gib65

I agree with the Cap'n. Whether or not pills are the right therapy really depends on the person seeking treatment. In Photon Gurl's case, however, it sounds like some good ol' fashion talk-therapy would do the trick. It sounds like she's suffering from past abuse - not some genetic or chemical disposition. She also seems to be very emotional and it sounds like her emotions sometimes get the better part of her. This may be hereditary, and for that drugs *might* be needed. But I think if she can get herself back on her feet (with or without therapy), only then is she under the right conditions to judge whether or not her emotions are too overbearing not to require medical intervention.

Well, I'm being kind of cynical here. I'm thinking along the lines of how humans have a track record for terrorizing other animals and harming the environments they live in. If another, more intelligent, species had any interest in us, they'd probably satisfy that interest best by intervening in our affairs inconspicuously. I'm sure they probably could partake in trade and commerce, and it might do them some good, but I'd guess they'd probably want to disguise themselves so that they blend in with us - kind of like the aliens in Men In Black (God, this is sounding stupid now ). Also, I'm not talking about a species with an average IQ of 120 or 130 - more like 200 or 300. In other words, their doing trade and commerce with us would be like us doing trade and commerce with monkeys - might be a fun experiment, but hardly profitable.

A thought occurred to me the other day; We think of ourselves as the most intelligent animals on the planet. Why? Because we compare ourselves to all other animals and come to the conclusion that we display the greatest degree of intelligent behavior in response to our environment. But then I thought of something: if there were other animals on this planet who were more intelligent than us, would they make themselves available to us for comparison and judgement? If they were more intelligent than us, they would probably have the good sense to hide from us and they would probably have the ability to do so. I'm not sure how they'd hide (this is speculation after all) or how they'd cover up their tracks - maybe they'd live underground; maybe in the oceans; maybe they're actually one of the known species like birds or dolphins but they only act oblivious as a means of staying inconspicuous. Just a thought . If there were more intelligent species living with us on Earth, would they allow themselves to be known by us?

I've got a question concerning the mobius strip. Suppose there were two Flatlanders. One goes on a journey along the mobius strip and travels 360 degree, ending up in the same spot as when he started (but on the opposite side of the strip). What will the second Flatlander see? Will he see his companion in the same spot or halfway across the universe? If he sees him in the same spot, will he see him upside down? Will he be able to pass right through him? I don't get it

Instead of thinking of what the Flatlanders "see", we should think of 2D photons affecting their 2D brains via their 2D eyes - that is, we should understand vision as the effect that photons have on our brains regardless of how many dimensions there are. With Flatlanders, the kind of "vision" this would amount to is incomprehensible - as Bee pointed out, we can't imagine a straight line without it having some thickness - but they do experience something and I think it's fair to say that this something is at least analoguous to vision. Of course, this is just a mental model - so in the end, there are no Flatlanders to experience anything. But insofar as the logic of the mental model goes, it still makes sense to talk about Flatlanders "seeing" straight lines if we think of it simply as photons effecting the brain.

You're right, it doesn't. But the idea of Flatlanders doesn't help in visualizing spacetime either. To me, these kinds of exercises give us models that we can visualize, but as such they only represent the phenomenon in question. They're also helpful in that they give us a guide to figuring out what the rules of the system are. For example, the rule about what a 3D objects passing through Flatland, like the balloon, would look like to a Flatlander helps us to understand how to visualize what a 4D object would look like passing through our 3 spatial dimensions. I think the video was cool, and really weird, but it doesn't go much beyond that for me. I've always liked String Theory, but I've never understood why it was necessarily true. I mean, very little is actually necessarily true, but I've always thought that a good scientific theory helps us to understand phenomena that we know exists but have no satisfactory explanation for. We know the 3 dimensions of space exist and we know time exists - so the concept of "spacetime" is a good scientific theory that explains how these two phenomena relate to each other, and therefore helps in our understanding of them. But beyond these 4 dimensions, there really isn't (to my mind) anything that 5, 6, or 7, or any higher number of dimensions helps to explain. I've never heard of any phenomena that requires more than 3 spatial and one temporal dimension in order to occur. That's why, to me, it seems like String Theory's positing of more than 4 dimensions is very much like Descartes' positing God in order to uphold Dualism. It's not wrong per se, but it is a rather weak move.

Well, I didn't mean to say there's anything wrong with fluoxetine. I'm sure the drug is helping you. My comment was directed more at your doctor and his motive$ in pre$cribing them. But who am I to say these things. He is a professional and maybe he knows what he's doing. What I would do, if I were you, is find another forums - one focused on psychotherapy - and ask questions. Tell them what you're doctor has been doing/saying/perscribing, and see what they say. In particular, ask about whether it sounds right for him to tell you to avoid SFN or any other community - because, to me, that sounds rediculous.

Buyer beware, I guess (that includes you too, Bee).

This is probably going sound like an odd question, but what is the function of the fornix - that structure that connects the hippocampus to the mammillary bodies and septal nucleus? Is it just to relay information or does it correspond to subjects' mental abilities/experiences?

Why not? Nature provides for whatever it needs. If it needs some mechanism by which it can count its steps, then nature will give it that.

Man, that sound heartless. Do ants feel pain?

Thanks everyone. Now I have another (related) question. Why can't one get protien from fruits and vegetables? From what I understand, meat, eggs, milk, and everything from the meat group are the source of protien. But it occurred to me that everything that undergoes mitosis must contain protien, even fruits and vegetables. It's what's required for biological growth, right? So why can't plants be a good source of protien?

What does one need in order to survive on a vegan diet? I mean, does the vegan need to take any supplements or monitor their food intake carefully? Is there anything in meat, milk, or any other food groups that's essential for health and survival that doesn't exist in the fruit & vegetable food group?

If there was a planet with bodies of water, but there was no atmosphere, could life still survive? Assume the sun that planet orbits is at the right distance. I also realize that a planet with water would also have a thin atmosphere of water vapor, but this is still less than what Earth has. Earth also has oxygen, nitrogen, and an ozone layer protecting life from harmful rays.

Yeah, I remember reading about that somewhere. I remember reading that the main difference between living in a tribal society and living in a civilization (thousands of people) is that in a tribal society, you could walk through your village and recognize everyone, whereas in a civilization you could walk downtown and recognize no one. In other words, living in a civilization is almost like living among people from different tribes. It's no wonder tensions are higher in big metropolis environments.

What the hell is this supposed to mean??? Yes, the world is getting very violent. To me, it seems like the world is becoming like a dorm that's over packed with people who can't get along. It's globalization! We are becoming so numerous and it's starting to feel like a can of sardines here. This might have been okay if we were all raised to believe in the same things and the same values and such, but we weren't. We all have different religions, different values, different points of view, and we're still holding onto our tribal instincts that tell us "We're right and everyone else is wrong!" This leads to violence in my opinion. I think we start out trying to convert each other to our "tribe's" beliefs and values by peaceful means, but when we notice that none of us want to give up our own beliefs and up bringings just because someone else tells us we're wrong, then we feel that force and coercion is necessary. This might have been okay in primitive times because if two tribes couldn't get along, they could just go back to their own territory and just stay away from each other, but with the advent of globalization and instant communication, we can't just "stay away" from each other. We're constantly in each other's faces - not literally, but through media and inter-mixed cultures, etc. We have to learn a new way of getting along. This is one of the reasons I've given up a platonist perspective of Truth. I prefer to think that no knowledge is absolutely certain knowledge. Instead of treating my beliefs as "The Truth", I treat them as "My Truth" and other people have "Their Truths" and I refrain from judging Their Truths as "wrong" or inferior to mine. Instead, I think of Their Truths as constituting a different reality, one that I can visit, like someone else's home or someone else's country. I can actually enjoy it. I can actually find it interesting or pleasant. I don't have to live there, but I can get along while I'm in there. I think if the world adopted this approach, there'd be so much less war and violence. This is notwithstanding the political and economic motives of some of our world leaders, so not ALL war and violence would be eliminated, but I certainly think the above would help.

Wow! If I every visit the spirit realm, I'll remember the seventh chacra. I wouldn't want to become Hitler. Thanks, SIP.

The optical illusions might explain the anomolies I've heard of. I think the current understanding is that quasars are galaxies - but in a infintile state, before it takes on the more familiar spiral form.

I've been reading up on quasars lately. I remember learning, a long time ago, that quasars have been observed to exhibit anomolies or natural law violations. However, I can't find anything in the current literature that suggests this. Am I remembering correctly?

Well, if it's a "sublayer", then I don't see why it wouldn't exist. Spacetime can't exist unless all the subspace layers that make it up exist as well. But if subspace is the tear in a sublayer of spacetime (or, I guess, a "hole" in 4D spacetime), then it couldn't exist. It would be a void, a pure emptiness, a nothingness. That would be my take on it, anyway.

That sounds really weird... Anyway, you (mooeypoo) say that subspace is what you get when you tear space. Is it the tear itself, or a layer of spacetime with a tear in it? Or have I missed the definition all together .

Ah, so let me see if I understand: in order for something to be a dimension in the true sense of the word, it has to be able to change independently of any other dimensions involved, and likewise for those other dimensions. So, for example, you can talk about a point in space being exactly the same point at many different times. It's the same point at 12:00, 2:00, 4:00, and so on. Likewise for time - you can talk about a certain time, like 12:00, being the same time regardless of where you are in space. But it's not so for scale, is it? You might be able to talk about the same scale at different times and points in space, and you can talk about different scales existing at the same time, but you can't talk about different scales at the same points in space. When something gets larger or smaller, it necessarily spans and greater or less amount of space. That's it! My idea crumbles!