andrewcellini

what have you proven right? "every religion can connect to each other" in what sense are they connected? this statement is too vague to follow up. some religions are connected by history and geography (judaism and islam) but i don't think that's what you meant. "every religion can explain the existence of the universe" god created the universe, spiderman created the universe, brian boitano created the universe, these all have NO explanatory power. the only question that is being answered is "who created the universe?" which may or may not be a meaningless one.

you dream in more than just pictures, so there's no reason to think they wouldn't have dreams; their dreams simply would be lacking visual content. typical reported dream content contains whatever senses have existed from birth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream

is this toxic by the same pathway as cyanide? what i mean is it capable of inhibiting cytochrome c oxidase? in relation to chronic cyanide poisoning, is there a low end dose where one could repetitively consume it without ill effects (perhaps in occasional cigarette/cigar smokers)? the konzo case seems to be on the other extreme end. the cassava plants that they are consuming can have upwards of 1 g/kg or cyanide, especially when the plant is grown in drought conditions. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC35028/

in extremely small doses? on average, doses as low as 1.52 mg/kg can be a fatal dose in humans. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp8-c3.pdf

so what of the attempts to demonstrate the aether's existence which aided its falsification and the development of SR? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment how do you reconcile this?

Rabies Virus ( of the genus lyssavirus) is a negative sense single stranded rna virus and is one of the viral causes of rabies in humans. Has a short incubation period of about 4 days and can take as long as 12 weeks for the first symptoms. Aside from flu like symptoms, aggression, confusion and partial paralysis can also occur. "Death almost always occurs 2 to 10 days after first symptoms." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabies#Cause http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK8618/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabies_virus#Life_cycle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophiocordyceps_unilateralisyou could make something much more sinister than this

Why? How did you derive this?

yes 1 eV is energy however, 1 eV/c^2 is a unit of mass derived from mass energy equivalence.

why do you think they would remain unchanged? assuming there are reproducing survivors with all the new selective pressures they're exposed to they will probably evolve. but the surviving organisms continued to change. if they didn't why would we be here?

what do you mean by information?

i realize that, but i was kind of hoping for the op to respond to see if anything he is trying to introduce is intelligible besides the "math" above.

would like some clarification on the introduction of this "energial constant" concept. as this has been asked and hasn't been answered, what is meant by "energial?"

energy is a property of systems and objects, not an independent substance or object. is there pure charge?

if you could summarize your ideas to a more digestible form that would be appreciated. not everyone has time to read essays.

is there any other advantage to high conductivity besides faster propagation of action potential (in this case faster response of siphon to flee)?

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/High-conductance_state#Models_of_high-conductance_states trying to find a paper on dynamic core hypothesis (not a theory my mistake) i can link for you to read in full and having a bit of trouble. one of the authors is giulio tononi. edit: found one http://wiki.dxarts.washington.edu/sandbox/groups/general/wiki/6746a/attachments/2b0a6/Tononi-Edelman%20Science-1998-.pdf?sessionID=a4ebd3f43afa7fffb5c21749aed42be63973d1df

Are there any theories which directly relate these two, that this feature of neurons could be necessary for consciousness to emerge? I've read high conductance states are found in thalamocortical radiations and I vaguely remember thalamocortical radiations being implicated in consciousness in another theory (dynamic theory?).

I'm sure he did because you're quoted in the op from stranges other thread.

there's nothing really meaningful either. you made the assertion that metaphysical theories are logically indefensible without clear reasoning as to why you accept this. you essentially have a rhetorical tautology rather than a real argument. i hope it really didn't take ten years to reach this conclusion. how does this answer questions pertaining to metaphysics? it seems to outright ignore them.

isn't a prediction the existence of a universal wavefunction? i read that somewhere i think, trying to find the source.

the hard part is the only "interesting" part of the entire problem. the entire problem is a matter of philosophy and science and is lacking a strong theoretical base. you must admit that dismissing qualia as they are currently defined is one way to approach the problem. i don't see how this can be misconstrued with faith.

it is an explanation of consciousness, it just doesn't account for all properties of consciousness (the hard problems of consciousness). it describes how an object physically can be demonstrated to be conscious. dennett denies the existence of qualia as defined as "ineffable and untestable" which is to say he does not think that it is a real thing because they are inherently subjective objects, or are conceived to be. he argues that qualia are just difficult to explain in detail to satisfy perception in a conscious agent.

i've always viewed philosophy as a progenitor of inclination towards something, or to produce a new way of looking at a problem. without philosophy progress seems bleak and misguided. i don't know of any direct impact philosophy has had on solution of problems not that there aren't any examples.

buddha described his conceptions very vaguely using mystical imagery and there is no empirical support to his ideas. compare this with dennett's multiple drafts theory which is actually testable and falsifiable. how can you say the buddha has any good philosophy when the bulk is assertion from revelation (or rather, meditation) and is also guilty of sophistry?