Posted in zoology |

[...]

New Zoology

…more This long-awaited revision promises to maintain the best features of the “classic&# [...]

New Zoology

…more Author: CoffeaRobusta Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 6:31 am (GMT 0) Topic Replies: 7 I know th [...]

New Zoology

…more Author: adder_noir Subject: Heart rate and emitted sound frequency of carp’s hearbe [...]

http://www.radioopensource.org/hitchens-v-god/#comment-58231

Posted in zoology |

[...]

String theory is a dualistic reconceptualization of the zero-dimensional point particle of the Standard Model seeing instead (here comes the dualism:) a vibrating string. Complexity emerges from simplicity. I am all for the effort, and I think the effort is important, string theory was critical in the development of my own thinking. However, Brian Greene and I have entirely different definitions of the word ‘elegant’. Abandoning substance is more purely elegant and exciting than any other concept I have encountered, unfortunately that does not necessitate its veracity.

And I wouldn’t bury duality just yet. Although the explanatory tide has favored waves over particles for the past century or so, we still have the photoelectric effect to explain.

Even if duality is maintained, we still need a kick in our metaphysical butts to better account for process.

Jazzman – I am reviewing Chalmers now and will get you a post in the next day or two.

“A study describing the phenomenon, “Asymmetric tail-wagging responses by dogs to different emotive stimuli,” appeared in the March 20 issue of Current Biology. The authors are Giorgio Vallortigara, a neuroscientist at the University of Trieste in Italy, and two veterinarians, Angelo Quaranta and Marcello Siniscalchi, at the University of Bari, also in Italy.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/24/science/24wag.html?em&ex=1178164800&en=1a266dad9cfcb5d3&ei=5087

And I just want to say that I enjoyed the show a lot. I think even a third show along these lines, maybe one dealing explicitly with the human/nonhuman boundary/relation, may be in order. I know you inevitably talk about this in talking about anthropomorphism, zoology, ethology and the like. But there’s a third show I think waiting in the wings, to come on stage, one addressing more fully how the human is reconceived in relation to what we learn about other animals, and maybe dealing with what the philosophical tradition has to say, misguided or otherwise, on the distinctiveness of human being.

When I use the term Consciousness, I’m not referring to the mundane “waking consciousness” that is used as a synonym for being conscious i.e., alert as opposed to unconscious (which is quite aware under anesthesia or sleep – dreaming and busy running the autonomous bodily tasks.) I refer to the irreducible fundamental basis of ALL matter and energy which form gestalts (in aggregate) from electrons to elephants to orlox.

You may believe that consciousness is reducible but as you admit to not having a clue (certainty or poetry notwithstanding) as to its nature, the belief is unfounded. If you are interested in the subject, I refer you to the website of David Chalmers one of the preeminent researchers in the field of consciousness: D Chalmers who believes that consciousness is a fundamental property of all things physical.

Time was not an illusion to Einstein so much as it was unified with space and thus spacetime. “The distinction between the past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion”. – Albert Einstein

So that NOW actually becomes relativistic. The sun you see in your NOW was the sun as it was 8 minutes ago. Any notion simultaneity is limited by the speed of light and the inability to give any one frame of reference superiority over another.

The NOW in which I see the sun is my (gestalt and mundane) consciousness’ now, the sun’s consciousness’ now in simultaneous terms, due to the illusion of time, may be thought of as 8 minutes in my “future” but its now and my now are always the same instantaneous (dimensionless) now. From the sun’s photons’ perspective, they are emitted and absorbed in zero time. Light therefore does not experience local time, all matter and energy (with the exception of Gravity which I maintain is a function of consciousness’ gregariousness) has been unified and composed of light (electromagnetic energy – which means electrons are composed of light so they are reducible not only to photons but Gell-Mann’s quarks) which is composed of consciousness which I submit isn’t reducible. ALL frames of reference are local to observers and relative to other observers whose frame is local to them. Consciousness is not bound by the speed of light, relative nor confined to particular frames of reference. The reason we experience the dimensionless series of NOW’s as “time” is a function of synapse gaps lapse, our neurons transmit in one now and are received in another thereby creating the illusion.

In truth, I had told Robin in an e-mail exchange that my primary concern was the theory of everything so I thought it might be wise to give her some indication that I wasn’t a complete loon.

Maybe it’s just the music. Animals win, as far as Attenborough is concerned. Any chance to grab him as a call in?

Dogs have a distinctly lower tolerance for alcohol than even the cheapest date amongst us hairless apes…..

They know me at work, and follow me between work and lunch everyday as well as greeting me as I deplane my bus to work on a daily basis.

Crows rule. I hope to influence them locally, as opposed to the influence GWB holds on our sleeping nation….

This is what science is for. To challenge the church and authority with repilcable experiments, yes?

http://www.messybeast.com/emoticat.html

I found a great article on cat emotions that mirrors a lot of the discussion up to this point, i.e., that they have emotions but must be interpreted from the point of view of the animal and in that sense may be different. That doesn’t mean I can’t appreciate and cherish my cat’s emotions

I am also wondering about cultural biases? We all know that people are willing to dismiss science to defend their cultural values. and a lot of cultural/traditional cultures insist on a bright line between humans and animals and resist anything that suggests humans are closer to other animals…