Kygron

don't give up! you can train your brain to do anything! just don't forget to see your dentist

I recently dislocated my shoulder (remind me NOT to stray from the subject...). I remember a nurse in the hospital mentioning how much pain I was in. I was really surprized when she said this! I didn't consider myself in pain at all. It was more like extreme discomfort (pain? lol). I was conciously aware that all those feelings came from the fact that my muscles were streched out. If it weren't for simple stretched muscles I knew that I wouldn't be in pain at all. Perhaps this was an example of my mind NOT recognizing pain? Clearly I appeared to be in pain. I was actually facinated (at the time) by the fact that my muscles kept right along with feeling streched instead of pretending for the moment that this was normal.

He probably means that there's a quantom mechanical limit to the amount of information that can be stored within a fixed volume. Of course to me, when talking about the brain, a storage capacity of 10 lifetimes would be infinite I think the spirit of this thread is more: What fraction of the entire data, along with all the intermediate mental processing, of a person's lifetime can the brain store? Since I'm thinking about it, I'll propose another: What fraction of the complete store of knowedge available is able to be accessed and processed durring any one period of time? Simmilarly, how much knowledge must be archived (for a different thinking session), in order for the most usefull information to be readilly available? Ooh! Another! : What fraction of total memory can be accessed "instantaneously" (by that I mean, within a reasonable amount of time as apposed to an hour later when you have to go back and figure out why you wanted the memory in the first place). Edit: These last two are not the same, the first deals with "efficient thinking" and the second with "memory accessability". I'm posting this edit because apon re-reading I thought I had repeated myself!

Is there a difference between being in a superpostion of states and being in an unknown but definite state? If measuring forces a random state, how do we know that that state didn't exist in the first place? This is mostly about entangles pairs, but I suppose it could apply to single particles as well.

Is this a new idea? It seems to fit in to what I know. Except #2. I don't think that's right.

Is there any rule that says that one memory is "overwritten" it must take on the latter value? I'm getting a vague idea that maybe a group of neurons can remember many different things depending on the "context" or "frame of mind" or something else like that.

Are we supposed to explain our answers in this area? it's 40

That's where I made my mistake, the third person DOES count. He would have been treated differently, thus his probability is undefined and allows the probabilities of the other two to add up to greater than 100%. thanks for clarifying!

Wow, you're trying to do SCIENCE and everyone just wants to tell you about ETHICS! Chemicals and the ability to control life are far more interesting than what you would ever actually DO with that power, right? However, many different people seem to believe that those topics ARE important to your paper, or they wouldn't be suggesting them to you. They really are trying to help you. I suggest you add another section to your paper. "The ethics of widespread behavioral modification" or something along those lines. I'm NOT telling you what to write in that section. I'm asking you to do the research yourself. Do it however you want to, but do it. Your peers will consider you far more mature if you approach the problem from ALL angles! I will also challenge you. If for some reason you discover that you don't want to continue the research for ethical reasons, DON'T LET THAT STOP YOU! Research ignored for ethical reasons just leaves it open for a unethical person to continue. Potential problems should always be dealt with as they arise, not put off until someone forgets it and ends up causing the problem! But please, deal with the problems by adding a section on ethics to your paper. If that's uninteresting, then ask a friend to do that section and submit the whole thing as a joint effort.

the operators allow you to do two things at once, which makes typing easier, but when it's compiled it'll be two (or more) operations anyway. I say give your readers a break, type it on 2 lines for clarity!! What, no one will ever read your code? hehe, until you try and read it yourself next week and can't figure out what you were trying to do....

Here are my personal thoughts on this: First, technology defined as "similar to our own" is too general. For example, you might say that complex social groups (read: government, military structure) are technology. In this case, many insects are very intellegent, as they have these things down pat. I'll assume you mean advanced versions of the tool-making technologies, and intellegence as highly adaptive and complex individule intellegence. I'd like to propose that physical environment plays only a small role in the development of intellegence. This role is mostly in resources and motivational factors. I'll lead my discussion away from these, but keep in mind that having a hand (a resource) makes it much easier to hold a tool, and finding food (a motivation) is very usefull in getting a population to migrate. My thoughts are that technology and intellegence are results of highly evolved behavior. (Complex) behavior is a result of a highly evolved organism. By highly evolved I mean adaptable, not just well adapted to a purpose. The human body is highly evolved because, even without our technology, we can survive in far more environments than most other life forms. I believe we got to be so adaptable because we changed environments many times over our evolution. As we adapted to each new environment we retained adaptations to previous ones. This process must have happened so many times that complex behavior began to be more beneficial, since the evolution of behavior is far quicker than the evolution of organisms. Humans became a master of nothing, but a "jack of all trades". Behavior evolves in a similar way as an organism. First a new behavior is created for a new enviorment. Then, while bio-evolution is just beggining its work, traditions are established for dealing with that one environment. These traditions act as organisms well fit for a purpose, making the organism very efficient at what it does. But to evolve intellegence I said that the behavior must be highly adaptive. Here's where people may be confused. Isn't behavior defined as adaptive? No, behavior is a way for an organism to be adaptive. "Finding food", "mating", etc. are all behaviors, but my words for them are the same no matter what environment the organism is in! To be adaptable behavior you need, for example, language, formation (not existance) of a social structure, novel tool creation, and intellegence. Intellegence works for behavior the same way behavior works for an organism. It allows quick behavior changes in order to adapt to a changing environment. An environment such as: Missionariess have just come and converted a whole population to a new religion, and that population must now change everything they knew within one generation! You see how this "behavioral environment" is diffenent from a physical one? Now to directly answer the topic question... Intellegence evolves when the environment provides the resources and motivation for a behavior set to require quick changes. (Complex) behavior evolves then the environment provides the resources and motivation for an organism to require quick adaptations. I doubt that the overall environment matters much. Temp, gravity, etc.... as long a SOME organism evolves adaptability, you still have your chance. Same thing with the "behavioral environment", religion, art, sports, or lack thereof doesn't matter as much as the fact that massive change leads to a way to manage it all! I'm sorry, I end up writing essays, but this is the only forum I currently know of to express my views. Please feel free to "set me straight" if my facts are wrong, or better yet, lead me to where I'll fit in better!

if some hypothetical creature were to evolve a nuclear engine, perhaps after millenia of fierce competition on its home world, suddenly the idea of fuel is changed completely. It would have so much free time (not spent collecting energy as most creatures do) that it would probably jump from world to world on a whim! -- until its hatch opens and a human walks out... lol, but I really was being serious.

Lol I just tryed to post almost the EXACT same opening post as 5614 but in a different section because I didn't realize this was here (i'm new). My sole difference was: Now that we've debunked some things that LOOKED like speed violations, are there any other examples or, better, types of examples, that anyone can think of offhand? Any other myths that need to be dealt with? Oh, we're in the modern section, so I'll start off. Quantum entanglement: Myth or info faster than light speed? (if I've posted in the wrong place again just link me and ignore me please)

I'm quite upset that my post got attached to this thread. Maybe I misunderstand the forum rules, but I had intended to start a topic about RELATIVITY and not be grouped into a topic about chemicals and the brain. The fact that I quoted from this thread was that swansont's statement about relativity (originally just an example) was interesting in it's own right and I was hoping to discuss it outside of its relavence to this thread. I'm an amature to all this. I see this forum as a way to discuss ideas in less technical terms than in purely techincal papers (which I often don't have the vocabulary to understand). If I had wanted a question answered I would have asked directly or looked it up myself. Instead I wanted to DISCUSS the reasons why realativity holds true even in the face of special phenomina. I was hoping someone might have some better examples because I have no clue how to look up this sort of thing. swansont: I'll try to be nice, but we're in the original thread now... take a look, there's no links! 5614: thank you for the links, the first was an excellent explaination of the effect. I'm sure now that we're back in this brain topic I'll never get to discuss. edit: swansont, sorry I must have been typing when you wrote the previous. I see the link now... 5614 did EXACTLY what I tryed to do. I looked in relativity for my topic, I din't think it'd be in modern when it was all based of GR. I'll read and post in that thread now, thanks. (could the mod have just added mine to his somehow?)

Would you (or anyone) mind elaborating on this example or perhaps giving others? Let us know why people might think it violates GR, and why it actually doesn't. Thanks

My feeble understanding of this subject says: Won't the radiation take the form of particles and energy emited from the collision point? That sounds just like what I've ALWAYS heard of happening. You throw particles together at high speed, they "do their thing" and then you get other particles that you study to try and decode what happened. I admit I didn't read the full article, but... what's the difference between making an explosion and making a black hole that explodes?

Perhaps by the time another species evolves comparable "intellegence" to humans, humans will have evolved to the point that they embrace any like mind as one of their own. Can anyone imagine the world very similar to today's, except that different races of people are replaced by different species of intellegent beings? Do you really think that the human race would destroy other sentient beings?

The Universe? Or the Debate about it?

Reguardless of whether or not it IS life, is the fact that it most likely WILL BE life of any importance? Once the decision has been made to create life I'm not sure that the body has an equivalent natural method to stop the process.

Teasing: I'm sorry, your question falls beyond the boundaries of GR and I would be unable to answer it in that context. Please post in a more apropriate forum.

You're extending your problem, so we'll extend the solution. Instead of 2 axes, you really need 2 axes PER variable. Parabolas require 2 variables, so your gunna need 2x2=4 axes to graph it properly this way. Since it's nearly imposible to think in 4 dimentions, I suggest you restrict one of the variables to the real numbers and graph the parabola as a curved plane in 3D space. For y<real> = x<complex>^2 you get a "saddle" centered at the origin (I'm pretty sure, but didn't really do it). This may sound really complex, and that's the reason it's not done very often, it's just too difficult to visualize 4 dimentions.