Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search
hide menu

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Show:   Highest Rated Top Rated Newest
auto-refresh every 1 2 3 5 seconds

Per page:
Latest users (2): dodgerleeheart, misterdoctorberns, anonymous(5).
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #2480 - cognosceteipsum (07/13/2014) [-]
Apparently, rejection from peers or other people is on par with physical pain. That's just fucked up considering the world we live in. RIght now, somebody is attempting suicide. Man.
User avatar #2468 - cognosceteipsum (07/12/2014) [-]
Let's give our opinions on who spearheads what kind of science!
Neuroscience: Ramachandran and Sam Harris
Evolutionary psychology: Steven Pinker
Cosmology: Stephen Hawking or Lawrence Krauss
Mathemathics: Whatley, fill this one out for me
Psychology: Uhm... Jung? Not sure on this one. I guess I'm not sure about what to put here.
Biology: No fucking idea.
What I define as spearheading in this context is the one who had the most influential ideas most recently.
User avatar #2517 to #2468 - xtwinblade (07/19/2014) [-]
im not that good with people, but i would say Astronomy have Carl Sagan
and Physics have Einstein obviously.
User avatar #2518 to #2517 - xtwinblade (07/19/2014) [-]
scratch that. Physics has Isaac Newton.
User avatar #2471 to #2468 - leightonsolomon ONLINE (07/13/2014) [-]
He hasn't done too much recently but you could put Richard Dawkins down for biology.
User avatar #2473 to #2471 - cognosceteipsum (07/13/2014) [-]
My dad called him mediocre but I Don't agree in the slightest. He fucking invented memes. MEMES.
User avatar #2474 to #2473 - leightonsolomon ONLINE (07/13/2014) [-]
Yeah hes a badass. If you havent yet, you should watch his talks and debates on youtube.
User avatar #2475 to #2474 - cognosceteipsum (07/13/2014) [-]
Seen a few, he kicks ass. I don't get what the hatred is for. Stupid and annoying. EVERY TIME you search something about someone famous like that on youtube you get
"xDxDXD recherd dewkrns sux"
"dxdxdxdx evilution = fake dxdxxdx"
only the few nuggets of gold (the actual debates and talks with him)
User avatar #2476 to #2475 - leightonsolomon ONLINE (07/13/2014) [-]
Mostly because of angry religious people mad at his Militant Atheism policy.
Richard Dawkins: Militant atheism
User avatar #2477 to #2476 - cognosceteipsum (07/13/2014) [-]
Ah yes. Growing really tired of people like that, c'moooooooon. Why are you so afraaaaaid? Jeez. It's really depressing too.

I mean, fuck, I believe in God but not the God of the Bible, Qur'an or any other holy book for that matter. It is quite obvious that those books were just a representation of our barbaric past
User avatar #2482 to #2477 - leightonsolomon ONLINE (07/13/2014) [-]
Ah I see. Are you deist? That sounds like Deism to me. I'm personally agnostic just because theres no way to know, plus thats what Einstein, Bill Nye, Michio Kaku, Neil de Grasse Tyson, etc, are.
User avatar #2483 to #2482 - cognosceteipsum (07/13/2014) [-]
Probably agnostic or deist. I must admit, I have a bit personal bias since my life has been pretty hard.
User avatar #2484 to #2483 - leightonsolomon ONLINE (07/13/2014) [-]
I see, what do you mean exactly?
User avatar #2485 to #2484 - cognosceteipsum (07/13/2014) [-]
My life is full of anxiety right now and there's been a heck of a lot of moments where I might have died and I didn't, so I'm slightly biased towards the idea of there being a god on the factor of fear of death and happy for fortune.
User avatar #2486 to #2485 - leightonsolomon ONLINE (07/13/2014) [-]
I feel you. Many people need to believe in something. A lot of people are afraid of the lack of an afterlife, but you have to remember that once you die theres nothing technically. No happiness, thats true, but also no sadness. "You" meaning you're conciousness, dont exist. Theres nothing to be afraid of though, I mean you didnt exist for 13 billion years, itll be just like before you were born. So I wouldnt let you're fear limit the truth, as Richard Dawkins says it best, "There is a difference between what is comforting, and what is true." The thought of there not being a god is kinda scary sometimes I know, but its also exciting. It means theres so much we dont know and so much we still have to discover. you're anxiety will pass in time, the same happened for me. Live up this time you have on earth and dont let the fear of death dictate you're beliefs.
User avatar #2487 to #2486 - cognosceteipsum (07/13/2014) [-]
Definitely. But a f fallacy I feel many atheists do is "just because it's uncomfortable doesn't make it true"

It's a small confirmation bias on their side too, I'd say. I believe in souls for the moment. I'm not sure, but that's why I enjoy life almost every day rather than dwell on the fact I'm going to die. I think it's also kind of arrogant for people to worry that much about their death, as if they were the center of the universe.
User avatar #2455 - whatley ONLINE (07/12/2014) [-]
The only true way to judge a system is efficiency.

User avatar #2500 to #2455 - nsfwcontent ONLINE (07/15/2014) [-]
What about quality? (as well as efficiency of course)
Doesn't really matter how efficient the process is if the end product is total garbage.
User avatar #2466 to #2455 - xsnowshark (07/12/2014) [-]
What kind of system?
User avatar #2467 to #2466 - whatley ONLINE (07/12/2014) [-]
Any system. Efficiency seems to be the only non-subjective trait I can think of.
User avatar #2470 to #2467 - Mortuus ONLINE (07/12/2014) [-]
You'd have to first define every aspect that contributes to and against the efficiency of the system.

The coal mine was a decent example.
User avatar #2463 to #2455 - cognosceteipsum (07/12/2014) [-]
I mean, if they're 1000 people, the foreman might figure "What's wrong with letting two or three people die? It won't halt the efficiency."
User avatar #2469 to #2463 - Mortuus ONLINE (07/12/2014) [-]
In that scenario, the mine's owner could be sued by the families and friends of the lost, thereby reducing the overall efficiency of the operation.
User avatar #2478 to #2469 - cognosceteipsum (07/13/2014) [-]
What if it didn't get out that he did it out of neglect? He could've just said something like "uhm... they disappeared while we were in the deeper shafts."
User avatar #2462 to #2455 - cognosceteipsum (07/12/2014) [-]
Not really. A coal mine could be efficient as Hell, but still let people die.
User avatar #2453 - fuccthedevil (07/11/2014) [-]
Hey you smart fucks:

Why is is it that when you fall asleep, it still feels like time has passed when you wake up? Why doesn't it feel like the moment you go fully into sleep, you wake up just as quickly?

It's really hard to explain this thought, so I hope you understand what I'm asking. Google wasn't any help at all.
User avatar #2456 to #2453 - vgmddg ONLINE (07/12/2014) [-]
Even when you're asleep, your body still has a biological clock that keeps track of time passing. Just because you're asleep doesn't mean this clock stops. Why do you think you can sense the passage of time even when you're awake?

Bioexplain can give you a more specific explanation probably.
User avatar #2465 to #2456 - bioexplain (07/12/2014) [-]
Short answer is that your circadian oscillators drive the mechanism of what you are talking about. There are 3 major components: A central oscillator with a period of about 24 hours that keeps time, a series of input pathways to this central oscillator to allow entrainment (basically synchronizing your "clock") and a series of output pathways tied to distinct phases of the oscillator that regulate overt rhythms in biochemistry, physiology, and behavior throughout an organism.
User avatar #2457 to #2456 - fuccthedevil (07/12/2014) [-]
I mean, it's kinda bullshit, you know? Why do we even need sleep if our brains are still running at -at least- half capacity. That's not rest!
User avatar #2464 to #2457 - bioexplain (07/12/2014) [-]
If your brain wasn't running at all, you'd be dead. Something needs to keep all our organs working. We need periods of rest because it's damaging to both our bodies and our minds if we don't. Running anything at full capacity constantly is going to wear it down quickly. The human body is no different.
#2460 to #2457 - thedeadpidgeon (07/12/2014) [-]
There's a lot of different things our brain does when it's asleep. Think about it this way. over the day, your brain has to focus on actually doing things. Moving, talking, forming thoughts into words. Every action you do takes processing power. Over that time, thoughts can get cluttered. Sleep is when your brain shuts down all the bigger bodily functions to focus on sorting through thoughts and building up things like your immune system. Don't think of it as shutting down for the night, think of it as repurposing your processing power for different tasks.
User avatar #2459 to #2457 - vgmddg ONLINE (07/12/2014) [-]
Sleep: Why We Need It and What Happens Without It
User avatar #2449 - robotekk ONLINE (07/11/2014) [-]
I'm trying to find the name of this type of morality test:

Two thieves are captured by the cops after committing some crimes, but there is very little proof for what they did.
Both thieves have a choice to either rat out their accomplice or declare him innocent.
If both thieves indict the other, they both go to jail for 5 years.
If only one thief indicts the other, the former goes free but the latter gets 20 years in jail.
if they both say the other is innocent, they're both set free with no penalty.

Anyone know anything about this? A similar concept with a different story, maybe? Something I could look up on Wikipedia? It seems interesting.
User avatar #2450 to #2449 - whatley ONLINE (07/11/2014) [-]
Prisoner's dilemma, there are lots of variation and the numbers may differ slightly but that's the general concept you're looking for.

It's not really anything to do with morality though, it's an exercise to demonstrate the applicability of game theory.
User avatar #2451 to #2450 - robotekk ONLINE (07/11/2014) [-]
Thanks, I think I learned about it in an ethics course so I thought it was morality.
User avatar #2452 to #2451 - whatley ONLINE (07/11/2014) [-]
No problem.
User avatar #2447 - cognosceteipsum (07/11/2014) [-]
Apparently, we're soft wired (I think it was) for compassion and empathy thanks to our mirror neurons. Turns out it IS right, it's the world(culture, religion and upbringing) that determine such things. Damn though, the implications are that we ALL go through a big amount of negativity from birth on. Few people actually 'wake up' to the reality that it feels much better to be compassionate and nice.

Oh yeah, and then there's the stigma. If you don't want to shove your happy sausage into a girl, you have no business being nice to her. If you're nice without expecting anything back, then you're BETA! I hate that thing. Beta. Labeling people who are depressed "beta" and making them feel even worse about themselves. This calls for optimism though. You ought to think more about the animals you eat daily. I want to come up with some way to raise cattle without a nervous system or something, idk, it's a work in progress.
#2472 to #2447 - xxxsonic fanxxx (07/13/2014) [-]
its called cultured meat, been in the works for years now, its meat without animals
User avatar #2479 to #2472 - cognosceteipsum (07/13/2014) [-]
Oh, alright. How's that working out now again?
User avatar #2436 - sushininja (07/10/2014) [-]
I have a small ant problem in my kitchen but my dad doesn't want to use Bug Killer because of the smell. Whats another solution?
#2448 to #2436 - quatre (07/11/2014) [-]
make a simple syrup of sugar and borax (thats all ant poison is) and leave for the ants in something shallow like tupperware lids or cut dixie cups. leave in locations by doors and windows
User avatar #2440 to #2436 - Mortuus ONLINE (07/11/2014) [-]

Also liquid with a very high alcohol concentration.

Why not both?
User avatar #2434 - cognosceteipsum (07/10/2014) [-]
So.... who here thinks that the sciences trump the arts in any and every way?
#2438 to #2434 - dehumanizer (07/10/2014) [-]
So who else thinks that sinks trump plumbs in any and every way?
#2442 to #2441 - dehumanizer (07/11/2014) [-]
exactly, how can you compare two totaly diffrent things?
User avatar #2443 to #2442 - cognosceteipsum (07/11/2014) [-]
They're really not though. If you find a new thing in a branch of science, you will be expressing yourself there. Not only that. Both science and art can give you aesthetic pleasure. I bet there is also art about science and science about art. Oh, and on to the next point... They are made out to be polar opposite in school.

Think so you won't stink
#2444 to #2443 - dehumanizer (07/11/2014) [-]
Well on one hand art is mostly subjective while science is pritty much objective. What im trying to say is why not be a real renisance man and try both?
User avatar #2445 to #2444 - cognosceteipsum (07/11/2014) [-]
I'm proud that you said that, brother. I want to become a renaissance man. You're right though, science is mostly objective, if not fully objective. I try my hand at both since science without religion/art is dull and religion/art without science is blind. Copyright Albert einstein
User avatar #2435 to #2434 - kanadetenshi (07/10/2014) [-]
Science is art.
User avatar #2566 to #2435 - grandlordchicken (07/21/2014) [-]
I wouldn't call science art as it is already there, not created. However I do find science the most beautiful thing imaginable.
User avatar #2437 to #2435 - cognosceteipsum (07/10/2014) [-]
Well spoken. So, off to the next thing.... Is will the only driving force of humans? In Schopenhauers world as will and representation he sure made it look like that... But does he measure up against the stones of modern psychology and Neuro...science? Not sure where to look for answers
User avatar #2423 - cognosceteipsum (07/10/2014) [-]
Whatley, is rationality everything? Or is emotions also important? I'm guessing you think that emotions are also needed considering you need to 'feel' your way to morality. You need to be able to feel empathy and sympathy too.

What can emotions do that rationality can't? Kierkegaard thought it was the wrong way togo, to assume that all we need is rationality.
User avatar #2431 to #2423 - kanadetenshi (07/10/2014) [-]
I don't see why those two are mutually exclusive. I consider emotions to be a logical conclusion from rationality.
User avatar #2432 to #2431 - cognosceteipsum (07/10/2014) [-]
I agree, but there are a few people, two main threads winding themselves through the fabric of philosophy: The 'feelers' and the 'thinkers'. Alan Watts called them Prickles and Goo. They've always seem to have been at opposite sides of a spectrum but... imagine two universes if you will... One of rationality, and one of emotions. I slam both of them together with the strength of my omnipotent palms.
User avatar #2430 to #2423 - cleanmouth (07/10/2014) [-]
If you don't believe in objective meaning or importance, don't go around asking people whether something is just "important" per se.
User avatar #2410 - ribocoon ONLINE (07/09/2014) [-]
Is a total perspective vortex map of the universe possible?
Using something to echo back the location of particles, and waves in the universe?
User avatar #2426 to #2410 - djequalizee (07/10/2014) [-]
Not really. The universe curves in a pretty nonsensical way. We can sort of make maps, but they're never really be 100% accurate. And they'd be obsolete pretty quick due the the rate of expansion.
User avatar #2433 to #2426 - ribocoon ONLINE (07/10/2014) [-]
Well what I had in mind was to sort of send out some kind of waves and map their echo
Then send out more waves and calculate the difference in return time to find the accelerating velocity of objects in space then create a simulation of these objects to keep track of them
Image a computer the size of the moon simulating the current, and assuming ken ham was wrong, future and past states of the universe
User avatar #2461 to #2433 - vgmddg ONLINE (07/12/2014) [-]
Assuming these waves follow the laws of physics this idea would not work. All currently known particles are only able to travel at the speed of light or less. To send these particles out to the farthest reaches of the universe and wait for them to come back could likely outlast the universe as we know it. We can't see stars out past a certain point because their light hasn't reached us yet.

I suppose though, that given a computer of infinite power and a snapshot of the entire universe, with all particle locations, compositions, and forces, a real-time simulation of the universe could be made.
User avatar #2407 - leightonsolomon ONLINE (07/09/2014) [-]
I just made this. What do yall think? Also read the description What if Aliens are NOT Aliens?
#2406 - xxxsonic fanxxx (07/09/2014) [-]
User avatar #2417 to #2406 - cognosceteipsum (07/10/2014) [-]
Since when is Dawkins an antinatalist? I don't think he said this. I hope this is posted ironically or something.
#2424 to #2417 - xxxsonic fanxxx (07/10/2014) [-]
He never said this.

I take a photo, and type what they should be saying.

Dawkins always spouts Pollyanna bullshit.
"We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones."
User avatar #2428 to #2424 - cognosceteipsum (07/10/2014) [-]
THEWILLOW!!! You fucker xD
User avatar #2429 to #2428 - thewillow (07/10/2014) [-]
#2425 to #2424 - cognosceteipsum has deleted their comment [-]
#2418 to #2417 - xxxsonic fanxxx (07/10/2014) [-]
hes not talking natalism hes just basically saying love is for stupid people, hes not demeritating or valuing the end result of a baby
User avatar #2420 to #2418 - cognosceteipsum (07/10/2014) [-]
You know, love is a very vague word.
User avatar #2419 to #2418 - cognosceteipsum (07/10/2014) [-]
Love is for stupid people. Now I've heard everything.
#2405 - xxxsonic fanxxx (07/09/2014) [-]
#2404 - xxxsonic fanxxx (07/09/2014) [-]
User avatar #2458 to #2404 - vgmddg ONLINE (07/12/2014) [-]
Science ≠ atheism
User avatar #2396 - cognosceteipsum (07/08/2014) [-]
Tulpae and schizophrenia are basically the same thing, except that auditory and visual hallucinations are involuntary, that's what I think. The sad part about schizophrenia though is that we have not a clue on how it happens, how a person becomes schizophrenic. Which is a big problem since most schizophrenics can't really live normal lives. Does anyone have the slightest idea what is going on in a schizophrenic mind?
#2409 to #2396 - xxxsonic fanxxx (07/09/2014) [-]
a tulpa is a mystic and so far unproven concept with relation to the spirit and it involves summoning or creating a creature with pure will
a schizophrenic disorder involves not being able to tell whats real and it may represent in many different ways, not all of which involve another creature manifesting to the schizophrenic, so theyre not that related
User avatar #2408 to #2396 - leightonsolomon ONLINE (07/09/2014) [-]
Watch this video, it simulates Schizophrenia.
User avatar #2446 to #2408 - cognosceteipsum (07/11/2014) [-]
I was a bit afraid at first when I pressed it. But it turned out to be alright. Anyway, yeah... this is kinda depressing that these people have to live with this.
#2383 - cognosceteipsum has deleted their comment [-]
#2387 to #2383 - xxxsonic fanxxx (07/08/2014) [-]
actually impact bias is just an overestimation of future events, for good or for ill
it reduces itself to no more than innacurate affective forecasting with a fancy name
User avatar #2388 to #2387 - cognosceteipsum (07/08/2014) [-]
Huh. But... wait, nevermind. I fucked it up. The thing I'm describing is a product of impact bias and not the bias itself. My bad, sorry.
User avatar #2373 - cognosceteipsum (07/08/2014) [-]
Colour is photons, right?
User avatar #2389 to #2373 - whatley ONLINE (07/08/2014) [-]
Why didn't I get a notification for this.

Photons are the particle form of light, it can oscillate at various frequencies and have different wavelengths. At a certain band of frequencies, 390-700nm (0.00000039-0.0000007m), there is what we call visible light, the stuff that we can see. Depending on the wavelength it appears a different colour to our eyes, with reddish light being up at 700nm and violet/blue being down at 390nm. All the colours are between these except for pink (Fuck pink).
User avatar #2391 to #2389 - cognosceteipsum (07/08/2014) [-]
Also, thanks for explaining
User avatar #2390 to #2389 - cognosceteipsum (07/08/2014) [-]
I think I understand. Now, here's a more tough question.

Do you believe that overpopulation, scarcity of resources could be a problem? I'm thinking about the fact that wars tend to occur when there is scarcity in resources
User avatar #2392 to #2390 - whatley ONLINE (07/08/2014) [-]
As a planet or individual countries? Countries can definitely have overpopulation, see China, even with their huge landmass they have far too many people. It's partially to do with scarcity but not so much scarcity of resources like food or luxuries, but moreso scarcity of work in an economy, and oversaturation of labour markets.

Scarcity is literally the basic economic problem. All of economics is based off the principle of "There are infinite wants, but finite resources". The troublesome thing with overpopulation is the population's tendency to increase exponentially. Scarce resources such as rare earth metals used in phones for instance are going to become a real problem as countries like China increase their demand for them.

In short, worries about overpopulation for things like food aren't a problem, neither is water, electricity, space or most fundamentals, overpopulation wont be life threatening in that regard until we get to maybe 50-75 billion people. The main fight is for luxuries, but I doubt war will be fought over them as the market mechanism will solve the problem. As demand for luxuries increases there will be scarcity and the price will rise, eliminating the scarcity.
User avatar #2402 to #2392 - haroldsaxon ONLINE (07/09/2014) [-]
I've seen a couple of estimates that the world population will stabilize at around 11-13 billion, tho it will probably pass that for a while. However, I saw this a couple of years ago.

I want to point out that most families have bout 2 children in first world countries, and that China had a population boom in the 50s. I vaguely remember something about politics. Now China has one of the world's lowest birth rate.

If you could debunk, confirm, or elaborate on anything in this comment, that would be great. I am not a master of this subject.
User avatar #2403 to #2402 - whatley ONLINE (07/09/2014) [-]
I don't really see why or how population would stabilise at around those numbers. Population growth is exponential because more people being born means more people that can also have children. It would take something pretty drastic for population growth to stabilise there and as far as my knowledge goes, food, water, and space aren't really much of an issue.

Yes, but China's current low birth rate is largely due to their one child policy enacted in 1979. Before this China had about 2% population growth per year, now it's down to about 0.7%, so their population growth is about a third of what it was. It's the only country to have done something like this and it's a pretty drastic and brutal measure. I have my doubts whether other countries that are not so state controlled would tolerate being subject to a policy like this.

I'm really not a master of this subject either, so take everything I say here with a pinch of salt.

User avatar #2394 to #2392 - cognosceteipsum (07/08/2014) [-]
That part about the metals was thought provoking. Are we then running short of gold, iron? What is it that counts as rare metals?
User avatar #2393 to #2392 - cognosceteipsum (07/08/2014) [-]
Freed me of yet another fear. Well, I guess the thing I was afraid of was global overpopulation. I knew that we have enough space actually, just didn't know how overhyped a video about it was. Either way, making disease resistant crops that yield much grain of one sort or another would probably still not be a bad idea considering... Well... A large portion of the world is starving. I mean, how hard can it be to create crops that have the ''right'' properties? If you can single out which gene does what, you should in principle be able to use them for making stronger crops. Also thanks so much for helping me with this.
User avatar #2395 to #2393 - whatley ONLINE (07/08/2014) [-]
We already do that all the time, genetically modified crops are big, just a lot of people in the west don't like the because "genetically modified" anything is scary to them, same with the word "radioactivity". They're completely safe though.
The problem isn't lack of food, we as a species produce way more than enough for everyone, it's just it's economically inefficient to give it to places like Africa because firstly, they usually can't pay for it, and secondly it'll kill off all of their own food businesses because we can produce it far cheaper than they can due to economies of scale.

Nothing like iron and gold, we have enough of that basically forever. I'm talking about things like ytterium and neoydymium, most of the Lanthanide series really. They're used a lot in things like batteries and almost 100% come from China.
User avatar #2397 to #2395 - cognosceteipsum (07/08/2014) [-]
Oh yess. All the time. Gmo this gmo that e numbers this e numbers that

Didnt even know that those chemicals existed. Anyway, I'm sorry if I jump a lot but you are intelligent so it's fun...

Don't you think we'd disintergrate in just about every other parallel universe?
User avatar #2398 to #2397 - whatley ONLINE (07/08/2014) [-]
I don't really think I'm that intelligent, I just try to remember everything I can about science and general interesting stuff. And I don't mind you asking a lot of questions.

I assume you're implying if said universe had completely different physical laws? I have no idea, probably wouldn't disintegrate though. There's no way to tell but I'd just assume if we went there then we just wouldn't really exist, be immaterial and massless as we wouldn't interact with the matter and energy of that universe, our mass wouldn't have mass as it wouldn't interact with their Higgs field.
If you mean into a universe with the same physical laws I would guess there would be some sort of cataclysmic event as the universe tries to resolve conservation of energy being broken, as all of our mass would have effectively come from nothing. We may be treated as virtual particles and just pop back our of existence after one planck time had passed.
User avatar #2422 to #2398 - cognosceteipsum (07/10/2014) [-]
I read if again and I think I understand today.......... These implications are entirely awe striking
User avatar #2400 to #2398 - cognosceteipsum (07/09/2014) [-]
How about... Youve got good memory xD

Damn... Didn't understand all of that..
#2374 to #2373 - xxxsonic fanxxx (07/08/2014) [-]
light is photons, colour is light, so colour is of photons
User avatar #2376 to #2374 - cognosceteipsum (07/08/2014) [-]
And photons are elementary particles?
#2379 to #2376 - xxxsonic fanxxx (07/08/2014) [-]
yes, they are
its good to see you learn, but you really shouldnt come to a board for this, the character limit doesnt allow for in depth explanation, you know? wikipedia, the physics study guide on wikibooks and the physics classroom are all good places to start if youre interested in this stuff
#2381 to #2379 - cognosceteipsum has deleted their comment [-]
#2384 to #2381 - xxxsonic fanxxx (07/08/2014) [-]
ooooooooooooooookay then
User avatar #2385 to #2384 - cognosceteipsum (07/08/2014) [-]
Sorry man. I went automatic mode there. Instincts... habits...
User avatar #2375 to #2374 - cognosceteipsum (07/08/2014) [-]
So, different colours is photons oscillating at different frequencies, no?
#2377 to #2375 - xxxsonic fanxxx (07/08/2014) [-]
oscilation in this case is referred to a movement between frequencies, so we say it's a wavelength in frequency x or y but yes
User avatar #2378 to #2377 - cognosceteipsum (07/08/2014) [-]
Cooooooooooool. How many colours are there, has anyone listed them all? I'm guessing not since there is the whole electromagnetic spectrum which the colour spectrum is a mere tiny part of.
#2380 to #2378 - xxxsonic fanxxx (07/08/2014) [-]
no because we cannot perceive all of them, in average humans can perceive from one to ten million colours, but there are people with anomalies in their eyes that allow them to see another "primary" colour so to speak, and they reportedly can see up to forty million colours, but these claims are hard to study because of the nature of the phenomenon
User avatar #2382 to #2380 - cognosceteipsum (07/08/2014) [-]
Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamn, and they say physics is boring.
#2351 - spamzor (07/07/2014) [-]
There isn't a health or medical board, so I thought I'd share here.

Had quite the emotional rollercoaster of a day yesterday, and when I went to bed I could hear the strangest sounds in my right ear. Like something shallowly breathing, or blood rushing through, but it was too loud, and didn't change depending on my heartbeat.
Does anyone here know that thing you can do with your jaw that causes a "static" noise right at your ears? That seemed to stop the breathing sound, if only for a bit.
It was gone when I woke up, luckily, but I still want to know what that was.
#2354 to #2351 - xxxsonic fanxxx (07/07/2014) [-]
just ignore it.
User avatar #2352 to #2351 - cognosceteipsum (07/07/2014) [-]
I experienced that just now. I think the cause may be overstimulation, but I'm not sure what the fuck is going on.
User avatar #2320 - cognosceteipsum (07/05/2014) [-]
I'm a novice in sscience to say the least and I just watched athenes theory of everything. It includes consciousness, death, life, quantum physics, relativity (not sure if special or general though), neuroscience (inevitably since its about consciousness) and.. a few other things.

One thing that struck me was that they said that consciousness could be quantized in moments of consciousness but here's the kicker... He said that consciousness could be quantized in moments of 0.0042 seconds. 42 is, well, Douglas Adams meaning of life which made me consider that the entire thing was a publicity scam. I'd be very appreciative if someone here who is more knowledgeable than me would take a look on it.

I DID ask /sci/ about quantum immortality though and they said it wouldnt happen for macro scale objects.
User avatar #2399 to #2320 - xsnowshark (07/08/2014) [-]
What are you asking, exactly?
User avatar #2401 to #2399 - cognosceteipsum (07/09/2014) [-]
A lot of questions. What you think of quantum immortality, what you think of the ToE, if it's bullshit or not.
User avatar #2411 to #2401 - xsnowshark (07/09/2014) [-]
I really don't think that something like quantum immortality exists. People seem to think that throwing quantum in front of something is a way to make it true or put it in the realm of possibilities, which is not the case.

Quantum is just a word to describe something either very small or very large, not a magic (though sometimes it may seem that way, haha)

In my opinion, there will probably never be a theory of everything, and if there was it would be infinite and useless. How could it be possible for any kind of math to put a limit on something that is limitless and still growing?

As far as quantifying consciousness, I have see that and think it's pretty cool. I saw a video where Michio Kaku (way cooler than Tyson in my opinion) put forth evidence of free will based on wave/particle duality.

Mortuus, what do you think?
User avatar #2413 to #2411 - Mortuus ONLINE (07/09/2014) [-]
I agree with you that Quantum Immortality is just another phrase that has little bearing in science. Nothing that we've ever observed could be deemed as "immortal".

As for the ToE, it's possible to a point, but once you get into certain areas, such as humans and other animals with advanced thought processes Only using this example to tie the two together. . It might be possible to do, if we did have an overall lack of free will, but I believe that we do. There are some events in your life that are inescapable, such as your birth, but I believe that the choice to have conceived you was indeed a conscious choice on behalf of your parents.
User avatar #2414 to #2413 - xsnowshark (07/09/2014) [-]
Here is the video by Big Think on free will if you are interested:


User avatar #2421 to #2414 - cognosceteipsum (07/10/2014) [-]
I've heard that there may be deterministic structure behind the quantum randomness.
User avatar #2439 to #2421 - xsnowshark (07/10/2014) [-]
When you say quantum randomness you mean...?
User avatar #2416 to #2414 - Mortuus ONLINE (07/10/2014) [-]
Awesome vid. Thanks for the link.
#2337 to #2320 - xxxsonic fanxxx (07/06/2014) [-]
If what whole thing could be a publicity scam?
 Friends (0)