Hello all, this is my first time posting anything! I am excited to be talking with all of you, and hope to get to know any of you who wish to know me in return! I have had a theory going for a while... I don’t really know if you can call it a theory, but it's the only thing I can think of that makes perfect sense but has no practical value. Anyway... it all started when I was talking with a friend, and he told me that he thought if aliens existed you probably can't see them. Like they are an energy or something else our limited technology or natural eyesight can't detect. So I was having a religious dilemma on what it all meant to be worthy of the name religious. I thought maybe that’s what a soul is like... I also thought that maybe it actually is something we can perceive we just don’t understand it. I remembered that humans have electricity running through them giving us our "energy". Seeing how energy has a positive, negative and neutral element to them I figured this kind of makes sense. My only holdback was how does it connect to us as people. For this question I needed to study not only people but why the brain does what it does. For those who don’t know this everything that is stored in our brains is nothing more then proteins lined up in such a way that our brain reads it like a bar code. If our brains are that precise how does it monitor our energy? This Question changed my theory into a direction I never expected. Simply I asked myself what does negative mean to me... not just the word but the feeling. Bad, sad, evil, etc... you can see the direction this is going. So I thought about the positive, happy, warm, love, etc... again... I think you get it. In this respect God is positive, Satan is negative, and neutral is what it is. Now when it came to neutral... I was almost convinced that it didn’t exist, but my roommate said something and it donned on me of no apparent meaning other then trying to convince his wife to move her chair so everyone wouldn't steal it. It's nothing more then natural habit, almost subconscious and maybe even is only subconscious. Now realizing this it opened many problems toward the world of religion, one including what heaven or hell will be to us if we lose the use of our brain and the ability to perceive anything. This made me think that maybe the energy we built through our lives in the way we chose and the long and twisted path known as life would be our contribution to the already existing energy working in your cause. Anyway... this is what I squeezed out of this twisted excuse for a brain, so let me know what you think or criticize about this topic, thank you !
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Well, firstly I'm suspicious of your connection between the positive and negative aspects of energy, and the feelings of positive and negative. I mean, protons are positive in energy terms, but that doesn't mean they are happier or better than electrons.
And secondly, I'm not exactly sure what your conclusion from all this is. Could you restate it?
[ December 14, 2003, 11:37 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Certainly interesting. But if it were some form of energy, presumably it is measurable? And why is sad necessarily "negative". Also, I think your description of the brain's method of storing information is at least incomplete... Our thoughts (as far as I've read and heard) are built via lattices of synapses, not proteins (presumably RNA/DNA/amino acids) in the brain. Do you have more info on your assertion?
Also, as a tip... Try breaking up thoughts into proper paragraphs, that will make your post easier for many of us to read. I know the thoughts are jumbled, stream-of-conciousness, but to make people really understand you, you need to discipline yourself enough to use as much thought in presentation. Your brain makes intuitive leaps that ours doesn't, so you need to spell it out more. A "you see my point" usually means that we won't.
All of this isn't to say you are wrong, but it makes people think you are likely wrong.
Oh, and welcome to Hatrack
-Bok
[ December 14, 2003, 11:40 PM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think you should find more literate friends and better acid.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Another suggestion is to post this on the other side of the forum. It's not a question about OSC, but ponderous metaphysical discussions go better over there. You will likely be frustrated by how quickly your thoughts will get buried with threads on, well, Books, Films, Food and American Culture.
I do have a theory that there is an essential energy of love and an energy of fear. But then, I think the universe is made up of an infinite number of dichotomies, few of which line up exactly.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I do have a theory that there is an essential energy of love and an energy of fear."
But whence comes my boundless energy of bitter sarcasm? Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
pooka, check out Empedocles... His great gift to Western thought was his idea of the forces of Love and Strife.
-Bok
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
I don't know about you Tom, but mine comes from a healthy daily dose of coffee and whiskey.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Sarcasm is on a separate plane, complemented by some other thing that has never been seen in my experience on Hatrack Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I'm not sure whether you will be more offended by Tom's flip, or me wresting your meaning with paragraph breaks, but here goes:
"Hello all, this is my first time posting anything! I am excited to be talking with all of you, and hope to get to know any of you who wish to know me in return!
"I have had a theory going for a while... I don’t really know if you can call it a theory, but it's the only thing I can think of that makes perfect sense but has no practical value. Anyway... it all started when I was talking with a friend, and he told me that he thought if aliens existed you probably can't see them. Like they are an energy or something else our limited technology or natural eyesight can't detect.
"So I was having a religious dilemma on what it all meant to be worthy of the name religious. I thought maybe that’s what a soul is like... I also thought that maybe it actually is something we can perceive we just don’t understand it. I remembered that humans have electricity running through them giving us our "energy". Seeing how energy has a positive, negative and neutral element to them I figured this kind of makes sense.
"My only holdback was how does it connect to us as people. For this question I needed to study not only people but why the brain does what it does. For those who don’t know this everything that is stored in our brains is nothing more then proteins lined up in such a way that our brain reads it like a bar code. If our brains are that precise how does it monitor our energy?
"This Question changed my theory into a direction I never expected. Simply I asked myself what does negative mean to me... not just the word but the feeling. Bad, sad, evil, etc... you can see the direction this is going. So I thought about the positive, happy, warm, love, etc... again... I think you get it. In this respect God is positive, Satan is negative, and neutral is what it is.
"Now when it came to neutral... I was almost convinced that it didn’t exist, but my roommate said something and it donned on me of no apparent meaning other then trying to convince his wife to move her chair so everyone wouldn't steal it. It's nothing more then natural habit, almost subconscious and maybe even is only subconscious.
"Now realizing this it opened many problems toward the world of religion, one including what heaven or hell will be to us if we lose the use of our brain and the ability to perceive anything. This made me think that maybe the energy we built through our lives in the way we chose and the long and twisted path known as life would be our contribution to the already existing energy working in your cause.
"Anyway... this is what I squeezed out of this twisted excuse for a brain, so let me know what you think or criticize about this topic, thank you !"
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Okay, have read this 2.5 times I realize your definitions still yield an unhelpful tautology. What is Satan? Satan is bad. What is bad? Bad is Satan.
I don't understand what could be morally neutral about a chair that possesses "everyone" with the desire to steal it. Is it the One Chair To Rule Them All or what?
Posted by akeylessanton (Member # 6024) on :
Yes.. sorry for the stream... i just tried to explain it in the most simplistic form possible. To the response about my connection to possitive negative and nuetral energy, is that "even though it holds a scientific property" the energy exists and how does our brain use that flow of energy. my theory is based on a theological term "religous theory". As you so put it Pooka an energy of love and fear... but isn't love perceived as a possitive emotion? As fear is also perceived as a negative emotion? It's easier for me to discuss this in person but I don't have that luxury available to me. Please bear with me and I will try to make it make sense as best as possible.
Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
Welcome to hatrack, and don't be afraid of Tom. He's a starry eyed idealist hiding inside a bitter cynic who is old before his time.
I don't think positive or negative energy (charge, maybe?) in physics is very analogous with good and evil, in any sort of concrete way that yeilds much insight into the nature of reality.
But you at least are in a group of people who do think about stuff like that a lot, so you've come to the right place.
Pooka, are there really more discussions of metaphysics on the other side? Maybe I should peek in over there more often.
Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
I also know that the way the brain works is not understood in any definite way. There are various theories, but no real explanations that have much predictive value. I mean, we've found out a lot about how things are processed, particularly in the visual cortex, yet we are a long long way from any real understanding of what is going on.
Posted by akeylessanton (Member # 6024) on :
I suppose I should have explained the chair... I just didnt want to lose everyone more then expected with a over-all meaningless story besides what it tought me. My roomates and me would sit outside to smoke and the wife had a chair that she liked the best. Unfortunatley she kept it closest to the dorr then any other chair so it was natural for people to take it first. Anyway me and her husband were saying she should just move the chair. She said "why don't you move it if your so worried about it". Her husband replied "that takes alot of energy!". anyway that statement about energy made me think... the energy we use with out body or brain that serve no purpose in a good or bad sense. That is nuetral energy. Did that make sense?
Posted by akeylessanton (Member # 6024) on :
OH!! Also, DNA/RNA and emino acids are a protein their individualising properties are what make them what their name pronounce.
Posted by akeylessanton (Member # 6024) on :
Sorry for the typos... iv'e had a long weekend. but two statements ago I meant to say "with our body and mind" not without. thanks Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think the positive and negative polarity, originally assigned to magnets, was arbitrarily named by someone of Ben Franklin's vintage.
Authorities of OSC's religion are all the time talking about people as transmitters receiving instantaneous communications across the vast distances of space. I mean, they don't make it sound as whacko as I am now, but they do talk about it.
The significance of + and - is relational as well. + attracts - and so forth.
I was thinking that if our moods were mapped and compressed, it would form a wave that could be interpreted as a sound or a light transmission. Depending on how far away the receiver was. But that's kind of going off in a different direction. The interaction of such energies between people is very important to me.
Also, the degree to which people change to accomodate those around them, or alternatley, the degree to which they impose on others seems important. But for every postulate like this, there is a complement.
One theory of moral behavior I have read says the moral person must be responsible and autonomous, but also accepting and empathetic. Perhaps it is the ability to blend and shift our energies, rather than stick to the same one, that constitutes intelligence.
Posted by akeylessanton (Member # 6024) on :
You have a very good point Ana Kata and that is exactly why im taking a crack at it. My over-all goul is to scientificly explain religious ideals. what purpose this will have i don't know... so far its mainly been self-proffitable, but who am I to guess the outcome of this thought.
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
Labeling difficulties aside, you've come to a good place. There are lots of idealists to hold your hand while you start to wrap your mind around the world of ideas. Proper skepticism can come later Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Well, I probably won't be much help because in my relational cosmology the closer one comes to knowing God, the less one's explanations can make sense to another. Maybe. I guess in my ideal paradigm of marriage this wouldn't be so. But that's just a paradigm. I'm not sure if it is worth the five minutes I invested in having someone explain it to me. :goes to lay down:
Posted by akeylessanton (Member # 6024) on :
DEAR GOD POOKA!! I have yet to see anyone pick up on this theory as quick as you do... your conclusion is shockingly accurate! We create a wave of energy we form with the abilities of our body and mind, and pass that wave to another in the form of speach, actions, or temper. Now the downfall is that the wave is distorted with the limited ways of expressing them. everything is perception... wich in most cases is the way my theory best helps by self-examination. In a general way I have found that it makes it easier to see the truth in others actions then convincing yourself it was rightous or sinfull, wichever way you so choose.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Welcome to Hatrack, akeylessanton.
quote: DNA/RNA and emino acids are a protein their individualising properties are what make them what their name pronounce.
Actually, DNA and RNA are not proteins, they are nucleic acids. Proteins are built of monomers (individual "beads" or units) called amino acids; nucleic acids are built of individual monomers called nucleotides. Humans have 22 different amino acids, and five different nucleotides.
quote: For those who don’t know this everything that is stored in our brains is nothing more then proteins lined up in such a way that our brain reads it like a bar code.
Not quite. A brain is a complex neural network. Our memories are stored not as patterns but as connections. Part of why we tend to think in stream of consciousness, linking seemingly unrelated ideas.
quote: I think the positive and negative polarity, originally assigned to magnets, was arbitrarily named by someone of Ben Franklin's vintage.
Actually, pooka, it wasFranklin , and he was talking about accumulated static electric charges.
Posted by akeylessanton (Member # 6024) on :
Just as an afterthought. I think the conflict in itself of religion is the balance between + and -. I also wonder that if this balance didnt exist would life exist? If life is making choices. What fun would life be if choices were so obvious that it would be subconsious, and maybe even nuetral energy since there would be nothing to compare with.
Posted by akeylessanton (Member # 6024) on :
Thank you rivka for pointing that out.. I might have not thought those statements all the way through. I am not aware of the technical term used for what the material our memories are stored in, however I was under the impression that it was a protein. I aplied that to how I see my thoughts come to form in myself. The best way to explain it for me is like grocery shopping. I search for what my hunger desires, and when I find something I buy it and store the nurishmentr in the desired areas my body feels the need is most.
Posted by akeylessanton (Member # 6024) on :
Well all im off to work. Thank you for your thoughts and ideas, and I hope to see more when I can make it to the net out of town.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Wow.
This is just like Good Will Hunting.
Only the chalkboard is replaced by the forum, and the complex mathematical formula solutions are replaced with some stuff.
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
Pity.
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
Alright rivka! I was reading what Bok and akeylessanton were saying about synapses, proteins, amino acids, DNA and RNA and it made me cringe! Thanks for setting them right!
quote:Just as an afterthought. I think the conflict in itself of religion is the balance between + and -. I also wonder that if this balance didnt exist would life exist? If life is making choices. What fun would life be if choices were so obvious that it would be subconsious, and maybe even nuetral energy since there would be nothing to compare with.
Hmmm, these are just thoughts about this off the top of my head. Life is making choices, but it's also chaos, randomness. The position of the smallest particles in your body is all just probability; chance really, whether the particle acts like a wave or a particle, appears here or over there. We just use the stronger probabilities to guide our lives. Choices aren't really "obvious", just more favorable to you if they seem obvious.
The positive and negative conflict in religion is something quite different. Life can definitely occur without religion, without that conflict. Religion creates that conflict to give us a sense of conduct, of morality and of spirituality. Religion tells us how we should behave and how we should tell others to behave while giving us some reassurance about the meaning of life and possibilities to avoid or deal with death. It therefore creates a negative because there is always how we shouldn't behave, and alternate explanations and reassurances about death and the meaning of life that contradict or do not mesh with religions' explanations and reassurances.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Former science teacher. Can't help it. Glad you approved. Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Note, I used the word "presumably", since DNA/RNA is often what people mean, when they speak of "proteins". Also, I mentioned tha I believed the brain is NOT made of such proteins. I think "lattices of synapses" is a rough equivalent of "connections".
So ,
Also, I know of some physics professors who feel we are saddled with an awkward system of describing electricity; that what we call negative, should be positive, and vice versa, since "negative" implies a surplus of electrons.
-Bok
[ December 15, 2003, 10:21 AM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
It is interesting that Linus Pauling who was one of the most venerated scientists of his day was plugging away at complex protiens thinking that they were the answer to where our heritablitity comes from, when Watson, Crick and Rosalind Franklin came along and turned the ideas of the time on their head by discovering the simplicity of DNA, which is not a protein, but a nucleic acid as rivka already said.
I guess I am surpised in common parlance that anyone gets the two mixed up, but maybe it is a holdover from that past generation.
AJ
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You know, perhaps the "negative" charge -- since it's associated with the presence of electrons -- is in fact the one that carries all our good emotions, and the "positive" charge is the one that makes us hurt puppies and think bad things about people.
Posted by Sarcasm (Member # 4653) on :
quote:But whence comes my boundless energy of bitter sarcasm?
quote:Sarcasm is on a separate plane.
Yes, indeed. Tom, sarcasm is a sacred energy that flows through your chakras, guiding you towards a higher plane of existence.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
But which particle carries the sarcasm? Is it sub-atomic, like the others? Perhaps it's a graviton thingy?
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I think sarcasm piggybacks on whichever particle is the one that causes people to hurt puppies.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
In that case, how is it carried? Does it affect spin? Perhaps sarcasm can be expressed as a function of resistance.
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
why did i introduce jon to chakras? what have i done!
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I think it does affect spin, as a key element of sarcasm is whatever causes the rolling of eyes.
Whether it's constructive or destructive spin, I think only akeylassanton can answer.
Posted by Sarcasm (Member # 4653) on :
Sarcasm is the mysterious fifth force that scientists have long searched for. It is carried by the sarcastron particle. Frisco's right—it does indeed affect spin, though eye-rolling is only one manifestation of the force.
And celia, you didn't introduce me to chakras. I take full responsibility for any chakra-related jokes or hijinks.
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
oh, you're right. i'm to blame for any reiki based humor.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Tsk. Don't be silly.
Sarcasm is one of the properties of the snarky particles, more commonly known as quarks.
You don't think snarks and quarks are the same thing? Compare the "flavors" of quarks and the "five unmistakable marks" of a snark some time. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Nucleic sequences can code a protein correctly, but it can fold wrong producing a prion. It probably happens all the time, which is why we need vacuoules. But the most famous one is the one suspected of producing Mad Cow Disease. Form does not always follow Content.
Taoism is partly the division of things into yin and yang, but within every element divided lies another division.
Back to the physical plane:
Negative ionization is actually shown to be beneficial, which is why you feel better after it rains. And why people like to hang out at waterfalls. Positive ionization is part of the dirty feel of summer air when it has gone too long without rain.
But as Bok mentioned, what we call positive and negative is actually the reverse of what would make sense. But that is within the naming system, right? Electron rich is what is called positive, but Electrons are negative by the same system.
Posted by Snarky (Member # 4406) on :
*checks self for five unmistakable marks*
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Well, let's see: "habit of getting up late" --check; "slowness in taking a jest" -- check; ambition -- check.
I refuse to speculate on whether you have a "flavour of Will-o'-the-Wisp" or a "fondness for bathing-machines."
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
quote:TomDavidson wrote: You know, perhaps the "negative" charge -- since it's associated with the presence of electrons -- is in fact the one that carries all our good emotions, and the "positive" charge is the one that makes us hurt puppies and think bad things about people.
But our stomachs are filled with acid, which is a good source of protons and protons carry a positive charge. Does that mean when we "go with our gut instinct" evil is actually guiding us? Acid does seem evil, because it's so destructive...just like the UnMaker!
Of course, this can be related to Star Wars philosophy, too which says the Force(energy) is comprised of the Dark side and the Light/Good side. ATP(energy, sort of) can be made in the body via the Electron Transport Chain and Oxidative Phosphorylation, which need both protons(evil)) and electrons(good) to work.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
How does that explain photosynthesis then JNSB?
AJ
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
Ah, but the source of the Force, as revealed to us in Episode I, is metachlorines, which then must be related to energy, and plants have chlorophyl which is used in photosynthesis.
*whispers* give me a break here, it's hard to make up a whole new philosophy using pseudoscience that actually sounds plausible Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Bases are fairly destructive, too -- comparable to acids.
And the two together can be used to create a dangerous explosion . . . or channeled to power something useful.
I would posit that the analogy between "positive" and "negative" emotions and actions and positive/negative charges is the necessity of balance.
Opposites define. Would we understand light if there were no dark? Additionally, many (perhaps all) "negative" aspects can be used to do positive things.
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
quote:Bases are fairly destructive, too -- comparable to acids.
You are so right! Like the Death Star, that was one incredibly destructive base! And the rebel base on Hoth! That ion cannon kicked major ass!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*pushes JNSB into a large vat of sodium hydroxide*
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
*climbs out, unharmed* Good thing it was only 0.00001 M NaOH. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*pushes JNSB into a larger vat, filled with 6 M NaOH*
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Actually, Johnny, it isn't so much a plethora of protons, but a deficit of electrons...
-Bok
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
*climbs out, unharmed again* I was ready for you this time! I was wearing my buffer body suit! You have to take precautions when vats of strong base appear out of nowhere and you end up getting pushed in...
Bok, a positve charge is not an absence of electrons. An absence of electrons can result in a positive charge only if positively charged particles were there at the beginning. If you have a space with only electrons, and you remove the electrons then you will get no charge at all in the vacuum left over. If you removed only a few of the electrons, you would have a slightly "less negative" charge that seems positive relative to the original charge, but is not positive in and of itself. In the stomach, it is definitely protons at work (not just a deficit of electrons) due to the surplus of HCl present. So there! Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Oh please! What buffer can handle 6 M NaOH? Buffers can't handle high concentrations of acid or base.
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
It doesn't have to "handle" the high concentration of base or acid, just be unreactive enough to allow me time to climb out of the vat... Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Buffers don't work by NOT reacting -- they work by reacting to form a salt. Use up the buffer -- and in a concentrated base, that's a matter of seconds, I think -- and you are outa luck.
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
Not if the suit is thick enough, and has a polymer coating underneath.
And if you think I can't make up more things my suit has, just watch me!
Posted by Jerryst316 (Member # 5054) on :
quote: I have yet to see anyone pick up on this theory as quick as you do... your conclusion is shockingly accurate! We create a wave of energy we form with the abilities of our body and mind, and pass that wave to another in the form of speach, actions, or temper. Now the downfall is that the wave is distorted with the limited ways of expressing them. everything is perception... wich in most cases is the way my theory best helps by self-examination. In a general way I have found that it makes it easier to see the truth in others actions then convincing yourself it was rightous or sinfull, wichever way you so choose.
Wow that is a great theory youve presented. I suggest that if you want to read more on the subject, check out Hume's Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Expecially his stuff on cause and effect, I think it parallels, more than anything else I can think of, your position. It does not speak of energy however. Yet, it would be useful I think if you wanted to delve more deeply!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: And if you think I can't make up more things my suit has, just watch me!
Ok, ok, I give. I'm laughing far too hard to point out any more chemical fallacies.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
One chair to rule them all One chair to greet them One chair to bring them all And at the table seat them.
(Eh, it's lame--but I'll leave it)
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
True, Johnny, but considering protons are so much more massive than electrons, and just generally much less "fluid", it's kinda silly phrase the situation as a plethora of protons.
Protons are, in 99% of cases, always there. It's usually more of a matter of whether the usually accompanying electrons have been convinced to go somewhere outside of the model you are using.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Not quite. A brain is a complex neural network. Our memories are stored not as patterns but as connections. Part of why we tend to think in stream of consciousness, linking seemingly unrelated ideas. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
, ![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
Ok, ok, I give. I'm laughing far too hard to point out any more chemical fallacies.