Philosophy Now Forum

No. 2 (kinesin) is a sight to behold:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/alexkasprak/the-door-to-hell

PhilX

''Some seriously crazy shit is going to happen in the future''
Can't you find some more mature sites?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:''Some seriously crazy shit is going to happen in the future''
Can't you find some more mature sites?

Remember you're only an audience of one.

So what's your cup of tea and I'll keep my eyes open?

PhilX

I never got how they ever determined things like in (1) Meteors from Mars on Earth? While the explanation for it is fine, how do they determine this? Do you or anyone know how they derive this conclusion?

Scott,

This offers the best explanation to your meteorite question (but it leaves open the possibility that the meteorites may come from somewhere else besides Mars):

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martian_meteorite

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:No. 2 (kinesin) is a sight to behold:

Is it tho'? As from the looks of it it's a computer simulation.

Arising_uk wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:No. 2 (kinesin) is a sight to behold:

Is it tho'? As from the looks of it it's a computer simulation.

And even if it is. Your avatar is a cartoon simulation of a rooster. Does the "simulation" give you some idea as to what's taking place?

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Scott,

This offers the best explanation to your meteorite question (but it leaves open the possibility that the meteorites may come from somewhere else besides Mars):

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martian_meteorite

PhilX

Thank you. This helps. I'm guessing a lot of people questioned this as I did and wish that documentaries that mention this explain a little more up front as this. I don't think it seems too much of an extended effort to explain.

Scott Mayers wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Scott,

This offers the best explanation to your meteorite question (but it leaves open the possibility that the meteorites may come from somewhere else besides Mars):

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martian_meteorite

PhilX

Thank you. This helps. I'm guessing a lot of people questioned this as I did and wish that documentaries that mention this explain a little more up front as this. I don't think it seems too much of an extended effort to explain.

It's been one of my complaints that articles are often short on details, even if they need to be repeated. That's one of the reasons why I post more than one article on the same subject.

PhilX

Arising_uk wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:No. 2 (kinesin) is a sight to behold:

Is it tho'? As from the looks of it it's a computer simulation.

This is a computer simulation. The logic of the protein is actually quite simple on the level of chemistry. What appears something 'cute' and 'lifelike' is only our own accidental interpretation. I wonder, though, how this actually happens with respect to time. I'm guessing that this would and should be actually very, very rapid. So the computer generation only should be illustrating it in reference to a highly 'slowed' down perspective useful for our interpretation only.

Philosophy Explorer wrote: It's been one of my complaints that articles are often short on details, even if they need to be repeated. That's one of the reasons why I post more than one article on the same subject.

PhilX

This is a good approach. Reality is so perspective-dependent and we as humans require multiple examples in experience to induce meaning even where one might be sufficient logically.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:And even if it is. Your avatar is a cartoon simulation of a rooster. Does the "simulation" give you some idea as to what's taking place?

In about the same way that the cartoon rooster gives you an idea of a rooster.