result in a 95% confidence region, because there is a correlation between the regression coefficients that has not been taken into account. Other methods are needed, and the F-test method is apparently one of the better ones. I'll check for the references you gave later to see if i can get to the bottom of the F-distribution mystery.

Not come across supporting plane limits before so had to read around a little. K must simply be the number of parameters you are estimating: in the univariate case you are only estimating one parameter and the supporting plane method reduces to the univariate case. When k=p with, p>1, you are estimating the parameters in the model taking into account any correlation between the those parameters. Exactly how this is calculated i'm not sure, the only sources i could quickly find were not particularly illuminating, just saying it was computationally expensive, but i'd guess it makes use of the Mahalanobis distance. Are the books you are using available online?

Referred pain? Like when people feel pain in their left shoulder and/or jaw when having a heart attack.

Can you give an example of a probability problem involving infinity that gives two correct and inconsistent answers?

Just to spell it out, it is very unlikely anyone, including you, has got through life without letting someone down. More likely is that you have let people down and not even noticed. This is too easy to do, especially when you are focused on what everyone else is doing wrong and overlooking what is done or left undone by yourself. This isn't a slight on you at all, it's just part of being human. The first time a loved one lets you down can be quite brutal, but nothing compared to the first time you realise you have let someone you love down. But if you really have got through life without letting anyone else down, then really you must tell us how to do it. The rest of us are not so perfect.

Depends how we define religion, particularly whether theism is integral to it. It's just an analogy, don't stretch it too far or you'll end up as confused as Deepak Chopra. Let's say that life, and even consciousness, is simply some pattern arising from a particular configuration of matter. Death then would be the cessation of such a pattern. But the patterns don't exist in isolation, they arose from preceding conditions, they dance with other patterns never remaining exactly the same from one moment to the next. And even after a pattern has gone it's echoes linger. It is most common in Buddhism to interpret these echoes as ones karma which goes on to form a new consciousness. I don't understand this particular teaching, it's almost as is Buddhism teaches the illusory nature of an absolute self in life, but the primacy of self in death. To my mind, the ripples i have caused may go on to form a conscious pattern in the future, but that pattern is not me. The second quote sums it quite well for me. I'd just say that bliss isn't some rapturous ecstasy, it's more ordinary. After enlightenment, the laundry. Zen. They have the most comfortable meditation cushions. I'd go to a Thai Forest temple of there were one close to me.

No, not psychic abilities. I think people here would agree that there is no permanent self, no soul, no ghost in the machine, but still experience life as though they are a homunculus sitting behind the eyes. It is one thing to have an intellectual understanding that this is an illusion, quite another to feel it. Buddhism provides a means to feel this. Like i said before, Buddhism teaches rebirth not reincarnation. Enlightenment, or Nirvana, is a state of mind. I agree. It has been implied (perhaps on similar threads) that atheists are intellectually superior to religious people. Forgive me if i have falsely accused you of this. I agree: religious people are often so because of inertia, while atheists have usually had to rebel against a majority view. This will change as atheism spreads: people will not believe simply because of the influence of people around them. Humans seek meaning. We know the world through our brains which, amongst other things, is an organ of meaning. It is as natural for the brain to think as the heart to beat. I don't need to study past mathematics: i could just start from scratch and maybe i'll figure out Pythagoras's Theorem by the time i die. Or i could study known maths and perhaps contribute something new. Similarly, i could seek meaning from scratch. Or i could take the various insights gleaned through the centuries, some of which are bound in religious narratives. Buddhism provides me with a nice framework from which to explore my existence: i could do without it, but since it's there and i've found it useful i may as well use it. We could do, i think it's only me arguing otherwise. See, religious people can rebel too.

We are a highly social species and to have an idea about others, we need an idea of self. Perhaps it is little more than that.

What else do you think being Buddhist entails? It also makes my life a little easier. Few people i meet understand why a white male doesn't drink, and everyone thinks they will be the one to drag me off the wagon. Failure is met by questioning why. Not enjoying it is apparently not an acceptable answer so i say i'm Buddhist, and apparently that explains it to their satisfaction. But we need a thread on the definition of religion and what constitutes a religious person to explore further. It's the treatment of religion as one homogeneous entity that i'm arguing against. I fully acknowledge the ugly aspects of various religions. It's just some people do not acknowledge any positive aspects. I would say that such a treatment is actually exacerbating the polarisation you lament, not improving it. It's just an 'us vs them' mentality because, well, you know, religious people are so stoopid and atheists are just intellectually better.

You're making sense, to me at least. I'm still often so amazed i exist at all it makes my heart flutter. Maybe your dissonance results from you trying to imagine what that nothingness after death is like? By definition oblivion is not something we can experience, so any thoughts of it will not be it. But the brain insists on trying. I also share your curiosity about the experience of dying: it may be the last thing i ever experience, and i would like to see the face of death, however fleetingly, before i fade.