Biggest Questions for Science

galactus · 28-01-2005 04:52PM

toiletduck wrote:

id love to know are we alone aswell but honestly i dont think it would alter our world as much as you think.

A fair point and to be honest I've been wondering if the discovery of ETs would create pandemonium. On reflection, I've changed my mind. I agree with you - I don't think it would make a huge difference. If you have faith, you have faith etc.

Plus I'd love to see how Richard Dawkins (a well-known atheist, "selfish gene" etc.) would react to the news that the creationists are still hanging in there with their belief set.

GuanYin · 28-01-2005 04:54PM

toiletduck wrote:

id love to know are we alone aswell but honestly i dont think it would alter our world as much as you think.

Curious, why do you say that.

Surely it depends on the type of life found?

toiletduck · 29-01-2005 04:08PM

i suppose it does depend on what type of life e.g. when it was announced in 1996 that bacterial fossils were found on Mars (yes i know its still disputed) it made headlines but it was hardly earth shattering stuff to most people, i was very excited but everyone else seemed to be "ooh, thats nice. i wonder what else is on the tv." I mean discovery of alien life isnt gona change the world as we know it, unless we meet them face to face which is a different story all together from hearing radio waves from them.

Doper Than U · 30-01-2005 09:03PM

A question I often ponder on is animal intelligence and emotionality...

I find it so strange that animals cannot be happy or sad, or feel love according to science, as this is anthropomorphisising. They prefer the use of less emotionally-loaded terms such as "pair-bonded" etc etc... It's as though science has accepted the process (of the sensation of a condition) but not the internal, subjective "feeling" of the animal.

For example, lets look at a horse. A mare. This mare has a baby. She experiences a very strong maternal bond with her young foal. Who is to say that the "sensation" she feels in her body when with her foal does not present itself as that lovely warm protective feeling known as "love" in the human world. After all, maternal love in humans can easily be referred to as mere "maternal bonding"... but as humans we KNOW what it "feels" like in our bodies to experience love, even though it is nothing more than a series of impulses in our brain and nervous system. So why is the "sensation" in the horse not the same as that of the human (assuming the brain and nervous system function in the same way), and as such, why is it wrong to refer to this sensation as "love" in the animal, but ok to refer to it as "love" in a human? Why have that distinction if not to maintain our superiority complex over animals?

I'm not referring to intelligence and conscious thought, as humans are superior in these attributes, but to basic "feeling" and "emotion" (eg, love, happiness, sadness, grumpiness, anger, fear etc etc). It's just something that bugs me, sometimes I think science, in an effort to completely detach itself from bias, ignores common sense... Animal emotionality cannot be "proved" any more than it can be "disproved", so why the absolute insistence that the feelings in animals are not experienced in the same way as human feelings. After all, humans don't require consciousness to feel, would anyone suggest a baby incapable of emotion?

Sorry for the long post, I rambled a bit...

John · 30-01-2005 10:24PM

It's not that they don't feel what you'd class as emotion, it's that we can't be sure that they feel it in the same way. Brains function in the same way but the structures are different. Emotion is mainly processed in the amygdala, you'd have to see what activity is like in this part of the brain in animals under experimental conditions which sounds like a pretty difficult experiment. And even then you can't be sure, we have pretty much all the same proteins and biochemical processes as mice yet not all treatments that work on mice work in humans.

Kevin_rc_ie · 30-01-2005 10:26PM

amy who?

John · 30-01-2005 10:55PM

ba-doom-tish!

elivsvonchiaing · 31-01-2005 12:14AM

Doper Than U wrote:

A question I often ponder on is animal intelligence and emotionality...

I find it so strange that animals cannot be happy or sad, or feel love according to science, as this is anthropomorphisising. They prefer the use of less emotionally-loaded terms such as "pair-bonded" etc etc... It's as though science has accepted the process (of the sensation of a condition) but not the internal, subjective "feeling" of the animal.
...

Totally agree!

John2 wrote:

It's not that they don't feel what you'd class as emotion, it's that we can't be sure that they feel it in the same way. Brains function in the same way but the structures are different. Emotion is mainly processed in the amygdala, you'd have to see what activity is like in this part of the brain in animals under experimental conditions which sounds like a pretty difficult experiment. And even then you can't be sure, we have pretty much all the same proteins and biochemical processes as mice yet not all treatments that work on mice work in humans.

The best example I can think of to illustrate emotions in animals is when an elephant calf dies. The mother will stand by the corpse for hours, even days on end scaring-off vultures etc. until she has to seek water - or die. Some species eat their young - but I think elephants definitely feel emotion, and probably also most primates, canines and felines. Felines would probably be the most worthy of study as they are wired very like us. (REM sleep etc).

John · 31-01-2005 12:31PM

I think a lot of scientists are scared of this topic because it might make ethical issues more of a problem in their eyes. Animal testing is already such a testy topic that proving that animals feel emotion in a similar way to humans could be a major hindrance. Although, I don't see many people doing cancer research on elephants, they're pretty hard to fit on the microtome when you need to slice the tissue.

popinfresh · 31-01-2005 09:37PM

Is it possible for humans to travel to other planets

Moriarty · 31-01-2005 11:43PM

Why would it not be?

John · 01-02-2005 01:26AM

Just back to emotion, had a lecture today on this topic and apparently the reason why most animals do not feel emotion like we do is due to the fact that there is a brain structure called the insular cortex that is only found in higher primates and even then it is only developed "properly" in humans, it is here that the emotional aspects of environmental and homeostatic conditions are processed. So most animals don't have the hardware to process the likes of pain and hunger emotionally.

elivsvonchiaing · 01-02-2005 02:46AM

John2 wrote:

Just back to emotion, had a lecture today on this topic and apparently the reason why most animals do not feel emotion like we do is due to the fact that there is a brain structure called the insular cortex that is only found in higher primates and even then it is only developed "properly" in humans, it is here that the emotional aspects of environmental and homeostatic conditions are processed. So most animals don't have the hardware to process the likes of pain and hunger emotionally.

Really think this is up there with "fish don't feel pain!" thinking - as an ex-fisherman I know they do- as a diver I know they do.

Very simple (and cheap experiment) give a dog a bone - day 1 - same day 2 - day 3 -kick the dog - day 4 present bone to dog - walks away - the dog may not be using the same messaging chemicals within its brain to recognize threat, or even same areas - but ffs this is emotion in animals imho!

When I was a kid we had a cat that scratched wallpaper - I was the 7 y/o who noticed it was the wallpaper directly behind the fridge in the other room!
The cat had spatially worked out where the back of the fridge was!

Animals are underestimated imho!

While they may not be on a seratonin trip - the idea that animals don't feel emotion is ridiculous - but probably needs to be kept so.

"Animals feel pain - we'll bomb that clinic!"

I feel most of the animal-rights "nutters" just have no holistic understanding of our world whatsoever. They are egged-on by nihilists who do; and want to see man - gone.

Just watch a Bill Hick's video you'll know what I mean when I say : Let these people live, give 'em their space, let them pet cattle, swim with dolphins, pet felines, swim with sharks and crocodiles!" in scripture fairly sure it was wolf and lamb, but I'm prepared let them swim with sharks and crocodiles! Sure it will be all right

galactus · 01-02-2005 10:03AM

popinfresh wrote:

Is it possible for humans to travel to other planets

Interesting Q but I believe that this is more of a matter of technology than a science.

Overcoming long-term zero G, limiting exposure to cosmic radiation are two of the main issues initially. Propulsion and cryogenic storage (or near light speed travel) feature of course.

On the other hand, the technical hurdles will no doubt throw up questions to science.

Ciaran · 01-02-2005 05:03PM

elivsvonchiaing wrote:

When I was a kid we had a cat that scratched wallpaper - I was the 7 y/o who noticed it was the wallpaper directly behind the fridge in the other room!
The cat had spatially worked out where the back of the fridge was!

Could just be that the wall was warmer!

Doper Than U · 02-02-2005 12:06AM

Just back to emotion, had a lecture today on this topic and apparently the reason why most animals do not feel emotion like we do is due to the fact that there is a brain structure called the insular cortex that is only found in higher primates and even then it is only developed "properly" in humans, it is here that the emotional aspects of environmental and homeostatic conditions are processed. So most animals don't have the hardware to process the likes of pain and hunger emotionally.

Interesting post. I was aware of this, but am not entirely convinced. We don't know enough about the brain to know the true function of either the amygdala or the insular cortex. The recent study of theory of mind in chimps has proved to be very interesting, as it appears theory of mind does exist outside of humanity, when that was thought to be impossible.

I am talking about basic emotions here, i.e. that animals "appear" to react in a similar way to similar stimuli as humans. Their nervous systems appear to react the same way, their "expressions" are easily read and understood by humans (ever see a terrified animal being hunted by lions? I'lll bet you recognised the look of panic and fear in it's face). My point is that the sensation created by their instinctive response to a stimuli (being hunted, bonding with a child) probably feels the same as "fear" and "love", and indeed, that's how the animal "knows" to protect it's baby (etc). While it may be evolutionary strategy and instinct to do this (as it is in humans), the sensation within the animal must *feel* good or bad in order for it to register with the animal... Emotions are just responses to certain stimuli to ensure survival of the species, created by the brain and nervous system (over simplified, I know)... how could they not exist, even in a basic form, in the animal world?

Meh, it's just me thinking out loud, I don't purport to be right about this, it just makes more sense to me...

John · 02-02-2005 01:25AM

I'm not denying the fact that emotion exists outside of humans, all I'm saying is that in humans emotion has much more brain pushing it and that the emotions we feel are likely far more finely detailed. Emotion is a huge part of sex in humans and as such natural selection will mould emotion. Arg, I'm tired but this is a good conversation.

Oh and do you have any links for that chimp theory of mind study? I'd be interested in reading that.

elivsvonchiaing · 02-02-2005 02:13AM

Ciaran wrote:

Could just be that the wall was warmer!

Could have been - but same cat was first to poke head in fridge whenever he heard it opening. Remember scratching on fridge door too...

Don't think this was an exceptional cat tbh... had another cat that used to piss in the bath, then kitty paw marks appeared on the bog seat - she used to use a fúckin toilet.

Never met the cat (had died) but a landlord of mine had a cat that would sneak into a shower when in use - this was of course a hot country - cat's traditionally hate water - but this cat had learned a use for it.

Guess cats are as flexible as we are psychologically. Would love more science on this tbh!

Would love to know if domestic cats only exhibit this - as opposed to wild (predator felines). With just 10,000 years or so, have they evolved that quickly?

elivsvonchiaing · 02-02-2005 02:30AM

galactus wrote:

Interesting Q but I believe that this is more of a matter of technology than a science.

Overcoming long-term zero G, limiting exposure to cosmic radiation are two of the main issues initially. Propulsion and cryogenic storage (or near light speed travel) feature of course.

On the other hand, the technical hurdles will no doubt throw up questions to science.

Travelling at 99.?% C (forgotten the equation to work this out) - where 2 years relative = 100 elapsed years. Given that you are mainly travelling at vast distances from a star, think cosmic radiation would be reduced - still think 2 years relative would net you enough high-energy particles to match 10 years in earth orbit - you would probably age at least 50 years. Asleep or not no-one will have the luxury of lead-shielded craft! There's a lot to be worked out here...

Think a magnetic shield might work - but duracell's won't power this. Think we should not consider ourselves too far removed from the apes that first discovered fire! We have a long way to go yet... - OR a very short way to go...
(See my original post).

Doper Than U · 02-02-2005 02:49AM

Oh and do you have any links for that chimp theory of mind study? I'd be interested in reading that.

No links, but I'll look. I saw it on a Chimp documentary, Jane Goodall was on it, it's quite recent. I'll keep an eye out for it and see if I can get the details of the research.

And I do agree that humans emotional capabilities are far more refined... but that was kind of what I was getting at when I said "Basic Emotions". I really am referring to core feelings, to primal reactions, which we know animals have (as do humans). I'm just wondering if those reactions present themselves physiologically the same way as basic human ones (like in a very young child; too young to understand deep, complex emotions, but definitely capable of basic emotion). I see no reason why not, as at this stage brain and nervous system capabilities are *basically* the same. (Ok, again, an oversimplification... my psych books are put away, lol)

CerebralCortex · 02-02-2005 02:34PM

I think the biggest and most urgent question for science is a new and infintily/easily renewable energy source. The oil clock is ticking.

Doper Than U · 02-02-2005 07:35PM

Touché Cortex... that is indeed probably the most important question right now...
That and what is science doing about the La Palma landslide that will wipe out Ireland and the east coast of America...?

taby · 02-02-2005 08:51PM

Hmmmm what is the biggest question in science? But wouldn't the field of science be important too? There's no point for a chemist to investigate the big bang theory and same way a physcist isn't goin to look into how micelles can be used to deliver drug treatment to HIV infected cells or tumours more accuratly. To be honest i think the following to me would be big areas:

(1) Chemist: New ways to treat Aids and HIV but make it affordable to those who can't currently afford the treatment like in the 3rd world.
(2) Biologist : Maybe the cancer and why it is being caused would be big issue - cancer kills so many in society wouldn't it be great to irradicate that disease - also what we are and why our brain works the way it does ( as fore mentioned above ).

(3) Physists: The big bang theory - where did we come from - new forms of materials maybe? I'm not big into thsi area so its bit sketchy.

Basically in my opinion science should be used to better understand the world but also to treat humans illnesses better, to stop drastic climate change and finally to even develop ways to travel further into space etc. But I think priority should be given to the major human diseases and climate change.

CerebralCortex · 03-02-2005 12:36PM

taby wrote:

Hmmmm what is the biggest question in science? But wouldn't the field of science be important too?........

Good point but think about all the energy needed to support all these fields nothing on this planet even alternative energies are free from oil (well as far as I am aware I hope I am wrong).

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

Check out www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net.

SkepticOne · 23-02-2005 12:53AM

Can pure evil be contained in a small space? What happens when you bring it into contact with concentrated pure good? Do they cancel out or produce something else?

elivsvonchiaing · 23-02-2005 02:58AM

SkepticOne wrote:

Can pure evil be contained in a small space? What happens when you bring it into contact with concentrated pure good? Do they cancel out or produce something else?

I like to think they will meet - they anhilate- in a blaze of enlightment!

galactus · 23-02-2005 01:49PM

SkepticOne wrote:

Can pure evil be contained in a small space? What happens when you bring it into contact with concentrated pure good? Do they cancel out or produce something else?

Remind me again what the units of measurement for these two entities are!

Moriarty · 23-02-2005 09:24PM

The "Hitler" and the "Ghandi", or the modern day equivalents of the "Bush" and the "Left".

causal · 24-02-2005 04:48AM

elivsvonchiaing wrote:

I like to think they will meet - they anhilate- in a blaze of enlightment!

Funnily enough I found, in a blaze of enlightenment, that neither exist; except, like a lot of other things, as a synaptic sequence in the human brain

causal

elivsvonchiaing · 25-02-2005 01:18AM

causal wrote:

Funnily enough I found, in a blaze of enlightenment, that neither exist; except, like a lot of other things, as a synaptic sequence in the human brain

causal

And this isn't existence? :rolleyes: Your bank balance is just a bunch of ones and zeros copied across a country-wide network - does it exist? Next time you go to an ATM get serious grip on what constitutes existence!

In 100 years these same bunch of 1s and 0s will be meaningless - even if you are still alive. What our ancestors thought of as good and evil may differ to what we see. But to deny we are emotional beings is a cop-out. Even at a clinical neuro-science level. Good and evil exist simply because we observe as an emotional machine.

And even what is "good" may only exist for one observer, or 6 billion. It exists as a good event either way.

A joke exists, infinity exists: a bunch of synaptic lightning sequences exist in every individual, even if he thinks he's Jesus; he is in his universe.

I'm going to sound a bit of a knob but I always thought existence requires an observer, actually - e.g. schodinger's cat- measurement = observation.

To suggest that good and evil does not exist ... would think you shouldn't stand for election in Basra, Khabul, Dublin, Washington, Pitt cairn Islands...:eek:

Biggest Questions for Science

Comments