why is there no discussion about life science?

[TINNY]

why is there no discussion about life science? it's an essential part of science. biotech, cloning, genetics are an exciting and controversial area to debate and discuss.

[deamonstar]

if that is what interests you... then begin a specific topic.
this area of science holds no interest for me, however. but, I am sure that among the myriad peoples who browse these forums, there are bound to be some who would fancy a discussion of this sort.

[wepe]

That is irrelavant to what we are disscussing in this forum.

[Uncle Martin]

wepe,
You may want to check the date of the post you are replying to. In this case you responded to a message that is five months old. And I would also point out that YOU do not decide what is discussed. Well, you can decide what you discuss, not others.

[wepe]

Im not trying to keep up with time, what wrong have i done by replying to an old thread? if this thread is still on the front page of the astronomy and cosmology forum then i find no wrong in replying to it, and if it is so much out of date then why do you keep it up? and was i wrong by saying it was irrelavant? does life science not differ from astronomy and cosmology?

[Uncle Martin]

Your post insinuated that you were involved in a discussion,...you were not. How can you tell someone that posted five months ago that their reply is irrelevant? If you wish to discuss a topic please do so, the above post is not an acceptable way to conduct yourself here. If you need some help figuring out how to start a new topic, tell me. I will try to help you.

[Tormod]

Tinny is absolutely right - we should have more discussions about life sciences. I do post some news about this now and then in the news section. We also have discussions about the impacts of stem cell research, for example, but as far as life sciences are covered there is basically just the heated arguments in the evolution category. Maybe we should start a "Biology and biotech" category?

[Jimi]

This probably doesn't fall under the umbrella of life science you are talking about, but...

I for one would like to know what consciousness is.



I can understand that a sperm and egg undergo reactions that results in a child.



I can also understand that electrochemical reactions in the brain result in thought.



What I don't understand is how, when or why this process starts.



I guess this kind of thing results in abortion issues and probably seems more geared toward philosophy than science, but it seems like science isn't really sure on this one.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Jimi
This probably doesn't fall under the umbrella of life science you are talking about, but...

I for one would like to know what consciousness is.

It seems valid for Life Sceinces, biology, ...

Wouldn't we all like to understand what our "consciousness" is?

I can also understand that electrochemical reactions in the brain result in thought.

Yes, the easy part!

What I don't understand is how, when or why this process starts.

Now are you referencing "electrochemical reactions in the brain" or "consciousness"? When, HISTORICALLY did conscousness develop? Where in our evolutionary ancestral chain did it first appear?

Or when is the switched flipped on for each individual person?

I guess this kind of thing results in abortion issues and probably seems more geared toward philosophy than science, but it seems like science isn't really sure on this one.

No there is not one specific theory that I am aware that is strongly accepted by the general scientific community on this. Not only just WHEN, but WHAT.

The closest I have seen so far describes it by breaking the brain into various sections. Autonomic functions are one and not directly connected to consciousness. Then there is long term storage/ memory, which interacts with consciousness. At the other end is parts of the brain connected to sensory organs. Signals from these are fed to the brain and it compares this incoming stimuli to the long term memory for pattern recognition. THIS is perhaps the "conscious" part of the brain. This middle ground. A short term storage buffer that is processing incoming data, deciding where to store it and how it compares to older data already in the database. We are NOT conscious of the real time data coing in. Intitial physical response is autonomic. You pull your finger away from a flame before the "conscious" part of the brain is even aware of the flame. You have no knowledge of or control over which parts of the brain long term storage uses. But you are "AWARE" of the processing of the incoming data as it is compared to existing data.

[wepe]

Well Freethinker, if your right about our concousness being developed through evolution, than
concousness is basicly the action of refering an occurance to our memory, kind of like bouncing a rubber ball covered in paint off a chalk board, it kind of leaves its print, its own John Handcock. And maybe
when that action between the chalk board and the rubber ball takes place in the present, maybe it triggers some type of nerve, and sends like an identical pulse to a part in the brain that some how breaks it down, recalls, and stores it to memory. And, what depends on how well we will remeber the occurance is not only how exicting the conditions of the occurance are, but how it differs from the occurances that came before it and proceeds after it.

Oh, and none of this is for fact, im just elaborating, theorizing. i really dont no much on life science.