The human brain contains a huge number of chemical synapses, with young children having about 1016 synapses — 10,000 billion (long scale).[1] This number declines with age, stabilizing by adulthood. Estimates for an adult vary from 1015 to 5 × 1015 synapses (1,000 to 5,000 billion).
The word "synapse" comes from "synaptein" which Sir Charles Scott Sherrington and his colleagues coined from the Greek "syn-" meaning "together" and "haptein" meaning "to clasp".
To clasp, or more aptly, the word grasp could apply.
If your into reading about that, check out synaptogenesis and adult neurogenesis. Some good reading
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
my first science professor told us that science will never answer every question. he said only a fool would beleive science was the answer to every question of the universe.
it's hard to respect a fool.
hearsay is not admissible in court
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
So you're saying existence as a rational deliberator, regardless of the contents and attributes of that deliberation, demands "all respect"?
Absolutely
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
You are well allowed to challenge what I say. I'd prefer you do it with some backbone though. Referring to scripture is not going to convince me you are right.
AH; THE OTHER DODGE. i don't recite scripture. why do you always hide behind religion when backed into a corner?
you stated reality was absolute and mentioned time. i simply asked you to prove time. time is not absolute. reality is not absolute. reality has boundries.
you parrot the ideas of authors yet can't back it up. you can drop his/her name yet can't provide the evidence needed to support the claim. for every author you name that claims "X" i can provide 2 authors that claim the opposite. instead of looking at both sides; you pick what you want to believe and dismiss the rest.
you cannot properly study light; if you don't study darkness.
AH; THE OTHER DODGE. i don't recite scripture. why do you always hide behind religion when backed into a corner?
you stated reality was absolute and mentioned time. i simply asked you to prove time. time is not absolute. reality is not absolute. reality has boundries.
you parrot the ideas of authors yet can't back it up. you can drop his/her name yet can't provide the evidence needed to support the claim. for every author you name that claims "X" i can provide 2 authors that claim the opposite. instead of looking at both sides; you pick what you want to believe and dismiss the rest.
you cannot properly study light; if you don't study darkness.
Drop the time thing, lol. Time is an observable truth. The simple thought experiment "What if time didn't exist?" proves that it does.
Actually I've provided more scientific research and statistical data than you, or probably anyone on this board. There was a time I was ridiculed for cutting & pasting too much without using my own words. When I've used my own words I'm accused of not having anything backing it up. I cited Hebb's rule, if you don't know what it is, that's for you to learn.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
The question presupposes that my viewpoints preclude respect, which is not the case at all. In-fact, my views of hard determinism requires a level of respect for all rational deliberators. I realize the efficiency of one's rational deliberation is the sole cause of physical determinants. That demands all respect.
then why are you bothering with any of this? we're all predetermined to not believe you
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Jeez people take it easy on Ahnimus. We're all full of shit. His shit is a different perspective.
That's an interesting way of dealing with cognitive dissonance across brains. I like it.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
then why are you bothering with any of this? we're all predetermined to not believe you
Currently, but the future remains a mystery. As more and more people begin to understand my shared view and begin to express themselves on the MT, the social atmosphere will allow for change, and then maybe it will bloom.
As Samuel Clemens wrote under his pen name Mark Twain
"In the begining the patriot is a scarce man, feared, hated and scorned, but in time when his cause succeeds the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."
Do you see how that applies metaphorically to this situation?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Currently, but the future remains a mystery. As more and more people begin to understand my shared view and begin to express themselves on the MT, the social atmosphere will allow for change, and then maybe it will bloom.
As Samuel Clemens wrote under his pen name Mark Twain
"In the begining the patriot is a scarce man, feared, hated and scorned, but in time when his cause succeeds the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."
Do you see how that applies metaphorically to this situation?
Does that mean the patriot is right...or popular?
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
Drop the time thing, lol. Time is an observable truth. The simple thought experiment "What if time didn't exist?" proves that it does.
Actually I've provided more scientific research and statistical data than you, or probably anyone on this board. There was a time I was ridiculed for cutting & pasting too much without using my own words. When I've used my own words I'm accused of not having anything backing it up. I cited Hebb's rule, if you don't know what it is, that's for you to learn.
since you asked;
1) you don't speak to your audience here. we use plain english here so everyone can understand it. your "message" only reaches those who understand it.
2) when you close your mind to other opinions or possabilities you undermine any credability you had.
3) arrogance doesn't sit well with people.
4) don's work in 1949 is impressive; but much more has been done since then.
Currently, but the future remains a mystery. As more and more people begin to understand my shared view and begin to express themselves on the MT, the social atmosphere will allow for change, and then maybe it will bloom.
As Samuel Clemens wrote under his pen name Mark Twain
"In the begining the patriot is a scarce man, feared, hated and scorned, but in time when his cause succeeds the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."
Do you see how that applies metaphorically to this situation?
i see you having delusions of grandeur... a martyred prophet years ahead of the rest of us cowardly peasants. what i dont see is what difference any of your views make? nobody on here is attempting to stop scientific research or deny the influence of the brain over our actions. let me ask you, suppose everyone on here accepted your views that we are incapable of original thought and are simply robots reacting to stimuli like the ball in a pinball machine. what difference does this make for the world? when we si down for dinner, does this affect our decision to eat salmon instead of steak? does it change our word choice on the pit? what impact does your philosophical belief system have on a person's day to day life?
Currently, but the future remains a mystery. As more and more people begin to understand my shared view and begin to express themselves on the MT, the social atmosphere will allow for change, and then maybe it will bloom.
As Samuel Clemens wrote under his pen name Mark Twain
"In the begining the patriot is a scarce man, feared, hated and scorned, but in time when his cause succeeds the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."
Do you see how that applies metaphorically to this situation?
hitler; napoleon; and countless figures from the past said the same thing. in the future we will all build a shrine in your honor and worship you as the bringer of knowledge.
During synaptogenesis the brain develops by receiving stimuli and wiring neurons together via synapses. According to Hebb's rule, the more neurons fire, the closer they wire. Overtime this creates a strong engram, as in elderly people, these engrams can be indestructable. The more a person is exposed to an idea, the more they think about it, the stronger the engram grows. The stronger the engram, the more they think about the idea, the more they believe it. Thus why you cannot teach an old dog new tricks, or why ideas like God have lasted so long. Why new ideas like hard determinism and evolution are shunned. Regardless of their correctness, these new ideas lack the potency required to destroy the existing engrams. During a stage of cognitive dissonance, these new ideas with their weak engrams battle the existing ideas and their stronger engrams. It is almost inevitably the older ideas that win favour.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
since you asked;
1) you don't speak to your audience here. we use plain english here so everyone can understand it. your "message" only reaches those who understand it.
2) when you close your mind to other opinions or possabilities you undermine any credability you had.
3) arrogance doesn't sit well with people.
4) don's work in 1949 is impressive; but much more has been done since then.
I don't view any of that as true.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
i see you having delusions of grandeur... a martyred profit years ahead of the rest of us cowardly peasants. what i dont see is what difference any of your views make? nobody on here is attempting to stop scientific research or deny the influence of the brain over our actions. let me ask you, suppose everyone on here accepted your views that we are incapable of original thought and are simply robots reacting to stimuli like the ball in a pinball machine. what difference does this make for the world? when we si down for dinner, does this affect our decision to eat salmon instead of steak? does it change our word choice on the pit? what impact does your philosophical belief system have on a person's day to day life?
i didn't have the nerve to put it this way but i do agree. i was going to use the words "superiority complex" but you did a good job.
Then how could you possibly lose respect for Dan? When did he stop being a "rational deliberator"?
I have respect for his position as a rational deliberator, it's his opinions of myself I do not respect.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
i see you having delusions of grandeur... a martyred prophet years ahead of the rest of us cowardly peasants. what i dont see is what difference any of your views make? nobody on here is attempting to stop scientific research or deny the influence of the brain over our actions. let me ask you, suppose everyone on here accepted your views that we are incapable of original thought and are simply robots reacting to stimuli like the ball in a pinball machine. what difference does this make for the world? when we si down for dinner, does this affect our decision to eat salmon instead of steak? does it change our word choice on the pit? what impact does your philosophical belief system have on a person's day to day life?
It pertains to social issues of morality. It also empowers us to make better decisions when we recognize what influences are affecting our decision making.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
It pertains to social issues of morality. It also empowers us to make better decisions when we recognize what influences are affecting our decision making.
what kinds of decisions? again, steak or salmon... is there a better one? how does this at all impact morality? under your system any behavior is condoned becos it is all inevitable. raping, stealing, killing... it's all just hardwired.
i didn't have the nerve to put it this way but i do agree. i was going to use the words "superiority complex" but you did a good job.
I view it as a solid understanding of the field of research to which I've dedicated much of my time. I really have no idea what affect selenium has on cattle feed. It's not my area of interest. I suspect that if I were to engage in such conversation with you, I would need to be prepared with a solid understanding. I concede to you that your knowledge of cattle feed surpasses my own. Would you not grant me the same respect?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
what kinds of decisions? again, steak or salmon... is there a better one? how does this at all impact morality? under your system any behavior is condoned becos it is all inevitable. raping, stealing, killing... it's all just hardwired.
Not hardwired in every case, but strongly influenced. It allows us to develop humane systems of rehabilitation, contrary to our current methods.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
During synaptogenesis the brain develops by receiving stimuli and wiring neurons together via synapses. According to Hebb's rule, the more neurons fire, the closer they wire. Overtime this creates a strong engram, as in elderly people, these engrams can be indestructable. The more a person is exposed to an idea, the more they think about it, the stronger the engram grows. The stronger the engram, the more they think about the idea, the more they believe it. Thus why you cannot teach an old dog new tricks, or why ideas like God have lasted so long. Why new ideas like hard determinism and evolution are shunned. Regardless of their correctness, these new ideas lack the potency required to destroy the existing engrams. During a stage of cognitive dissonance, these new ideas with their weak engrams battle the existing ideas and their stronger engrams. It is almost inevitably the older ideas that win favour.
which just proved don hebb wrong. if true; the newer discoveries would be made by young scientists. this is not the case. in fact; it's the younger scientists that insist they are right or their way is the proper way. (sound like anyone here?) it is the older mind which draws from experience.
During synaptogenesis the brain develops by receiving stimuli and wiring neurons together via synapses. According to Hebb's rule, the more neurons fire, the closer they wire. Overtime this creates a strong engram, as in elderly people, these engrams can be indestructable. The more a person is exposed to an idea, the more they think about it, the stronger the engram grows. The stronger the engram, the more they think about the idea, the more they believe it. Thus why you cannot teach an old dog new tricks, or why ideas like God have lasted so long. Why new ideas like hard determinism and evolution are shunned. Regardless of their correctness, these new ideas lack the potency required to destroy the existing engrams. During a stage of cognitive dissonance, these new ideas with their weak engrams battle the existing ideas and their stronger engrams. It is almost inevitably the older ideas that win favour.
That makes sense. Accurate observation.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Comments
If your into reading about that, check out synaptogenesis and adult neurogenesis. Some good reading
hearsay is not admissible in court
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Absolutely
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
AH; THE OTHER DODGE. i don't recite scripture. why do you always hide behind religion when backed into a corner?
you stated reality was absolute and mentioned time. i simply asked you to prove time. time is not absolute. reality is not absolute. reality has boundries.
you parrot the ideas of authors yet can't back it up. you can drop his/her name yet can't provide the evidence needed to support the claim. for every author you name that claims "X" i can provide 2 authors that claim the opposite. instead of looking at both sides; you pick what you want to believe and dismiss the rest.
you cannot properly study light; if you don't study darkness.
Drop the time thing, lol. Time is an observable truth. The simple thought experiment "What if time didn't exist?" proves that it does.
Actually I've provided more scientific research and statistical data than you, or probably anyone on this board. There was a time I was ridiculed for cutting & pasting too much without using my own words. When I've used my own words I'm accused of not having anything backing it up. I cited Hebb's rule, if you don't know what it is, that's for you to learn.
what? are we talking in circles again?
then why are you bothering with any of this? we're all predetermined to not believe you
I don't know, are you?
That's an interesting way of dealing with cognitive dissonance across brains.
Currently, but the future remains a mystery. As more and more people begin to understand my shared view and begin to express themselves on the MT, the social atmosphere will allow for change, and then maybe it will bloom.
As Samuel Clemens wrote under his pen name Mark Twain
"In the begining the patriot is a scarce man, feared, hated and scorned, but in time when his cause succeeds the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."
Do you see how that applies metaphorically to this situation?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Does that mean the patriot is right...or popular?
since you asked;
1) you don't speak to your audience here. we use plain english here so everyone can understand it. your "message" only reaches those who understand it.
2) when you close your mind to other opinions or possabilities you undermine any credability you had.
3) arrogance doesn't sit well with people.
4) don's work in 1949 is impressive; but much more has been done since then.
Then how could you possibly lose respect for Dan? When did he stop being a "rational deliberator"?
i see you having delusions of grandeur... a martyred prophet years ahead of the rest of us cowardly peasants. what i dont see is what difference any of your views make? nobody on here is attempting to stop scientific research or deny the influence of the brain over our actions. let me ask you, suppose everyone on here accepted your views that we are incapable of original thought and are simply robots reacting to stimuli like the ball in a pinball machine. what difference does this make for the world? when we si down for dinner, does this affect our decision to eat salmon instead of steak? does it change our word choice on the pit? what impact does your philosophical belief system have on a person's day to day life?
hitler; napoleon; and countless figures from the past said the same thing. in the future we will all build a shrine in your honor and worship you as the bringer of knowledge.
good luck with that.
I think that goes without saying.
During synaptogenesis the brain develops by receiving stimuli and wiring neurons together via synapses. According to Hebb's rule, the more neurons fire, the closer they wire. Overtime this creates a strong engram, as in elderly people, these engrams can be indestructable. The more a person is exposed to an idea, the more they think about it, the stronger the engram grows. The stronger the engram, the more they think about the idea, the more they believe it. Thus why you cannot teach an old dog new tricks, or why ideas like God have lasted so long. Why new ideas like hard determinism and evolution are shunned. Regardless of their correctness, these new ideas lack the potency required to destroy the existing engrams. During a stage of cognitive dissonance, these new ideas with their weak engrams battle the existing ideas and their stronger engrams. It is almost inevitably the older ideas that win favour.
I don't view any of that as true.
i didn't have the nerve to put it this way but i do agree. i was going to use the words "superiority complex" but you did a good job.
I have respect for his position as a rational deliberator, it's his opinions of myself I do not respect.
It pertains to social issues of morality. It also empowers us to make better decisions when we recognize what influences are affecting our decision making.
what kinds of decisions? again, steak or salmon... is there a better one? how does this at all impact morality? under your system any behavior is condoned becos it is all inevitable. raping, stealing, killing... it's all just hardwired.
I view it as a solid understanding of the field of research to which I've dedicated much of my time. I really have no idea what affect selenium has on cattle feed. It's not my area of interest. I suspect that if I were to engage in such conversation with you, I would need to be prepared with a solid understanding. I concede to you that your knowledge of cattle feed surpasses my own. Would you not grant me the same respect?
I break things down to their simplest core. :eek: I'm sure what I mean anymore. This thread is hilarious. Thanks cate.
Not hardwired in every case, but strongly influenced. It allows us to develop humane systems of rehabilitation, contrary to our current methods.
which just proved don hebb wrong. if true; the newer discoveries would be made by young scientists. this is not the case. in fact; it's the younger scientists that insist they are right or their way is the proper way. (sound like anyone here?) it is the older mind which draws from experience.
That makes sense. Accurate observation.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!