Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

You think a lot, don't you... LOL

Originally posted by debbiejo
You think a lot, don't you... LOL If you'd really call it thinking.

Originally posted by debbiejo
You think a lot, don't you... LOL


if empathy is a new "higher" form of intelligence/awareness, and rats can feel each other's pain...

Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
if empathy is a new "higher" form of intelligence/awareness, and rats can feel each other's pain...

OR maybe we can feel each other's pain b/c we were former cage mates???

oh dear.

Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina



http://img488.imageshack.us/img488/526/czarinadh1.jpg

Originally posted by Robtard

http://img488.imageshack.us/img488/526/czarinadh1.jpg


haaaaha, i saw that already, cute.

I would think most animals would feel some connection to others of their kind being killed or hurt right in front of them. Thats instinct I think, and to then know they may be next.

Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
Cagemate rats can feel each other's pain . . .

But can they switch souls?

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
I would think most animals would feel some connection to others of their kind being killed or hurt right in front of them. Thats instinct I think, and to then know they may be next.

good point, according to the article, the "lower" species don't, the connection that the rat's feel, according to the link, is chemical (exchanging pheromones).

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
But can they switch souls?


rats have souls? the only reason why they are hated is b/c of their ability to spread disease, great carriers, which also makes them quality lab-experiments. if a person wanted to containmenate a town, a rat would be at work, so, not sure about soul, but they can read chemicals and remember who that other rat was.

Originally posted by DARKLORDCAEDUS
How are you? This is very interesting.

Fine thanks and yourself?

What do you find interesting about it?

Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
if empathy is a new "higher" form of intelligence/awareness, and rats can feel each other's pain...

Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
OR maybe we can feel each other's pain b/c we were former cage mates???

oh dear.

Are you arguing with yourself? (To make it worse, in text form.)

Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
rats have souls? the only reason why they are hated is b/c of their ability to spread disease, great carriers, which also makes them quality lab-experiments. if a person wanted to containmenate a town, a rat would be at work, so, not sure about soul, but they can read chemicals and remember who that other rat was.

What you just did there was answer a question about souls by talking about disease spreading...do you even realize that?

You basically said that an object weighs 34 inches.

Here is another example:

Child: Mommy, why does daddy like to eat liver?
Mom: Well sweetheart, dad goes to work to pay for the house so we have a place to stay.

Now do you understand why people give you "guff"?

Originally posted by DARKLORDCAEDUS
How are you? This is very interesting.

Don't encourage her, that little stunt of yours just caused the board yet another 10-20 rant-posts. Use a little common sense in the future, would you walk into a starving grizzle's lair with 25 pounds ( 11.36 kilo, to the Euro-trash) of venison tucked under your arms?

No, seriously? Is that true? wow

Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
if empathy is a new "higher" form of intelligence/awareness, and rats can feel each other's pain...

When did empathy become new? And for that matter when did it become the new "higher form" of intelligence?

And since mice/rats have been around a long time I don't think "new" qualifies.

And don't forget, it isn't that simple, we aren't talking about empathy like exists in humans and primates - as per the "sub-class" definition.

I think there was something somewhere saying that plants also know when you're hurting a plant nearby. It's nothing conscious, probably more of a self-preservation thing.

There is actually a pretty involved, and imho, a very interesting explanation for this that hits on other things like communications and imitation.

Needless to say, it has nothing to do with being "empathic" or other spiritual nonsense, but more with things called mirror neurons.

If you run, your motor cortex activates the communication with your leg muscles. If you watch someone run, your motor cortex has the exact same activation, however the action is surpressed. Basically, to interpret something as "running", your brain must make the same response as if you were to run. Now, replace "run" with any emotion. This ignores the obvious social dimension to emotions, which makes it somewhat different for emotions than it does for movement, but the idea is still the same.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Are you arguing with yourself? (To make it worse, in text form.)



What you just did there was answer a question about souls by talking about disease spreading...do you even realize that?

You basically said that an object weighs 34 inches.

Here is another example:

Child: Mommy, why does daddy like to eat liver?
Mom: Well sweetheart, dad goes to work to pay for the house so we have a place to stay.

Now do you understand why people give you "guff"?

This is an open forum, if you want to think someone is arguing with themselves, go ahead.

And no, I didn't say if rats have a soul, usually people think of soul as consciousness, and consciousness seperates us from what they argue as the "lower" sub-humans, as the lower subhumans seem to be in one mode and careless on how that effects others or the object AND MAINLY OTHER LIFE FORMS.

Originally posted by Council#13
I think there was something somewhere saying that plants also know when you're hurting a plant nearby. It's nothing conscious, probably more of a self-preservation thing.

http://www.islamicconcern.com/plants.asp

Originally posted by inimalist

If you run, your motor cortex activates the communication with your leg muscles. If you watch someone run, your motor cortex has the exact same activation, however the action is surpressed. Basically, to interpret something as "running", your brain must make the same response as if you were to run. Now, replace "run" with any emotion. This ignores the obvious social dimension to emotions, which makes it somewhat different for emotions than it does for movement, but the idea is still the same.

you need to answer this point before you go any further

this would indicate that the phenomena you are describing occurs at a "sub-conscious" level and that an animal can still be "sub human" and possess the ability to communicate emotion or even for "emotional contageon"

our consciousness gives us an explanation for our emotional state. It happens with about a half second delay from the experience of the emotion.

emotion -> 500ms -> conscious explanation for why we are experiencing the emotion

emotion does NOT require consciousness

Originally posted by inimalist
you need to answer this point before you go any further

this would indicate that the phenomena you are describing occurs at a "sub-conscious" level and that an animal can still be "sub human" and possess the ability to communicate emotion or even for "emotional contageon"

our consciousness gives us an explanation for our emotional state. It happens with about a half second delay from the experience of the emotion.

emotion -> 500ms -> conscious explanation for why we are experiencing the emotion

emotion does NOT require consciousness

what comes first, the chicken or the egg?

your same equation could be thought of as:
conscious -> emotion -> 500ms -> thought



the lower subhumans seem to be in one mode and careless on how that effects OTHER LIFE FORMS

Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina

your same equation could be thought of as:
conscioius -> emotion -> 500ms -> thought


actually, it really can't

there are 30 years worth of excellent and pretty much irrefutable experimentation that shows many things.

For instance, were I to monitor the activity in your pre-motor cortex, I would know when you were going to move before you did. Notice, it is not that I know you are going to move before you move, it is that I know you are going to move before you become aware of your desire to move.

The same can be done for simple yes or no questions.

People can be put into emotional states through the exposure to information that is unavailable to conscious awareness. In cases like this, people are very hard pressed and will come up with exceptionally elaborate stories to explain their emotional state, even though it may be as apparent a stimuli as a naked woman presented only to one eye.

At this point I will say that, barring some strange study or experiment that you are privy to and the rest of us not, that you are misguided on your understanding of human and animal cognition.

The only concilation I can offer you is that the vast majority of people think the same way you do, in fact our brain is set up to make us feel that way (ie, we are naturally dualists). It is very counter-intuitive to think that our consciousness is not really what it seems like, and could actually not even exist, but the fact that it doesn't sit right intellectually is not an argument against empirical findings.

Originally posted by inimalist
actually, it really can't

there are 30 years worth of excellent and pretty much irrefutable experimentation that shows many things.

For instance, were I to monitor the activity in your pre-motor cortex, I would know when you were going to move before you did. Notice, it is not that I know you are going to move before you move, it is that I know you are going to move before you become aware of your desire to move.

The same can be done for simple yes or no questions.

People can be put into emotional states through the exposure to information that is unavailable to conscious awareness. In cases like this, people are very hard pressed and will come up with exceptionally elaborate stories to explain their emotional state, even though it may be as apparent a stimuli as a naked woman presented only to one eye.

At this point I will say that, barring some strange study or experiment that you are privy to and the rest of us not, that you are misguided on your understanding of human and animal cognition.

The only concilation I can offer you is that the vast majority of people think the same way you do, in fact our brain is set up to make us feel that way (ie, we are naturally dualists). It is very counter-intuitive to think that our consciousness is not really what it seems like, and could actually not even exist, but the fact that it doesn't sit right intellectually is not an argument against empirical findings.

empirical findings are just observations, if you observe something long enough, it's becomes an empiricial perspective.

and, i think consciousness comes first, then emotion, and then MOTION (speed of energy) and then THOUGHT, we are motivated by our conscious to have emotion and thought and then, maybe, action.

Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
empirical findings are just observations, if you observe something long enough, it's becomes an empiricial perspective.

and, i think consciousness comes first, then emotion, and then MOTION (speed of energy) and then THOUGHT, we are motivated by our conscious to have emotion and thought and then, maybe, action.

fine

if your position is defined by anti-science, I have nothing more to say

please never bring up your ideas in a scientific discussion and I wont hold your spirituality back with facts

Originally posted by inimalist
fine

if your position is defined by anti-science, I have nothing more to say

please never bring up your ideas in a scientific discussion and I wont hold your spirituality back with facts

it's your right to think whatever, and if i want to add mystic words to science, well, who cares?


that link is scientific, and used the word "empath"...and empath is moreso spiritual in terms rather then scientific.

Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
and if i want to add mystic words to science, well, who cares?

I, as well as most other people who are concerned with the science of human neurology and cognition, care very deeply.

Not because you believe it, but because there are people who are going to read what you post, and what I have posted, and since people are inherently ignornat, will likely think that there is an iota of truth to what you say. I feel as though I have failed those people, but that may just be a desire to martyr myself.

Originally posted by inimalist
I, as well as most other people who are concerned with the science of human neurology and cognition, care very deeply.

Not because you believe it, but because there are people who are going to read what you post, and what I have posted, and since people are inherently ignornat, will likely think that there is an iota of truth to what you say. I feel as though I have failed those people, but that may just be a desire to martyr myself.

You haven't martyred yourself. And, I doubt people are inherently ignorant, I guess I don't start off thinking less of another individual, making that person work to prove me wrong - causing them to work hard to remove a stigma placed on them, that's like putting them at (negative) -1,000 before they have a chance, if they bother my liberty or try to play games or try to bully my thoughts of myself, i ignore them and if it happens a lot in a particular culture, it'll be an emperical observation and i'll end up critical of that culture. I rather start at 0 and have faith. If they take the time to read our conversation, they'll probably read the link too, and draw their own conclusions.

Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
You haven't martyred yourself. And, I doubt people are inherently ignorant, I guess I don't start off thinking less of another individual, making that person work to prove me wrong, if they take the time to read our conversation, they'll probably read the link too, and draw their own conclusions.

lol, maybe not inherently ignorant, but our brains aren't made to understand "true" things, only things that we want to understand, and normally will believe things that make us feel good.

the thing is, that this conversation and that link are misleading. There is no good reason to believe what you do aside from the happiness it brings and the philosophical/spiritual feelings. As far as truth goes, I would reccomend people not read this conversation

Originally posted by inimalist
lol, maybe not inherently ignorant, but our brains aren't made to understand "true" things, only things that we want to understand, and normally will believe things that make us feel good.

the thing is, that this conversation and that link are misleading. There is no good reason to believe what you do aside from the happiness it brings and the philosophical/spiritual feelings. As far as truth goes, I would reccomend people not read this conversation

Censorship based on your values or definition of truth. Wow.

you are free to say what you want

but in science we worry about something called quality control

everyone can have their opinion, not everyone can be correct.

Originally posted by Council#13
I think there was something somewhere saying that plants also know when you're hurting a plant nearby. It's nothing conscious, probably more of a self-preservation thing. Yes, there have been some experiments in regards to that.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Yes, there have been some experiments in regards to that.

AND the Mythbusters proved it wrong...they busted that "myth". They even did the old polygraph experiment.

In other words...lies and misinterpreted data. In order for an experiment to be called legitimate, the results MUST be duplicate-able.

Originally posted by dadudemon
AND the Mythbusters proved it wrong...they busted that "myth". They even did the old polygraph experiment.

In other words...lies and misinterpreted data. In order for an experiment to be called legitimate, the results MUST be duplicate-able.

not to sound brass, but most people already know that much about science and needing to reduplicate findings.

Originally posted by inimalist
mirror neurons.

Is this not why we yawn when we see other's doing it?

Originally posted by Devil King
Is this not why we yawn when we see other's doing it?

short answer yes, long answer "it is much more complex", as with anything

Originally posted by inimalist
yes

That's all I was really looking for.


I always try to hold back yawns. I don't want my soul falling out! There might be a soul snatching black woman around. You never really know.

Originally posted by Devil King
That's all I was really looking for.

pfft...

fine, enjoy your ignorance

Originally posted by Devil King
I always try to hold back yawns. I don't want my soul falling out! There might be a soul snatching black woman around. You never really know.

those black are all into voodoo, we should all be worried that we might one day wake up in the body of a negro.

Originally posted by inimalist
pfft...fine, enjoy your ignorance

Was it ignorance that led me to first ask the question? And if you're worried about my knowledge of mirror neurons, I'm sure you'll explain it.

Originally posted by Devil King
Was it ignorance that led me to first ask the question? And if you're worried about my knowledge of mirror neurons, I'm sure you'll explain it.

lol, the internet and sarcasm were made for eachother

Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
not to sound brass, but most people already know that much about science and needing to reduplicate findings.

I don't mean to sound condescending, but if you knew anything about the discussion at hand, you would know that Cleve Backster claimed that a plant responded to a polygraph as soon as he thought about doing harmful things to the plant. The results were not duplicate-able and the Mythbusters proved it and therefore "In order for an experiment to be called legitimate, the results MUST be duplicate-able." http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z238/dadudemon/xflipoff3.gif

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't mean to sound condescending, but if you knew anything about the discussion at hand, you would know that Cleve Backster claimed that a plant responded to a polygraph as soon as he thought about doing harmful things to the plant. The results were not duplicate-able and the Mythbusters proved it and therefore "In order for an experiment to be called legitimate, the results MUST be duplicate-able." http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z238/dadudemon/xflipoff3.gif

you just spoke the obvious, so why are you staring at your middle finger, ah, it's intended for you dear, don't do that to yourself, totally abusive and unfriendly.

Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
you just spoke the obvious, so why are you staring at your middle finger, ah, it's intended for you dear, don't do that to yourself, totally abusive and unfriendly.

(I shouldn't even bother trying to do this but...)

The myth that plants have a spirit/consciousness comes from the polygraph results Cleve Backster presented. Since they were not duplicate-able, they are not valid results...it is not speaking the obvious, just WHY the results are NOT valid and THEREFORE that point* cannot be presented as a legitimate fact.


*I know you have a hard time getting points so I will make it quite clear: Plants do not have a verifiable spirit based off of a polygraph test.

Now that that is out of the way...did you just fart and smell it and then feel empathy for its spirit, Czarnia?

Originally posted by dadudemon
(I shouldn't even bother trying to do this but...)

The myth that plants have a spirit/consciousness comes from the polygraph results Cleve Backster presented. Since they were not duplicate-able, they are not valid results...it is not speaking the obvious, just WHY the results are NOT valid and THEREFORE that point* cannot be presented as a legitimate fact.


*I know you have a hard time getting points so I will make it quite clear: Plants do not have a verifiable spirit based off of a polygraph test.

Now that that is out of the way...did you just fart and smell it and then feel empathy for its spirit, Czarnia?


No, it wasn't a fart.

Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
No, it wasn't a fart.



and



and now

Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
empirical findings are just observations, if you observe something long enough, it's becomes an empiricial perspective.


A person wouldn't have to be an empath to know how much mental anguish such posts cause me.

And I think you are trying to hard to make the article fit your preconceived notions regarding "empathy" and the like. "The article mentioned empath and empath is more spiritual then scientific."

It doesn't work that way.

Oh, and by the way, I just looked at the first article again and they do not use the word "empath" once, they speak of empathy. And your perception of "empaths" is very much different from the scientifically defined and observable phenomenon known as "empathy" and the ability to "empathise", none of which is has any real connection to the spiritual.

The Islamic one about plants feeling pain also doesn't mention the word empath.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
A person wouldn't have to be an empath to know how much mental anguish such posts cause me.

And I think you are trying to hard to make the article fit your preconceived notions regarding "empathy" and the like. "The article mentioned empath and empath is more spiritual then scientific."

It doesn't work that way.

Oh, and by the way, I just looked at the first article again and they do not use the word "empath" once, they speak of empathy. And your perception of "empaths" is very much different from the scientifically defined and observable phenomenon known as "empathy" and the ability to "empathise", none of which is has any real connection to the spiritual.

The Islamic one about plants feeling pain also doesn't mention the word empath.


it's an article.

Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
it's an article.

Is that a response to what I said? I know full well it is an article. I am not sure why that needs to be reiterated.

You said the link is scientific and that it used the word empath. It did not. The word was not used once. Empathy was. It talked about empathy observed in caged mice.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Is that a response to what I said? I know full well it is an article. I am not sure why that needs to be reiterated.



why does most obvious conversation(s) need repeating?

Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
why does most obvious conversation(s) need repeating?

The obvious obviously escapes you....duh!!!!

But don't worry about that...I forget where I put my keys and wallet sometimes....

Originally posted by dadudemon
The obvious obviously escapes you....duh!!!!

But don't worry about that...I forget where I put my keys and wallet sometimes....

No, I just think it's getting no where, at the same time, destoryed a potentially good conversation on current science relating rat's experiences with humanity and possiblities.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
I just looked at the first article again and they do not use the word "empath" once, they speak of empathy. And your perception of "empaths" is very much different from the scientifically defined and observable phenomenon known as "empathy" and the ability to "empathise", none of which is has any real connection to the spiritual.

The Islamic one about plants feeling pain also doesn't mention the word empath.

This isn't getting positive.

I never said the article was about empath, I think my OP spoke of empathy.

And regarding the spiritual aspect of empathy, I believe in the spirit, so it's my place to label or connect spiritual with physical, most religions do it all the time, and they are thousands of scientists from all over this world that are religious and contribute a great amount to the science/discipline.

And I didn't state that the plants were empaths, someone else mentioned it, and that information is common as well, but decided to provide a link (i worked with him, not against him).

This is just no longer positive.
I think you're attempting to put me on the defense, for something as simple as a unique study, and it's annoying, so I'll just ignore your posts about this study.



"...one mouse recognizes and adopts the emotional state of another. Surprisingly, this only occurred if the mice knew each other—that is, if they had been cagemates for at least two weeks...required for a mouse to familiarize itself with the pheromones of another mouse

"Both of those things, ultimately, are suggestive of empathy," said Jeffrey Mogil, a psychology professor and one of the study's lead authors"

IF you want to debate the actual science, you should talk to the author of the book/researcher.

Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
No, I just think it's getting no where, at the same time, destoryed a potentially good conversation on current science relating rat's experiences with humanity and possiblities.

What are you trying to say there? Do you even know what you really meant to say?

Ambiguous pronoun reference of "its". What is "its"? You can only use 'its" IF you have referenced what "its" is at one point or another.

I destroyed a "potentially good conversation on current science relating rat's experiences with humanity and possibilities? That doesn't make much sense...did I destroy a conversation "relating rat's experiences with humanity and possibilities"? You can't just throw words out there at random and expect them to make sense; you actually HAVE to think about what you type BEFORE you type it. Rethink EXACTLY what you were trying to say and then use direct NOUNS to what subject you are referring to and stop trying to sound educated and mystic.

Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
This is just no longer positive.
I think your attempting to put me on the defense, for something as simple as a unique study, and it's annoying, so I'll just ignore your posts about this study.

If you agree with an idea or principle, you have to defend the idea IF you bring it up on a message board. (You went above and beyond that, you started a friggin' thread!)

Ignoring people who do not agree with you is just plan IF that person is debating with you civilly like Imperial_Samura is.

Originally posted by dadudemon
What are you trying to say there? Do you even know what you really meant to say?

Ambiguous pronoun reference of "its". What is "its"? You can only use 'its" IF you have referenced what "its" is at one point or another.

I destroyed a "potentially good conversation on current science relating rat's experiences with humanity and possibilities? That doesn't make much sense...did I destroy a conversation "relating rat's experiences with humanity and possibilities"? You can't just throw words out there at random and expect them to make sense; you actually HAVE to think about what you type BEFORE you type it. Rethink EXACTLY what you were trying to say and then use direct NOUNS to what subject you are referring to and stop trying to sound educated and mystic.



If you agree with an idea or principle, you have to defend the idea IF you bring it up on a message board. (You went above and beyond that, you started a friggin' thread!)

Ignoring people who do not agree with you is just plan IF that person is debating with you civilly like Imperial_Samura is.


have a great day

Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
have a great day

Thanks buddy!!!

Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
why does most obvious conversation(s) need repeating?

Yet you felt is was somehow relevant to point out it was an article.



The article wasn't about rats experiences with humanity, it was about empathy observed within caged specimens, potential explanations for the phenomenon and possible uses it might have in human applications.

Just like when I pick up a copy of New Scientist and read about study on an Influenza virus it isn't about "the virus experience with humanity" it is about study of something, the findings, and potential outcomes.

I am happy to discuss the science, but you were changing what the article was saying and claiming it somehow was using mystical words.



Why? I was simply making an observation?

Is it: Czarina_Czarina can say as she wishes =
Imperial Samura points out a flaw in an argument =



But you said:



It did not. You were trying to justify a position by claiming scientists where using that word, when they didn't. Your idea of an empath is very much different from a person, or a mouse, being able to empathise.



What does that have to do with, as you keep pointing out, the article? It doesn't mention the spiritual, it connects pheromones and visual stimuli to a form of sub-empathy going on with caged mice.

And I am sorry, but I don't think it is your place to label or connect the spiritual with the physical. I mean where does one get the qualifications/authority/employment to do that?

You can express an opinion, sure, but unless you are willing or able to back it up with some cold, hard facts, then it is not something with a great deal of validity.


What? I haven't said a thing is wrong with a study, I find this study interesting. I have been trying to defend the study from your appraisals of it as saying things like "empath". Please do not try and imply that the observations I made reflect on the article. Because, in fact, they are saying "you are reading things from the article that aren't there".

Because what I have done is point out that you can't make up your own conclusions about the study somehow indicating spiritual matters while erroneously claiming it mentioned "empaths" which it didn't.



I don't have a problem with the science, I am questioning your misinterpretation of the article and thus the science. If you want to take such a stance you have to support it.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Yet you felt is was somehow relevant to point out it was an article.



The article wasn't about rats experiences with humanity, it was about empathy observed within caged specimens, potential explanations for the phenomenon and possible uses it might have in human applications.

Just like when I pick up a copy of New Scientist and read about study on an Influenza virus it isn't about "the virus experience with humanity" it is about study of something, the findings, and potential outcomes.

I am happy to discuss the science, but you were changing what the article was saying and claiming it somehow was using mystical words.



Why? I was simply making an observation?

Is it: Czarina_Czarina can say as she wishes =
Imperial Samura points out a flaw in an argument =



But you said:



It did not. You were trying to justify a position by claiming scientists where using that word, when they didn't. Your idea of an empath is very much different from a person, or a mouse, being able to empathise.



What does that have to do with, as you keep pointing out, the article? It doesn't mention the spiritual, it connects pheromones and visual stimuli to a form of sub-empathy going on with caged mice.

And I am sorry, but I don't think it is your place to label or connect the spiritual with the physical. I mean where does one get the qualifications/authority/employment to do that?

You can express an opinion, sure, but unless you are willing or able to back it up with some cold, hard facts, then it is not something with a great deal of validity.


What? I haven't said a thing is wrong with a study, I find this study interesting. I have been trying to defend the study from your appraisals of it as saying things like "empath". Please do not try and imply that the observations I made reflect on the article. Because, in fact, they are saying "you are reading things from the article that aren't there".

Because what I have done is point out that you can't make up your own conclusions about the study somehow indicating spiritual matters while erroneously claiming it mentioned "empaths" which it didn't.



I don't have a problem with the science, I am questioning your misinterpretation of the article and thus the science. If you want to take such a stance you have to support it.


we have different debating styles, and as a few days ago, as you may have noticed, I haven't been the same, I think your style puts me in the position of defense, however, don't find that I use the same style, nothing wrong, to each his own....interesting questions though. Makes one wonder, what's your major (or just PM it to me if you don't mind)?

hug

i haven't studied viruses in depth since i was about 12, and we covered a lot of what i had studied throughout high school. i can't recall a lot of the information. i know that when i did study a virus, it was with respect to it's own environment and how it effected it's neighboring area.

plus, it was a psychologist that used the word empathy in the article, and yes, i did use the word empath, but not directly related to the article, again, seems like your questioning style is to invoke a permission on my part or that i need to defend myself, which takes away from the beauty of the discussion, which is the study of rats having empathy.

Originally posted by inimalist
you are free to say what you want

but in science we worry about something called quality control

everyone can have their opinion, not everyone can be correct.

ok