1. Get rich. Easiest step ever. :D
2. In New York, go up to one of the more successful homeless guys. Purchase all of his ratty clothes, as well as his cardboard box and- if he has one- his bottle of liquor with a paper bag wrapped around it. Altogether price? $10,000. It's a fair deal- it takes a large amount of time and dedication to get his clothes as filthy and torn as he has, and his cardboard box as soggy and... well... cardboard box-y.
3. Situate yourself in your newly purchased plot of land. Bring tons of cold, hard cash.
4. During the daytime, ask people who are passing by for spare change. If they give you $5 or more, give them $500 or more. Make sure they don't cause a scene. (Anyone who gives you small amounts of change can receive a voucher for a free product from your massive industry or summat.)
5. After 1-2 days of this, or just when word starts to get around, pack up and leave. Pay a hobo $1,000 to watch your spot for you. Never come back.
6. About a week after the first time, repeat process with an entirely different homeless guy. Every time you repeat the steps, increase the time in between by certain amounts (1 week turns to 2 weeks turns to a month turns to a month and a half turns to 2 months and a half, etc, etc).
Eventually, people will begin to become unsure of whether a hobo is the amazing super-rich guy who gives away money, or just a normal hobo. Thus, the homeless will receive an increase in donations, and the kind folk who gave away their money to the filthy hobo on the street corner will get something back for their charity. It's like forced karma. ^^
[Repeat in other cities as you find necessary- poss. hire other people to do the same job at the same time, or just get a friend to help you with it.]
Friday, May 1, 2009
The Meaning of Life
I am a semi-existentialist. I admit that there is no apparent reason for our existence. Or the existence of anything. At all. Even if you believe in a (or multiple) God(s), what would be the reason for their existence? Or whatever decided their existence was necessary? And so on, and so forth, for all previous and future existences. The origin of existence should not, itself, exist.
However, disregarding the source of all matter (the Big Bang, although the most likely theory, does not count- for what, or who, created that?), I believe if there is a reason for our existence it is a simple, one word answer... which, after I expand on it, will become much more than one word. And that word is this:
Happiness.
Every instinctual drive, although geared toward survival, is ultimately in favor of "happiness", or any good feeling. Why do human beings (as well as cats, dogs, monkeys, and even some sharks or carnivorous whales) seek entertainment, after all? Survival facilitates the desire for happiness (seeing as how it is impossible to experience while you are dead): love and sex as well. People who are selfish instinctively attempt to increase their own happiness; selfless people spread it both ways, as the giving of happiness to others increases the happiness which they themselves possess, and also, obviously, spreads the happiness in a wide arc of rippling circumstances. For the most part, however, it is the selfish desire of increasing their own happiness with feelings of goodwill that fuels this desire.
This is obviously a very debatable point, and in fact, I almost regret attempting to insinuate that happiness takes precedence over survival in nature's design. However, regardless of whether or not that particular point/series of points is accurate, I still believe that the best way to use my own existence is to attempt to spread as much happiness as possible. You may say this is a ploy to create a false feeling of self-importance within myself, or simply to appeal to others as a being of benevolence. This is of no interest to me. I realize that this particular strategy (although, admittedly, very difficult so far) is the most suitable way to live my life- as it even allows for my selfish desires to be fulfilled in the form of... well... self-fulfillment, if not self-indulgence.
I can only hope that all others shall be as amazingly pure and selfless as the humble person which I am. Ha.
However, disregarding the source of all matter (the Big Bang, although the most likely theory, does not count- for what, or who, created that?), I believe if there is a reason for our existence it is a simple, one word answer... which, after I expand on it, will become much more than one word. And that word is this:
Happiness.
Every instinctual drive, although geared toward survival, is ultimately in favor of "happiness", or any good feeling. Why do human beings (as well as cats, dogs, monkeys, and even some sharks or carnivorous whales) seek entertainment, after all? Survival facilitates the desire for happiness (seeing as how it is impossible to experience while you are dead): love and sex as well. People who are selfish instinctively attempt to increase their own happiness; selfless people spread it both ways, as the giving of happiness to others increases the happiness which they themselves possess, and also, obviously, spreads the happiness in a wide arc of rippling circumstances. For the most part, however, it is the selfish desire of increasing their own happiness with feelings of goodwill that fuels this desire.
This is obviously a very debatable point, and in fact, I almost regret attempting to insinuate that happiness takes precedence over survival in nature's design. However, regardless of whether or not that particular point/series of points is accurate, I still believe that the best way to use my own existence is to attempt to spread as much happiness as possible. You may say this is a ploy to create a false feeling of self-importance within myself, or simply to appeal to others as a being of benevolence. This is of no interest to me. I realize that this particular strategy (although, admittedly, very difficult so far) is the most suitable way to live my life- as it even allows for my selfish desires to be fulfilled in the form of... well... self-fulfillment, if not self-indulgence.
I can only hope that all others shall be as amazingly pure and selfless as the humble person which I am. Ha.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
School System
I believe we have lost the true definition of grading. Or, more appropriately, the meaning behind grading.
Grades are meant to be a representation, as accurately as possible, describing a child's intellectual grasp of whatever subject the mark is in. However, the institution of homework and extremely strict due dates on projects, as well as the nearly universal grading of "binders", has entirely changed the meaning of the grades. They now reflect- regardless of which subject they are meant to describe- a child's memory, organization, and even healthiness, often more than they do the actual material being taught.
The first thing that should go is binders. Frankly, I have absolutely no idea why teachers include these in the grading curriculum. They measure a student's organization, the amount of dependable friends they have (for assignments they missed), and, perhaps most of all, a student's luck (i.e., a student's binder gets torn apart by their dogs, = screwed). The only reasoning I can possibly find for this is to prevent cheating (in classes where teachers do not collect homework). Beyond that, all the reasons are strictly non-subject oriented.
Homework should change as well. I am not saying it should be gotten rid of- I will not be that unreasonable. My reasoning is not that it's annoying, or even that it causes stress or lack of sleep. If homework is not done, the student should be punished. Their grades, however? Should not suffer. If a student does not do homework, but gets amazing grades elsewhere, on what grounds would a teacher be able to say "This student is average"? Discipline should govern homework (increasing discipline as the missing homework increases each term). But homework should not, as it does in so many classes today, govern grades as greatly as it does.
Finally, the last thing I'll touch upon (although not the last thing wrong with schools...) is deadlines. This, once again, completely reverses the fact that school should be based on intelligence. Projects should, obviously, exist- they are one of the most accurate assessments of a student's intellect- but teachers should be very flexible with the deadlines on them. And arguing with "That puts too much stress on the teachers" does not prove your point- in fact, all it does is move some of the stress off the hormonal teenagers onto the mature (often not) teachers- and it's the teacher's job. Allowing for stretched deadlines creates much, much more accurate grades, which allows students who could otherwise finish the term with a C to actually obtain the grade they deserve...
...and by deserve, I mean based on intelligence and learning capability for that particular subject. Nothing else.
Grades are meant to be a representation, as accurately as possible, describing a child's intellectual grasp of whatever subject the mark is in. However, the institution of homework and extremely strict due dates on projects, as well as the nearly universal grading of "binders", has entirely changed the meaning of the grades. They now reflect- regardless of which subject they are meant to describe- a child's memory, organization, and even healthiness, often more than they do the actual material being taught.
The first thing that should go is binders. Frankly, I have absolutely no idea why teachers include these in the grading curriculum. They measure a student's organization, the amount of dependable friends they have (for assignments they missed), and, perhaps most of all, a student's luck (i.e., a student's binder gets torn apart by their dogs, = screwed). The only reasoning I can possibly find for this is to prevent cheating (in classes where teachers do not collect homework). Beyond that, all the reasons are strictly non-subject oriented.
Homework should change as well. I am not saying it should be gotten rid of- I will not be that unreasonable. My reasoning is not that it's annoying, or even that it causes stress or lack of sleep. If homework is not done, the student should be punished. Their grades, however? Should not suffer. If a student does not do homework, but gets amazing grades elsewhere, on what grounds would a teacher be able to say "This student is average"? Discipline should govern homework (increasing discipline as the missing homework increases each term). But homework should not, as it does in so many classes today, govern grades as greatly as it does.
Finally, the last thing I'll touch upon (although not the last thing wrong with schools...) is deadlines. This, once again, completely reverses the fact that school should be based on intelligence. Projects should, obviously, exist- they are one of the most accurate assessments of a student's intellect- but teachers should be very flexible with the deadlines on them. And arguing with "That puts too much stress on the teachers" does not prove your point- in fact, all it does is move some of the stress off the hormonal teenagers onto the mature (often not) teachers- and it's the teacher's job. Allowing for stretched deadlines creates much, much more accurate grades, which allows students who could otherwise finish the term with a C to actually obtain the grade they deserve...
...and by deserve, I mean based on intelligence and learning capability for that particular subject. Nothing else.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Possibility of "Fate"
I would like to write this section in contrast to the last section which is currently on my blog.
Here, I want to expand on the possibility of God- or in fact any superior being or force- truly actively taking part in the shaping of the world.
No, this does not mean that I believe in Jesus Christ. Frankly, if I were to be honest, I would say that, in all likelihood, Mary cheated on Joseph with another man.
That said, allow me to explain to you what I mean. I believe that if- and I do mean if, as there is truly no proof of this- there is a superior being who watches over us, there is absolutely no way that we can prove they have not actively had a hand in our Earthly affairs. Whether it be the weather (as the "Kamikaze" winds have protected Japan from, most notably, invading Mongols, in the past), or shaping someone's judgment without any evidence to the subject of these changes- perhaps causing the failures of some of the world's military leaders who have attempted the create a worldwide empire (Hitler, Alexander the Great, etc), there is absolutely no way in which we can prove that, in fact, God or God's equivalent has not changed our world to protect us or to suit Him (from now on, I will use the capitalized pronoun "He" when referring to any one or thing which is Godlike).
If He is so powerful, would it not be child's play for Him to use discretion, and keep His actions secret from us lower life forms?
I am not claiming that He has certainly used His powers to help us; nor am I even saying He Himself (once again, referring to any vastly superior being) exists. However, I would like to impress upon those of us who read this blog with an open mind that believing in one thing does not have to close your eyes to others- and there is no reason not to believe in a guiding presence in our world, regardless of what presence that may be.
(I would also like to mention here that although I choose to believe in God, I do not believe him omnipotent, nor entirely omniscient. I also do not believe that he himself calls himself God, as that would be presumptuous of me; however, as I do not know what He would be called, I choose to use the most recognizable name. The capitalized pronouns are for your easier understanding, as well as to make writing this post massively less time consuming.)
Here, I want to expand on the possibility of God- or in fact any superior being or force- truly actively taking part in the shaping of the world.
No, this does not mean that I believe in Jesus Christ. Frankly, if I were to be honest, I would say that, in all likelihood, Mary cheated on Joseph with another man.
That said, allow me to explain to you what I mean. I believe that if- and I do mean if, as there is truly no proof of this- there is a superior being who watches over us, there is absolutely no way that we can prove they have not actively had a hand in our Earthly affairs. Whether it be the weather (as the "Kamikaze" winds have protected Japan from, most notably, invading Mongols, in the past), or shaping someone's judgment without any evidence to the subject of these changes- perhaps causing the failures of some of the world's military leaders who have attempted the create a worldwide empire (Hitler, Alexander the Great, etc), there is absolutely no way in which we can prove that, in fact, God or God's equivalent has not changed our world to protect us or to suit Him (from now on, I will use the capitalized pronoun "He" when referring to any one or thing which is Godlike).
If He is so powerful, would it not be child's play for Him to use discretion, and keep His actions secret from us lower life forms?
I am not claiming that He has certainly used His powers to help us; nor am I even saying He Himself (once again, referring to any vastly superior being) exists. However, I would like to impress upon those of us who read this blog with an open mind that believing in one thing does not have to close your eyes to others- and there is no reason not to believe in a guiding presence in our world, regardless of what presence that may be.
(I would also like to mention here that although I choose to believe in God, I do not believe him omnipotent, nor entirely omniscient. I also do not believe that he himself calls himself God, as that would be presumptuous of me; however, as I do not know what He would be called, I choose to use the most recognizable name. The capitalized pronouns are for your easier understanding, as well as to make writing this post massively less time consuming.)
Monday, April 6, 2009
Christian God...
... and why he doesn't exist, or is a liar and entirely impure.
This post in no way suggest I do not believe in a God- just not the same one that the Christian bible (and, in fact, most monotheistic religions) suggests we all worship.
God claims to be omniscient and omnipotent...
Yet he also claims that we are His favorite subjects, being modeled after He himself.
It is my belief that one who is omniscient would feel no attachment to any particular form, as they would take no particular form, seeing the altogether uselessness of being any particular form.
Thus, He has lied to us.
The bible also claims that God's plague cast upon Egypt- killing every first-born son- was a necessary evil, in that the Egyptians needed to be taught not to treat the Jews as they have done.
Why, in that case, did God not simply kill pharaohs which disobeyed His will, and only pharaohs (or perhaps other high-ranking officials as well), until one of said pharaohs finally recognized the pattern which seemed to be occurring?
God has also sinned in sending bears to kill 40-someodd children because, if this information is correct, they insulted their balding schoolteacher, who was in God's favor.
In fact, some atheists who took the time to do so counted up the total kill count when comparing God and Satan. It ending up being about:
God: >1400
Satan: <4
(Of course, this does not include God's killing of 185,000 men in their sleep, 42,000 people because one mispronounced "Shibboleth", and... well... everyone besides Noah and his wife during the great flood, and also fails to demonstrate His brutality both with how He kills, who He kills, and His constant threats.)
Then, of course, there's the biggest thing of all; that, for any reason, God would allow someone to suffer eternal torment. I don't think people realize what eternal means. It means no death. No escape. Just pain, pain, and more pain. There is absolutely no being of goodwill who would subject any sentient being to that. Thus, for the allowance of the passage of souls to Hell, I would actually consider God to be outright evil, according to most monotheistic religions.
Please keep in mind; I have not read the bible myself. This information is corrupted partially because of that, and partially due to the fact that I severely dislike the Christian God as Christians themselves portray Him, which all started when I realized that asking for us to worship Him would be something He would not at all do were He truly omniscient, and that the only true reason for Him to ask us this would be to inflate His own ego. Of course, the best way to get someone to inflate your ego is to inflate their own ego, which made me consider the proposal that we were His favorite creations, and so on, and so forth.
Quite frankly, I believe God never has, and quite possibly never will, communicate with us... if he exists. However, it is possible, if you consider it, that God actively takes a hand in shaping fate- as you yourself would have to be omniscient in order to categorize all the causes and effects which would lead to a single event happening, let alone every in the world.
And please, you may comment on this post, but please keep it civil. I did warn you there would be blasphemy.
This post in no way suggest I do not believe in a God- just not the same one that the Christian bible (and, in fact, most monotheistic religions) suggests we all worship.
God claims to be omniscient and omnipotent...
Yet he also claims that we are His favorite subjects, being modeled after He himself.
It is my belief that one who is omniscient would feel no attachment to any particular form, as they would take no particular form, seeing the altogether uselessness of being any particular form.
Thus, He has lied to us.
The bible also claims that God's plague cast upon Egypt- killing every first-born son- was a necessary evil, in that the Egyptians needed to be taught not to treat the Jews as they have done.
Why, in that case, did God not simply kill pharaohs which disobeyed His will, and only pharaohs (or perhaps other high-ranking officials as well), until one of said pharaohs finally recognized the pattern which seemed to be occurring?
God has also sinned in sending bears to kill 40-someodd children because, if this information is correct, they insulted their balding schoolteacher, who was in God's favor.
In fact, some atheists who took the time to do so counted up the total kill count when comparing God and Satan. It ending up being about:
God: >1400
Satan: <4
(Of course, this does not include God's killing of 185,000 men in their sleep, 42,000 people because one mispronounced "Shibboleth", and... well... everyone besides Noah and his wife during the great flood, and also fails to demonstrate His brutality both with how He kills, who He kills, and His constant threats.)
Then, of course, there's the biggest thing of all; that, for any reason, God would allow someone to suffer eternal torment. I don't think people realize what eternal means. It means no death. No escape. Just pain, pain, and more pain. There is absolutely no being of goodwill who would subject any sentient being to that. Thus, for the allowance of the passage of souls to Hell, I would actually consider God to be outright evil, according to most monotheistic religions.
Please keep in mind; I have not read the bible myself. This information is corrupted partially because of that, and partially due to the fact that I severely dislike the Christian God as Christians themselves portray Him, which all started when I realized that asking for us to worship Him would be something He would not at all do were He truly omniscient, and that the only true reason for Him to ask us this would be to inflate His own ego. Of course, the best way to get someone to inflate your ego is to inflate their own ego, which made me consider the proposal that we were His favorite creations, and so on, and so forth.
Quite frankly, I believe God never has, and quite possibly never will, communicate with us... if he exists. However, it is possible, if you consider it, that God actively takes a hand in shaping fate- as you yourself would have to be omniscient in order to categorize all the causes and effects which would lead to a single event happening, let alone every in the world.
And please, you may comment on this post, but please keep it civil. I did warn you there would be blasphemy.
The Freedom of Money
If I were enormously wealthy.
If you are here for the scientific/social ideas, proceed directly to #4.
1. Purchase a home.
-Not a mansion, persay, but a lakeside home with a large yard which children could play in.
2. Purchase a (some) pet(s).
-Possible pets include dog(s) weighing at least 20 lb, cat(s), snake(s), tarantula, rat(s), and/or horse(s).
-Prospectively allow all children to own individual pet- which the soon to be mentioned private staff would care for.
3. Hire Private Staff
-Build on the premises houses, only slightly smaller than my own, where servants, gardners, etc could stay, allowing them easy access to the home.
-Background check all staff, but do not necessarily fire based on things found in checks; rather, confront about them, and allow staff to defend or explain self. Some of the best people have been caught in the worst circumstances.
4. Build Free-live Neighborhoods
-Using surplus wealth, would buy land, build homes on said land, and allow poor folk to move in and live on premises free of charge.
-Taxes, although price-reduced, will be deducted from the paychecks which each person obtains from working at their in-neighborhood job.
-Exceptions to the in-neighborhood jobs will be unquestionably allowed, unless person requesting exception does so to be unemployed.
-Will purchase farms and factories, but allow the farming/factory employees to continue working, paid by me; this is in order to supply my free-live neighborhood(s) with cheaper food products.
-Will build wind farm on acres of land purchased nearby premises, to allow for cheaper/less harmful energy.
-Will purchase desalination plant(s) in order to provide water to community.
-Will hire police force. I myself will have full control of said police force (unless control attempts to exceed laws of host nation).
-Successors to me will only have partial control of police, allowing the force to, after my demise, remain semi-autonomous.
-Semi-autonomous police force will abide by a set of rules written during my lifetime; these rules cannot be changed except by a vote within the police force, and another vote within the general population (if either of these decline, amendment is rendered null).
-Will appoint a self-chosen successor before retirement; successors thereafter will be put up for vote by public (successor does NOT, by any means, have to reside within free-live neighborhood[s]), and then voted upon.
-Public has final say in vote, and can begin voting process at any time.
-Expansion is the only (so far) allowed action which successor can take without notification and ballot of the public.
-Successor may only spend a portion of neighborhood funds (most likely 15%) without public notification.
-If multiple neighborhoods are created, only one successor will, to begin with, preside over all.
-Successor to police force general will also be put to vote, by the police force.
-If so desired, a neighborhood could claim autonomy from coalition of neighborhoods. If this occurs, neighborhood will receive a portion of collective neighborhood funds equal to 2/3 the amount that the neighborhood makes up in comparison with other neighborhoods (example, 4 neighborhoods| 1 declares autonomy| neighborhood obtains 16 2/3% of overall neighborhood funds). Neighborhood will also gain the ability to appoint its own successor.
-If a great threat appears to an individual neighborhood, the police generals of all neighborhoods will be called to counsel, with I/the successor presiding, and have a discussion on possible actions.
-At said counsel, police colonels will wait in booths outside building- any neighborhood citizen who wishes to voice an idea will be taken into consideration by colonel.
-If colonel finds an idea to be considerable, he will first ask the citizen's name. Upon obtaining this, he will enter the discussion room without delay. If the counsel is in the middle of speaking, he will press a button to activate a light above the door to the room. When time is found, counsel will accept colonel into the room, and consider citizen's proposal.
More will be added as I find free time.
If you are here for the scientific/social ideas, proceed directly to #4.
1. Purchase a home.
-Not a mansion, persay, but a lakeside home with a large yard which children could play in.
2. Purchase a (some) pet(s).
-Possible pets include dog(s) weighing at least 20 lb, cat(s), snake(s), tarantula, rat(s), and/or horse(s).
-Prospectively allow all children to own individual pet- which the soon to be mentioned private staff would care for.
3. Hire Private Staff
-Build on the premises houses, only slightly smaller than my own, where servants, gardners, etc could stay, allowing them easy access to the home.
-Background check all staff, but do not necessarily fire based on things found in checks; rather, confront about them, and allow staff to defend or explain self. Some of the best people have been caught in the worst circumstances.
4. Build Free-live Neighborhoods
-Using surplus wealth, would buy land, build homes on said land, and allow poor folk to move in and live on premises free of charge.
-Taxes, although price-reduced, will be deducted from the paychecks which each person obtains from working at their in-neighborhood job.
-Exceptions to the in-neighborhood jobs will be unquestionably allowed, unless person requesting exception does so to be unemployed.
-Will purchase farms and factories, but allow the farming/factory employees to continue working, paid by me; this is in order to supply my free-live neighborhood(s) with cheaper food products.
-Will build wind farm on acres of land purchased nearby premises, to allow for cheaper/less harmful energy.
-Will purchase desalination plant(s) in order to provide water to community.
-Will hire police force. I myself will have full control of said police force (unless control attempts to exceed laws of host nation).
-Successors to me will only have partial control of police, allowing the force to, after my demise, remain semi-autonomous.
-Semi-autonomous police force will abide by a set of rules written during my lifetime; these rules cannot be changed except by a vote within the police force, and another vote within the general population (if either of these decline, amendment is rendered null).
-Will appoint a self-chosen successor before retirement; successors thereafter will be put up for vote by public (successor does NOT, by any means, have to reside within free-live neighborhood[s]), and then voted upon.
-Public has final say in vote, and can begin voting process at any time.
-Expansion is the only (so far) allowed action which successor can take without notification and ballot of the public.
-Successor may only spend a portion of neighborhood funds (most likely 15%) without public notification.
-If multiple neighborhoods are created, only one successor will, to begin with, preside over all.
-Successor to police force general will also be put to vote, by the police force.
-If so desired, a neighborhood could claim autonomy from coalition of neighborhoods. If this occurs, neighborhood will receive a portion of collective neighborhood funds equal to 2/3 the amount that the neighborhood makes up in comparison with other neighborhoods (example, 4 neighborhoods| 1 declares autonomy| neighborhood obtains 16 2/3% of overall neighborhood funds). Neighborhood will also gain the ability to appoint its own successor.
-If a great threat appears to an individual neighborhood, the police generals of all neighborhoods will be called to counsel, with I/the successor presiding, and have a discussion on possible actions.
-At said counsel, police colonels will wait in booths outside building- any neighborhood citizen who wishes to voice an idea will be taken into consideration by colonel.
-If colonel finds an idea to be considerable, he will first ask the citizen's name. Upon obtaining this, he will enter the discussion room without delay. If the counsel is in the middle of speaking, he will press a button to activate a light above the door to the room. When time is found, counsel will accept colonel into the room, and consider citizen's proposal.
More will be added as I find free time.
The Undead
Also known as "Necromancy".
HYPOTHESIS: If a deceased persons were kept in a room at a temperature of exactly 98.6 degrees, with breathing apparatus which forced them to breathe decontaminated air, for 3 days, and then, an electric shock administered to their respiratory systems, would it be possible to bring said person to life?
AMENDMENT: Antibodies would have to be administered regularly in order to keep the body from decomposing.
QUESTION: Would the body's digestive systems have to have been in effect in order to allow them to restart?
If so, how would peristalsis be recreated for the 3 days required in the experiment?
SECONDARY QUESTION: Would nutrients have to be administered to the body, regardless of the fact that its processes are not in use?
ANSWER TO SECONDARY QUESTION: Yes, as otherwise the cells would die, leaving the body a heaving mass of dead tissue; however, this topic brings up the uselessness of keeping the lungs breathing, as the purpose of the lungs is to allow the bloodstream to carry oxygen/nutrients throughout the body.
NEW SECONDARY QUESTION: If nutrients were injected periodically into the body's bloodstream, would said nutrients be usable by nearby cells, and would this allow the cells to continue living?
HYPOTHESIS: If a deceased persons were kept in a room at a temperature of exactly 98.6 degrees, with breathing apparatus which forced them to breathe decontaminated air, for 3 days, and then, an electric shock administered to their respiratory systems, would it be possible to bring said person to life?
AMENDMENT: Antibodies would have to be administered regularly in order to keep the body from decomposing.
QUESTION: Would the body's digestive systems have to have been in effect in order to allow them to restart?
If so, how would peristalsis be recreated for the 3 days required in the experiment?
SECONDARY QUESTION: Would nutrients have to be administered to the body, regardless of the fact that its processes are not in use?
ANSWER TO SECONDARY QUESTION: Yes, as otherwise the cells would die, leaving the body a heaving mass of dead tissue; however, this topic brings up the uselessness of keeping the lungs breathing, as the purpose of the lungs is to allow the bloodstream to carry oxygen/nutrients throughout the body.
NEW SECONDARY QUESTION: If nutrients were injected periodically into the body's bloodstream, would said nutrients be usable by nearby cells, and would this allow the cells to continue living?
Bio-Computer
HYPOTHESIS: If one were to install a human brain into an artificially created nervous system,
Would it be possible to use the brain's incredible processing and storage capabilities to one's advantage?
REVISION: The brain would have to be kept in suitable conditions (98.6 degree temp., etc) until and during use.
POTENTIAL ISSUE: Would the brain require a constant supply of oxygen in order to function correctly, even in an artificial environment?
If so, could the respiratory system be recreated/would said recreation be necessary?
ANSWER TO ISSUE: Not quite; the oxygen is used in the biological manufacturing of ATP.
FURTHER ISSUE: Would artificial manufacturing of ATP be possible/necessary? (Would a normal power supply work as well?)
POTENTIAL GLOBAL CRISIS: Disregarding the seeming naivety of this statement, would the brain used in this machine be capable of A.I. (artificial intelligence)?
Furthermore, would creation of system violate any state, national, or international laws?
POSSIBLE BYPASS TO LAWS: The system could, most likely, substitute another intelligent species' cerebrum for that of a human's- particularly, dolphin or chimpanzee for highest probable results.
[Recently, one of my friends at school told me that Scientific American had an article concerning this in one of their issues. I would like to assure you that this post was written before I had knowledge of said article- in fact, I still have not read it- and that I in no way was affected by their ideas... although I may be now. Any amendments made due to the article will take place after this message; as I would like to use any sources I can to make my information as accurate as possible.]
Would it be possible to use the brain's incredible processing and storage capabilities to one's advantage?
REVISION: The brain would have to be kept in suitable conditions (98.6 degree temp., etc) until and during use.
POTENTIAL ISSUE: Would the brain require a constant supply of oxygen in order to function correctly, even in an artificial environment?
If so, could the respiratory system be recreated/would said recreation be necessary?
ANSWER TO ISSUE: Not quite; the oxygen is used in the biological manufacturing of ATP.
FURTHER ISSUE: Would artificial manufacturing of ATP be possible/necessary? (Would a normal power supply work as well?)
POTENTIAL GLOBAL CRISIS: Disregarding the seeming naivety of this statement, would the brain used in this machine be capable of A.I. (artificial intelligence)?
Furthermore, would creation of system violate any state, national, or international laws?
POSSIBLE BYPASS TO LAWS: The system could, most likely, substitute another intelligent species' cerebrum for that of a human's- particularly, dolphin or chimpanzee for highest probable results.
[Recently, one of my friends at school told me that Scientific American had an article concerning this in one of their issues. I would like to assure you that this post was written before I had knowledge of said article- in fact, I still have not read it- and that I in no way was affected by their ideas... although I may be now. Any amendments made due to the article will take place after this message; as I would like to use any sources I can to make my information as accurate as possible.]
Use of This Blog
I want feedback.
My ideas may make no sense, they may make all the sense in the world; it doesn't matter. I want your opinion on them, good or bad. Hopefully at least with reasoning.
This blog is likely to be uninteresting, and quite possibly only contain a few posts, as so far, I only have three ideas I wish to put on here. None of them are complete. There are likely to be serious issues in my reasoning, with some possibly incapable of execution.
I may also include, at random, segments describing my actual life. You should probably disregard these, as they are likely to be enormously uninteresting.
I am, in fact, a teenager; and thus, I may occasionally post something I found that was funny, or a review of a game, or whatever. Whatever you came for, you can read. However much time you choose to waste here, I am not liable for.
There is every possibility I will entirely forget about this blog within a month (remember, teenager); however, I check my email roughly every week or two, so if you still have a comment about one of the posts, don't be afraid to email me. I am always curious about what people have to say.
... Of course, this is all assuming that my blog will be at all popular. Which it won't. Still, for those of you who have read all the way through this, I am guessing you have enough time to burn that you can look through my posts freely; so, I will keep you no longer.
My ideas may make no sense, they may make all the sense in the world; it doesn't matter. I want your opinion on them, good or bad. Hopefully at least with reasoning.
This blog is likely to be uninteresting, and quite possibly only contain a few posts, as so far, I only have three ideas I wish to put on here. None of them are complete. There are likely to be serious issues in my reasoning, with some possibly incapable of execution.
I may also include, at random, segments describing my actual life. You should probably disregard these, as they are likely to be enormously uninteresting.
I am, in fact, a teenager; and thus, I may occasionally post something I found that was funny, or a review of a game, or whatever. Whatever you came for, you can read. However much time you choose to waste here, I am not liable for.
There is every possibility I will entirely forget about this blog within a month (remember, teenager); however, I check my email roughly every week or two, so if you still have a comment about one of the posts, don't be afraid to email me. I am always curious about what people have to say.
... Of course, this is all assuming that my blog will be at all popular. Which it won't. Still, for those of you who have read all the way through this, I am guessing you have enough time to burn that you can look through my posts freely; so, I will keep you no longer.
Enjoy,
Daniel
Daniel
P.S.-
You are free to use any of the information in this blog for any good it may possibly do, as long as I am notified beforehand, and give my consent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)