A few more introductory thoughts, then some brain stuff.
Music “Caught Red Handed” by FREaKS
That title should be self explanatory…
That title should be self explanatory…
A few more introductory thoughts, then some brain stuff.
Music “Caught Red Handed” by FREaKS
Ah, but did the frogs in the experiment then get up and sing “Putting on the Ritz”?
RE: Disease/disorder…if the distinction would be that a disease is something you can catch and a disorder is something that goes wrong without an outside cause, at least it would make linguistic sense, but there seems to be no rhyme or reason to it at all. So what is the distinction? A disease is serious and a disorder is not? Is a head cold a disorder? (And what’s a broken bone? It’s not a disease, and I don’t think I’d call it a disorder.)
Most illogical.
In the end the frogs sings ‘Hello my baby, Hello my darlin’….
I beleive string theory can be tested, but I am no physicist… I remember readingabout it in Hawking’s book, but the details have escaped me.
Chuck Jones = awesome–but no castles or mad scientists, that I recall (admittedly, I don’t recall the cartoon that well)!
I’ve tried to read Hawking. I don’t understand Hawking. (Except him doing a guest shot on TNG, that I get.) I got most of what I know about string theory by watching the Nova miniseries “The Elegant Universe” several times, and at least one of the talking heads (a Nobel Prize winner in physics, no less) seems to feel that it’s not testable ( http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/view-glashow.html ), for what that’s worth; of course, he also says he doesn’t understand it. And Einstein never really took to quantum theory, so….
Well I must confess to the fact that all of my cosmology and quandtum mechanics is self taught, so well, I was not taught by an expert that is for sure. I know string theory makes predictions that have to do with there being like 5 or 11 dimensions. Seems odd….
This disease disorder thing is odd, and it puzzles me. It seems we sometimes decide out of nowhere that something is perjorative, for no reason.
My training is in the social sciences (PoliSci/Politics/Government) rather than the hard sciences, so my self-teaching in physics is totally amateurish, so I shall shut up about this. Not that “amateur” is bad, it really just means someone who does something for love rather than for money.
Which is a lovely segue to — How on earth did “disease” become a pejorative? It’s a totally neutral word! Maybe it has to do with some societal disapproval for victimhood. Ever notice how every victim of 9/11 instantly became a “hero”? Of course, some did heroic things and deserve that appelation, but mostly they were VICTIMS; it’s horrible and tragic that they died, but dying doesn’t make someone a hero. Nevertheless, heroes they have been deemed, and I can only guess that it’s because “victim” is bad, despite the fact that no one chooses to be a victim. It would then follow that it is bad to be the victim of a disease.
Which means that soon something will have to replace “disorder”, when the connotation of victim attaches to that. Sick, sick, sick.
Exactly. I find the whole thing so odd. That is a nice example, the 9/11 victims, though I think that may be in part politically motivated. That said, you hear that word, hero, tossed around a lot now whenever anyone talks about something bad and unforseen happening to someone.
It reminds me of the term retarded. When you think about it, that is a very descriptive term. Someone is retarded, held back if you will, by some disease, err disorder or whatever…. Then someone decides this is a bad word and changes it to a less descriptive word like delaved (c.f. developmentatlly delayed). People with Down’s SYndrome, and perhaps half of people with autism are not delayed, they cannot progress any further than they are, the are, yes you guessed it retarded.