Life

[ExigeEvan]

You don´t think we will run out of food if we continue at this pace?

Maybe, maybe not.

It might not be food as you and I know it, but I believe we can nourish many, many more people on this planet. Other resources will begin to show lacking far sooner.

 

[MatskiMonk]

We've managed to feed and hydrate a rapidly growing population quite comfortably for the last century, and there's till room to expand.

However, we've shown to be quite vulnerable and inept in the face of economical and social chaos.

In a socialist society, fewer children means fewer tax payers, which means a greater burden to support the aged.

Fewer children also means a weaker economy which means smaller returns on retirement investments, and a greater financial burden on offspring to support parents.

Personally, I'm confident we can support a still larger population, even with today's technology, let alone the benefits of tomorrow's.

This is probably a debate for a different thread, and I'm not saying you're wrong, but...

Young people grow up, and become old, more young people means more old people, so again you want more young people, 50 years later you have more old people again... that would be an ever expanding viscious circle, and probably not one that increases at simply a linear rate...

.. and as far as the cost of looking after our elderly goes, introduce schemes to make sure they can look after themselves better, and make them more self sufficient. I'm 32, I have two pension schemes, one since I was 18, and one since I was 30, I expect to be able to support myself after retirement...

UNLIKE young couples churning out 2-3 kids, with only one parent earning, and receiving significantly more in benefits than they pay in taxes, taking out more than they have ever put in.

I don't think sustaining the elderly population is (long term) as much of an issue as supporting a younger population (family tax credits and child benefits etc.)

Over the next couple of centuries I imagine that the human race will struggle more and more to sustain its growth, resources and infrastructure, we will consume faster than we can come up with sustainable alternatives. Partly limited by our own greed, partly by our own knowledge, and partly by what our planet has to give.

 

[homeforsummer]

It's worth mentioning also on the increasing age thing that we're unlikely to see the same sort of increase in average age over the next 100 years as we have in the last 100 years. We've gone from an average worldwide life expectancy of 30-odd years at the turn of the last century to an average of 67 years (source) at the moment. I can't see that going up by more than 5 or 10 years over the next hundred unless as a race we completely eradicate famine and disease.

Even in the UK where general health is okay, we've gone from 63% of people dying before 60 pre-WWI to 12% dying before 60 by 1999 (source, pdf, p5). There's a limit to how many more people can live longer than 60 (and even fewer that can hit the average life expectancy of 84-ish) before we hit a plateau, and since birth rates aren't as quick as they were during the baby boom I can't see the gap between old and young increasing much further now.

Other countries are different obviously but while I think overpopulation could potentially be a problem, I don't see an increasingly ageing population being a bigger one.

 

[hampus_dh]

It's worth mentioning also on the increasing age thing that we're unlikely to see the same sort of increase in average age over the next 100 years as we have in the last 100 years. We've gone from an average worldwide life expectancy of 30-odd years at the turn of the last century to an average of 67 years (source) at the moment. I can't see that going up by more than 5 or 10 years over the next hundred unless as a race we completely eradicate famine and disease.

I´m going to bet against you on this one

I think that we will see an increase that is bigger then what we have seen in the past 100 years to this point.

Reason being is we will know how to cure even more deceases, we are now fiddling with genes that control aging, we get lazier, have machines do more of the work etc etc.

 

[MatskiMonk]

I´m going to bet against you on this one

I think that we will see an increase that is bigger then what we have seen in the past 100 years to this point.

Reason being is we will know how to cure even more deceases, we are now fiddling with genes that control aging, we get lazier, have machines do more of the work etc etc.

In respect of Exigeevans original point though, a healthy elderly population, with people able to work for longer becomes less of a financial burden than an elderly population who must be supported by others. Overpopulation on the whole is a diffent issue - reduce the birthrate, and eventually population will stabilize and reduce. Death is a fact, creating life is a choice.

 

[Stevisiov]

With regards to the posts above.

http://www.ted.com/talks/cynthia_kenyon_experiments_that_hint_of_longer_lives.html

It might be worth a watch.

 

[hampus_dh]

In respect of Exigeevans original point though, a healthy elderly population, with people able to work for longer becomes less of a financial burden than an elderly population who must be supported by others. Overpopulation on the whole is a diffent issue - reduce the birthrate, and eventually population will stabilize and reduce. Death is a fact, creating life is a choice.

Death is a fact today yes. But tomorrow maybe not. We have just barely tapped into the realm of genes etc and we have successfully elongated life in a variety of life forms like worms, mice etc.

To be honest, i don´t understand a word of you post except the last sentence since it has (from what i can see) nothing to do with my reply to Exige.

BTW, if your on youtube much, subscribe to TED, it´s a fantastic channel.

 

[Sam48]

If we were the only planet in the entire universe and life existed here then you'd have a case for a higher being, but with literally billions of other worlds theoretically capable of supporting life - and potentially intelligent life - the odds are so favourable that it's really not a surprise in the slightest.

I never understand why this concept is so hard to understand - that with billions of permutations of different events over several billion years intelligent life is as good as a statistical inevitability.

I'm asking why the big bang produced something, rather than nothing. And if there was nothing, meaning no intelligent life, would our universe really exist to begin with? I understand what you mean when you consider the fact that there are billions of places where you can probably find life in this universe (We just haven't found it yet).

 

[Bram Turismo]

I was thinking of something just now:

Given that we know/assume that the universe still is expanding, and we do not fully know the size of it, would this mean that life itself is infinite just as one can say the universe is an infinite size?

 

[homeforsummer]

I´m going to bet against you on this one

I think that we will see an increase that is bigger then what we have seen in the past 100 years to this point.

Reason being is we will know how to cure even more deceases, we are now fiddling with genes that control aging, we get lazier, have machines do more of the work etc etc.

Really? So we're going to improve upon the increase in average age of around 40 years from the last century?

Average age of 120-odd by 2100?...

 

[MatskiMonk]

I was thinking of something just now:

Given that we know/assume that the universe still is expanding, and we do not fully know the size of it, would this mean that life itself is infinite just as one can say the universe is an infinite size?

The universe itself could be infinite, but it could be that everything after a certain distance from the centre of the universe is simply empty, and therefore life wouldn't necessarily be infinite... in other words, in an infinite system there may still only be a set number of conditions that something can happen.

 

[hampus_dh]

Really? So we're going to improve upon the increase in average age of around 40 years from the last century?

Average age of 120-odd by 2100?...

I think there´s a possibility yes.

We are just waiting for a breakthrough in aging and how to manipulate it.

Remember that technology accelerates so the last 5 years will be the same as the coming 2 years or so. Human "development" has took off like a rocket and i don´t see any stoppage in the near future.

I also believe that in 100 years some people (probably the rich and famous) will be close to what we call immortal.

In 150-200 we are probably immortal and have started leaving earth in order to sustain the human race in case of any disaster.

 

[homeforsummer]

I'm asking why the big bang produced something, rather than nothing.

I suppose one way of looking at it is that the matter that created the big bang had got to a point where it could no longer be nothing and the immense energy had to be something.

If you mean in a wider-reaching way, such as why the result of the big bang eventually became something (stars, planets, us etc) then that comes back to the immense numbers involved making it statistically likely.

Much of the matter in the early universe was hydrogen, which fuses under immense temperatures and pressures to produce energy and heavier elements. So in terms of how the something eventually became us, the simplified explanation is that all the elements that eventually became us were originally formed in the heart of a star.

(As an aside: I personally love that thought actually, and I'm fascinated that I have atoms in my body that were originally part of stars formed millions of light years away. Or that many of the atoms were once part of another person somewhere far back in history, or a dinosaur, or an amoeba)

And if there was nothing, meaning no intelligent life, would our universe really exist to begin with?

I'm not quite sure I understand - are you going for a "if a tree falls in the forest"-type analogy? Whether there was intelligent life or not the universe would still exist, just as pressure waves would propagate from a tree falling over, even if nobody was there to interpret them as sound.

I think there´s a possibility yes.

We are just waiting for a breakthrough in aging and how to manipulate it.

Remember that technology accelerates so the last 5 years will be the same as the coming 2 years or so. Human "development" has took off like a rocket and i don´t see any stoppage in the near future.

I also believe that in 100 years some people (probably the rich and famous) will be close to what we call immortal.

In 150-200 we are probably immortal and have started leaving earth in order to sustain the human race in case of any disaster.

That remains to be seen but I don't see it as a likely scenario. The human body has an in-built lifespan and we've got a long way to go before we can extend that indefinitely. If anything is going to raise the average age of people across the globe it'll be eradicating famine and disease, which age aside are responsible for the highest number of deaths. And since that would involve a massive redistribution of wealth, I suspect average age increases will slow down from now on.

The human race has much more pressing problems to deal with than immortality. Survival of the species is more important than indefinite life for a few individuals.

The other thing of course, is that we're still getting infirm at around the same age as ever, so even if we live to 120 then that's just another 40 years of incontinence and frailty. I'd not be that bothered living longer...

 

[ExigeEvan]

Death is a fact today yes. But tomorrow maybe not. We have just barely tapped into the realm of genes etc and we have successfully elongated life in a variety of life forms like worms, mice etc.

What is becoming increasingly obvious is that the human brain is a limiting factor to how long we can live comfortably. Alzeihmer's is a dreadful disease and it's no use in prolonging the body if the mind is no use and the quality of life is worthless.

In respect of Exigeevans original point though, a healthy elderly population, with people able to work for longer becomes less of a financial burden than an elderly population who must be supported by others. Overpopulation on the whole is a diffent issue - reduce the birthrate, and eventually population will stabilize and reduce. Death is a fact, creating life is a choice.

People don't want to work for longer. And people will refuse to. Sure, they may become more economically active, but many European countries are seeing outrage as governments increase the age limit for which you can receive a state pension by only a year or 2.

Creating life is a choice. So who are you to remove it? While people still have the choice, the majority will still choose to exercise it.

It's worth mentioning also on the increasing age thing that we're unlikely to see the same sort of increase in average age over the next 100 years as we have in the last 100 years. We've gone from an average worldwide life expectancy of 30-odd years at the turn of the last century to an average of 67 years (source) at the moment. I can't see that going up by more than 5 or 10 years over the next hundred unless as a race we completely eradicate famine and disease.

Even in the UK where general health is okay, we've gone from 63% of people dying before 60 pre-WWI to 12% dying before 60 by 1999 (source, pdf, p5). There's a limit to how many more people can live longer than 60 (and even fewer that can hit the average life expectancy of 84-ish) before we hit a plateau, and since birth rates aren't as quick as they were during the baby boom I can't see the gap between old and young increasing much further now.

Other countries are different obviously but while I think overpopulation could potentially be a problem, I don't see an increasingly ageing population being a bigger one.

I disagree. Medical advances may be slowing, but after a generation of obesity more (I believe) are pushing towards healthier lifestyles while governments continue to restrict the use of cigarettes. A whole generation of Westerners will grow up with a strong dislike of tobacco as it become less accepted in society.

This is probably a debate for a different thread, and I'm not saying you're wrong, but...

Young people grow up, and become old, more young people means more old people, so again you want more young people, 50 years later you have more old people again... that would be an ever expanding viscious circle, and probably not one that increases at simply a linear rate...

Undeniably true. But what is the limit? You don't know, I don't know. No one knows.

.. and as far as the cost of looking after our elderly goes, introduce schemes to make sure they can look after themselves better, and make them more self sufficient. I'm 32, I have two pension schemes, one since I was 18, and one since I was 30, I expect to be able to support myself after retirement...

But consider that you may start collecting your pension as early as 60 (not unusual for those with a strong private pension) and you could reasonably expect to live to 80 or possibly 90.

Over those 20-30 years your pension fund has to compete with inflation which means it needs to be invested into a strong economy or supported by younger working members of the pension plan/through taxes.

And consider you'll be spending as much as a third of your life in retirement, and nearly as much time in retirement as you'll have spent in full-time employment at a time in your life in which you will probably encounter greater care and health costs than any other time in your life, you can see why a younger generation providing a strong economy is essential.

Please feel free to correct me, I'm certainly no expert on this topic.

UNLIKE young couples churning out 2-3 kids, with only one parent earning, and receiving significantly more in benefits than they pay in taxes, taking out more than they have ever put in.

I don't think sustaining the elderly population is (long term) as much of an issue as supporting a younger population (family tax credits and child benefits etc.)

That's far more of a British society problem than a western or even global issue.

Over the next couple of centuries I imagine that the human race will struggle more and more to sustain its growth, resources and infrastructure, we will consume faster than we can come up with sustainable alternatives. Partly limited by our own greed, partly by our own knowledge, and partly by what our planet has to give.

I agree with this on a vast variety of resources, just not food and water.

 

[homeforsummer]

I disagree. Medical advances may be slowing, but after a generation of obesity more (I believe) are pushing towards healthier lifestyles while governments continue to restrict the use of cigarettes. A whole generation of Westerners will grow up with a strong dislike of tobacco as it become less accepted in society.

I think, on the first point at least, that may be wishful thinking. We're still in a time when kids are becoming increasingly obese, so we've at least one more generation of increasingly fat people, and I wouldn't put money on them being the last.

As for cigarettes, Westerners may grow up with a dislike of tobacco but it's becoming increasingly popular in the East, so if millions keep buying fags over there then you'll see a carbon copy of the West's problems with tobacco.

That's if air pollution in the developing world doesn't end their lives early first.

 

[hampus_dh]

The other thing of course, is that we're still getting infirm at around the same age as ever, so even if we live to 120 then that's just another 40 years of incontinence and frailty. I'd not be that bothered living longer...

I take it you did not watch the video someone posted from TED?

 

[Stevisiov]

That remains to be seen but I don't see it as a likely scenario. The human body has an in-built lifespan and we've got a long way to go before we can extend that indefinitely.

I've been following the notion of significantly extended life-spans in in the coming generations. The question that regularly crops up is one of 'does the human body have a programmed or fundamentally limited maximum life-span? Many biologists appear to say no.

Some animals don't appear to exhibit an ageing process that resembles ours, some birds and amphibians have a plateaued ageing process. The animal shows no visible signs of ageing for decades, in fact once they have fully developed from birth, its unclear if they are ageing at all.

If there are other animals which exhibit these unusual ageing characteristics, then the answer to why can probably be found in their genetic code. The science of genetics is a rapidly evolving area, the ability to map a human/animal genome faster and cheaper is increasing exponentially. Its an exponential rise which humbles that of even Moore's Law.

Now its worth remembering, that there is obviously more to ageing than just genetics, but this 'built in life-span' you speak of may turn out to be a myth, or at least circumventable with genomic engineering.

Even things like organ failure may be preventable due to stem cell organs. Many of your key organs can now be grown in a laboratory, with your own cells, making long term transplants without rejection viable. Can the brain survive long term without beginning to degenerate, its difficult to say.

I'm not going to sit here and say that most of our generation will live to be 100, but it may not be too long before 100 becomes and expected milestone.

[/quote]The other thing of course, is that we're still getting infirm at around the same age as ever, so even if we live to 120 then that's just another 40 years of incontinence and frailty. I'd not be that bothered living longer...[/QUOTE]

Some animals only start to appear ageing once they reach extreme old age, and once it begins, they degenerate very rapidly. It's not beyond the realms possibility that humans would be capable of that either.

There are plenty of issues raised by the idea of significantly pegging back ageing, many of which are ethical. From a technological standpoint though, we may not be that far away.

 

[Dapper]

Not strictly true.

Plenty of our actions/decisions/choices/movements can be done unconsciously. It's called instinct.

But actions that are consciously done are formulated before you are aware of it. Decisions and choices are never done unconsciously. But you are right, movement and autonomic actions can be made unconsciously (I didn't know things like twitching would be an issue).

A few examples - putting your hand on a stove and whipping it away before you even feel the heat as your nervous system makes the decision to move your hand before you think about it. Blinking when water or dust gets in your eyes. "Jumping awake" when you have a falling dream.

None of the above - and more - use conscious decision-making. They're all pre-programmed into our psyche as mechanisms to protect us.

We don't know to keep our hand off of a hot stove until we learn being burnt doesn't feel good. But before we decide to pull our hand away from the heat it has already been thought of. Blinking is done with the autonomic nervous system, that is a lot different. Dreaming is also a lot different, we are not in control of our dreams.

However - you can also precondition yourself to act instinctively in times of duress - say, on a battlefield.

The best example I can come up with is bomb disarming. Trained bomb experts practice and practice so much and in such detail not just because it's a job that needs doing, but because when they have their face inches from a device that could vaporise them in a second, the brain is so pumped-full of endorphins that they're utterly incapable of thinking straight and have to rely almost entirely on muscle memory to disarm the bomb. They disarm the thing and then return without even knowing what exactly they did to disarm it - other than subconsciously repeat the actions they'd learned thousands of times in training.

So what Danoff was saying is correct.

The problem is even if your response is preconditioned, our reaction that is going to happen is already figured out before we do it. And I find your bomb example ludicrous and is almost derogatory to the people that do that job. They can't think clearly? I think their training is so they can think clearly. Muscle memory? I am pretty sure almost every bomb is made differently, especially considering the people that make the bombs. And there are a plethora of psychological conditions that will cause one to forget, or black out, during times of extreme stress. There is no doubt when a guy walks up to a live IED he is fully conscious and in control of his actions, but the actions he makes (which is usually driving a r/c robot up to the bomb to drop C4 on it) is predetermined within his brain, before he is consciously aware.

To touch on the unconscious vs conscious part.
If you were to connect your brain with wires and use a certain program that allows me to look into your brain sort of, and i asked you a question of yes or no i could tell you what your answer would be long before your conscious self answer the question.

This guy with this program knew 6 seconds before what your answer would be before you finally told him your answer.

Right, and I don't see how training or conditioning has any affect on this reality.

 

[hampus_dh]

What is becoming increasingly obvious is that the human brain is a limiting factor to how long we can live comfortably. Alzeihmer's is a dreadful disease and it's no use in prolonging the body if the mind is no use and the quality of life is worthless.

The human brain is a limiting factor today yes

If you went back in time and said that you are on the verge of finding a cure for AIDS they would have laughed you right in the face.

But today we are getting very close. In fact, there is one case where AIDS has been cured. By replacing the spinal marrow he is now free from AIDS.

that is a very in-effective solution yes but scientists are looking at the small number of people in the world that is resistant to AIDS.
we know it can be cured now since some people do it naturally but we just need to unlock the mystery.

Same thing with life. It could just be that we need to replace certain parts or cells in the brain after a certain amount of years to keep it running smoothly.

Right, and I don't see how training or conditioning has any affect on this reality.

I think it has to do with your life up to that point.
How your life has went will also determine the answer.

---

It should also be noted that humans have two consciousness. One has abilities the other one don´t.

they did a test where they cut of the link between the two brain halfs on a person. Then they sat this person in front of plywood with a small hole at the bottom to stick your hand in.

On the other side a person sat with different numbers carved out of wood so you could feel what number it was.

Basically they let the person stick in his left hand and feel what number it was. The person recognizes it but since the connection to the other brain half is gone (the other side takes care of the writing) he had no possibility of informing the other consciousness what number it is he´s holding in his hand.

So when he was asked to write down what number it was, the right side had no idea and simply made up a number despite the other part of the brain knowing full well what number it was.


So essentially you have 2 "you´s" that shares information with each other but also trying to dominate each other.
One side is also the dominant one in most people, think it was the left brain half but in some people it´s the right brain half that is the dominant force.

So even though they want to dominate each other, they still very much work together to solve whatever problems that occur.

 

[Dapper]

The human brain is a limiting factor today yes

Once we can upload our brain onto a computer...

 

[DK]

^ Ah, but what if someone like Anon tries hacking it?

 

[hampus_dh]

Just get an anti virus DUH!

I guess going crazy is sort of having a virus in your brain. Something as far as i know we can´t really fix.
Instead we lock people in cushened rooms and sedate them to stay calm.

Maybe one day we will be able to go into the brain, see what´s wrong, fix it and the person is normal again.
And laugh at the times when we just locked people in for having a virus in the brain.

 

[Sam48]

I'm not quite sure I understand - are you going for a "if a tree falls in the forest"-type analogy? Whether there was intelligent life or not the universe would still exist...

It does involve that analogy, but only to a certain extent. Correct me on this if I'm wrong, but according to quantum mechanics, doesn't observation by an intelligent being (Or life form) determine the outcome of its reality? (I'm not very knowledgable in this field, but I believe that's how the theory works)

Now, if intelligent life hasn't begun in a certain universe, no one is observing. But if no one's observing, then the universe is no ones reality. If the universe is no ones reality, can it exist? We can trace our awareness back to the first properly intelligent being, but before that, can we prove anything?

 

[homeforsummer]

*Snip*

I think I worded it poorly with "inbuilt life span", not least because some people live longer than others simply down to factors like stress and diet. What I meant is that certain cells get to a definite point where they're no longer to correctly replicate so the body deteriorates. It actually starts in your 20s and it's all downhill from there. I'm sure genetics can find answers to some things (not least cancers) but as you mention, maintaining mental acuity is much more hit-and-miss. It's no use living to 100+ if your mental state continually deteriorates from your 60s or 70s.

It does involve that analogy, but only to a certain extent. Correct me on this if I'm wrong, but according to quantum mechanics, doesn't observation by an intelligent being (Or life form) determine the outcome of its reality? (I'm not very knowledgable in this field, but I believe that's how the theory works)

Now, if intelligent life hasn't begun in a certain universe, no one is observing. But if no one's observing, then the universe is no ones reality. If the universe is no ones reality, can it exist? We can trace our awareness back to the first properly intelligent being, but before that, can we prove anything?

I honestly don't know - quantum theory isn't a strong point of mine. Better asking someone like Famine with that.

We don't know to keep our hand off of a hot stove until we learn being burnt doesn't feel good. But before we decide to pull our hand away from the heat it has already been thought of. Blinking is done with the autonomic nervous system, that is a lot different. Dreaming is also a lot different, we are not in control of our dreams.

The first time you touch something hot you don't need to wait until it hurts before you stop touching it - you just stop. And then it hurts like hell. That's nothing to do with decision-making, that's your body deciding independently of your conscious to get the hell away from whatever it is that's burning you.

It involves no conscious decision. The only conscious decision you'd make is to be more careful next time.

And I find your bomb example ludicrous and is almost derogatory to the people that do that job. They can't think clearly? I think their training is so they can think clearly. Muscle memory? I am pretty sure almost every bomb is made differently, especially considering the people that make the bombs.

I had a feeling you'd attempt to call me out on this, when it's perfectly true. The following, according to Major Chris Hunter of the Royal Logistic Corps in the British Army, in BBC Focus Magazine, September 2010:

"Fear is quickly replaced by euphoria. When your head is next to 10 kilos of explosive, it will vaporise if something goes wrong. That's an intense feeling to go through and produces an incredible amount of adrenal response".

It isn't simply adrenaline that changes the physiology when under pressure, as Hunter explains. "The stress causes blood and oxygen to flow to your torso. Only a limited amount gets to the frontal cortex, which deals with your rational thought. Instead, you use muscle memory, repeating tasks from a drill"

So essentially, exactly as I said. My only mistake was remembering it as endorphins, when it's essentially a lack of oxygen to the brain.

Either way, it's proof - from the horse's mouth - that training can pre-condition you to act in a certain way in a certain situation completely independent of making a snap decision in the moment.

So again, Danoff was right.

And there are a plethora of psychological conditions that will cause one to forget, or black out, during times of extreme stress. There is no doubt when a guy walks up to a live IED he is fully conscious and in control of his actions, but the actions he makes (which is usually driving a r/c robot up to the bomb to drop C4 on it) is predetermined within his brain, before he is consciously aware.

If you're disarming with a robot, in relative safety, then you'd obviously be making conscious decisions. Unfortunately, not all IEDs can be disarmed by robots, which is when you send in the guy in a 40kg bomb suit and hope that his training worked.

 

[Dapper]

Fear is quickly replaced by euphoria. When your head is next to 10 kilos of explosive, it will vaporise if something goes wrong. That's an intense feeling to go through and produces an incredible amount of adrenal response".
It isn't simply adrenaline that changes the physiology when under pressure, as Hunter explains. "The stress causes blood and oxygen to flow to your torso. Only a limited amount gets to the frontal cortex, which deals with your rational thought. Instead, you use muscle memory, repeating tasks from a drill.

So essentially, exactly as I said. My only mistake was remembering it as endorphins, when it's essentially a lack of oxygen to the brain.

Either way, it's proof - from the horse's mouth - that training can pre-condition you to act in a certain way in a certain situation completely independent of making a snap decision in the moment.

So again, Danoff was right.

You're proof is muscles actually have a memory? I hope not. The part of the brain that controls muscles is the same part of the brain that thinks, therefore if there isn't enough oxygen to think, there isn't enough to operate muscles. Walking is muscle memory, and it can be done while unconscious, but the brain is still controlling the muscles (and it all happens before one is consciously aware).

Only a limited amount gets to the frontal cortex, which deals with your rational thought. Instead, you use muscle memory, repeating tasks from a drill.

This really makes no sense. Muscles have no memory.

 

[Famine]

You're proof is muscles actually have a memory? I hope not. The part of the brain that controls muscles is the same part of the brain that thinks, therefore if there isn't enough oxygen to think, there isn't enough to operate muscles. Walking is muscle memory, and it can be done while unconscious, but the brain is still controlling the muscles (and it all happens before one is consciously aware).


This really makes no sense. Muscles have no memory.

Please read up on "motor learning" (better known as "muscle memory"). It's nothing to do with muscles having memory, but with intensive training through repetition that results in permanent (or near-permanent) change in the physiology of the motor cortex (spinal motor circuit control), basal ganglia (action selection) and cerebellum (fine action control). The prefrontal cortex - the part of the brain "that thinks" (specifically the planning, decision-making and personality part) - isn't involved in muscle memory.


Walking is a terrific example. We aren't born knowing how to walk, but we learn how to do it and can eventually manage to accomplish it - standing up is quite a balancing act and walking really is just a series of controlled falls - without having to put any effort into thinking about it. By repetition you effect a permanent change in the basal ganglia (which selects actions for you without conscious control), cerebellum (which governs the precision of those actions) and motor cortex (which drives the muscles). Ever heard the phrase "It's like riding a bike - you never forget how"? That's muscle memory.

 

[CMvan46]

Only partly try Famine a lot of what you said isn't yet proven. I study this stuff constantly and I've already taken Motor Learning and Control and Motor Development.

No muscles have no memory themselves. It's entirely a function of the nervous system. Your theory on what changes occur constantly changes and they aren't entirely certain at this point. Try braking with your left foot next time and tell me how smooth it is. Probably not very smooth. This is because your nervous system hasn't figured out how many motor units it needs to recruit to perform the task in an efficient and proper manner so therefore it needs to "learn" the circumstances and then reproduce it next time the circumstances arise. This is how some people are instantly good at some tasks because they can transfer previously learned actions to form the basis of new ones.


It's also debatable if we are born able to walk. We are almost all born with a walking reflex. Try this with your baby: although I don't remember without looking it up but these reflexes may show after a few months:

Hold a baby upright and let their feet touch a hard surface and they will begin lifting the feet off the table which is known as the stepping reflex, the precursor to walking.

Hold your baby over water or in most cases a shiny surface and they will begin a swimming motion or as you may guess the swimming reflex.

Why those reflexes disappear is debatable. The more accepted theory called the Dynamic Systems theory is that we have other individual. constraints restricting the reflex such as the leg is now too heavy to perform it. Walking could just be the point where we are strong enough to perform the task standing upon our own without all the individual constraints.

I don't remember now when those reflexes appear and disappear but it'd be pretty cool to see.


Dapper: Actually training can help you act in a specific way when some sort of stimulus is present. Anybody playing sports knows that. The same way you've trained yourself in Gt5. You see a left turn and your training instantly tells you to press the joystick left, you do it more or less without "thinking" at this point.

 

[Famine]

Only partly try Famine a lot of what you said isn't yet proven. I study this stuff constantly and I've already taken Motor Learning and Control and Motor Development.

No muscles have no memory themselves. It's entirely a function of the nervous system. Your theory on what changes occur constantly changes and they aren't entirely certain at this point.

Yes and no. The important part is that "muscle memory" is just a byword, because it seems as if the muscles remember what they're doing, for a neurological process that doesn't involve the prefrontal cortex - the part of the brain responsible for decision-making, personality and planning (or "executive control"). It's literally a process of performing actions, usually fine-control actions, without thinking about them through learning.

Try braking with your left foot next time and tell me how smooth it is. Probably not very smooth. This is because your nervous system hasn't figured out how many motor units it needs to recruit to perform the task in an efficient and proper manner so therefore it needs to "learn" the circumstances and then reproduce it next time the circumstances arise.

Bad example - I already learned it

But yes, you're quite right. This is another example of muscle memory.

It's also debatable if we are born able to walk. We are almost all born with a walking reflex. Try this with your baby: although I don't remember without looking it up but these reflexes may show after a few months:

Hold a baby upright and let their feet touch a hard surface and they will begin lifting the feet off the table which is known as the stepping reflex, the precursor to walking.

Hold your baby over water or in most cases a shiny surface and they will begin a swimming motion or as you may guess the swimming reflex.

Why those reflexes disappear is debatable. The more accepted theory called the Dynamic Systems theory is that we have other individual. constraints restricting the reflex such as the leg is now too heavy to perform it. Walking could just be the point where we are strong enough to perform the task standing upon our own without all the individual constraints.

I don't remember now when those reflexes appear and disappear but it'd be pretty cool to see.

A walking reflex - which is essentially just moving legs when upright - is quite different to walking. Even if you have the muscle power to support yourself while walking, without learning the fine motor control to perform the act you will fall over. Lower limb amputees are a good example of this - they have to relearn the act of walking as, even though they have the muscle power to stand upright, they haven't learned the fine motor control of walking with prostheses.

Our lass is permanently wriggling and squirming anyway - she was even in the womb. Any action she performs could be interpreted as anything. She even has her dad's grasping monkeyfeet...

 

[homeforsummer]

You're proof is muscles actually have a memory? I hope not. The part of the brain that controls muscles is the same part of the brain that thinks, therefore if there isn't enough oxygen to think, there isn't enough to operate muscles. Walking is muscle memory, and it can be done while unconscious, but the brain is still controlling the muscles (and it all happens before one is consciously aware).

This really makes no sense. Muscles have no memory.

Please have a read of what Famine explained about the process. It's not literally a "memory", it's just the ability to repeat a process and react to a situation without needing to consciously think about it.

And you can either accept that what I quoted - from someone who actually disposes bombs for a living - is correct, or you can continue assuming that it's not possible to train your body to act in a certain way in the absence of clear thought.

The only difference is the former is correct, and the latter incorrect.

 

[Bram Turismo]

The universe itself could be infinite, but it could be that everything after a certain distance from the centre of the universe is simply empty, and therefore life wouldn't necessarily be infinite... in other words, in an infinite system there may still only be a set number of conditions that something can happen.

What are these conditions, though? Don't we set the conditions to be as those that would result in life similar to that on our own planet? Could it not be that in other systems these conditions might be entirely different?

One could also think about the fact that a planet very similar to our own may have been born somewhere in the universe, but the distance between us would be so great that the image we receive is an image millions of years in the past for that particular planet.