Who's more advanced?

a reply to: mysterioustranger
But chaos is what we have, its set paths and rigid belief structures that blind us from what is.

You know what I'm saying, belief confirms and we can make any order of the chaos with the
Proper thinking

Which leads me to my fav quote of the moment.

The mind is its own place and in itself can make a heaven of a hell, and hell a heaven.

John Milton

Interesting subject ManyMasks.

Are you aware of Rupert Sheldrake and his work on Morphic Resonance? Always found the evidence he provides quite compelling.

I think a lot of the inbreeding in the higher echelons of society is to preserve certain characteristics and physiology.

A good dose of supercilious indulgence is also a contributing factor.

a reply to: chr0naut

Always thought Lazar should get the job with IUPAC as well, his imagination is far more inspiring than rigid science.

However, their guidelines ruin our fun a little:

(a) a mythological concept or character (including an astronomical object),
(b) a mineral or similar substance,
(c) a place, or geographical region,
(d) a property of the element, or
(e) a scientist.

I'd go with Baconium, sounds tasty and old Francis doesn't get the credit he deserves.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: chr0naut

Always thought Lazar should get the job with IUPAC as well, his imagination is far more inspiring than rigid science.

However, their guidelines ruin our fun a little:

(a) a mythological concept or character (including an astronomical object),
(b) a mineral or similar substance,
(c) a place, or geographical region,
(d) a property of the element, or
(e) a scientist.

I'd go with Baconium, sounds tasty and old Francis doesn't get the credit he deserves.

Mmm... Baconium.

a reply to: chr0naut

This is correct although maybe the language is a little technical for the layman.

My background is in Physics and Computing so for me it was easier to understand elements as like the fundamental building blocks for chemistry. Substances that can't be broken down any further, chemistry is what happens when you mix elements.

Sorry for simplifying your response, just i've learned over the years that using technical jargon just makes people glaze over and not actually glean any meaning from the exercise.

Please correct me if i'm wrong. Chemistry is my Achilles heal of the sciences although i guess you can apply some of the principles of Physics.

a reply to: Grenade
You would think I was aware of that by my OP, but I wasn't, thanks G. The idea popped into my head but with all ideas that pop into my head I always think this has probably been studied or alluded to before.
There's nothing new under the sun eh.

a reply to: ManyMasks

No problem pal, there's a TED talk by Sheldrake that was banned however i'm sure you could find it somewhere. Give you a little introduction to his ideas.

As i've alluded to before the universe holds all knowledge already, all we can do is discover it, just because someone had a similar idea before you doesn't make yours any less original. God kind of has a monopoly on the whole originality concept.

I've got a sneaky suspicion you might partake in a little weed smoking which explains the many ideas

a reply to: solve

You gotta love Paul Stamets, his JRE podcast was fascinating.

Boy does that man love his mushrooms.

a reply to: Grenade

20 years usage but I'm clear of it now, new chapter has begun and wow shhh is so clear now, excited for the future. Will check that out, thanks.

a reply to: ManyMasks

Congratulations, i myself used to be quite a heavy smoker in my 20's however now it's only on special occasions like when i'm back in Scotland meeting with old friends.

Can become a burden but it also opens some doors and helps with critical thinking. Once you stop there's certainly more clarity although the world does seem a little more mundane.

a reply to: Grenade

Yeah for sure. Thanks.
I may do the occasional smoke once I know I can without reverting back to being dependent on it.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: chr0naut

This is correct although maybe the language is a little technical for the layman.

My background is in Physics and Computing so for me it was easier to understand elements as like the fundamental building blocks for chemistry. Substances that can't be broken down any further, chemistry is what happens when you mix elements.

Sorry for simplifying your response, just i've learned over the years that using technical jargon just makes people glaze over and not actually glean any meaning from the exercise.

Please correct me if i'm wrong. Chemistry is my Achilles heal of the sciences although i guess you can apply some of the principles of Physics.

Apologies, I am a pedant of didactic syllogism, applied to semantic aphorism.

a reply to: chr0naut

Exactly!

originally posted by: Grenade
Interesting subject ManyMasks.

Are you aware of Rupert Sheldrake and his work on Morphic Resonance? Always found the evidence he provides quite compelling.I think a lot of the inbreeding in the higher echelons of society is to preserve certain characteristics and physiology. A good dose of supercilious indulgence is also a contributing factor.

You know what too much inbreeding accomplishes. You are guaranteeing many mutations that will eventually weaken that genetic strain. I loved his idea of how memory imprints upon landscape (so true) awesome brilliant.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

Yeah and traumatic experience with death can cause ghostly image of event. Remember seeing that in a movie when I was a boy and thinking that's definitely what a ghost is. The movie was high spirits.