October 29, 2004 at 4:24 pm #187ravenstormmParticipant
can any one tell me if there is any foundation to the claims made by some neurolingistic programming practicioners claims about being to heal neurological problems, the way in which we learn and think or is it just all hype 😆
December 2, 2004 at 2:57 am #18678
My vote is hype. We are so far away from being able to understand the human nervous system, and the fact that this is being commercialized on the net is enough evidence for me to disprove it.
Programming the human computer is nothing like programming the silicon computer. The two operate on completely different principles. One circut on a computer fails and the entire system does. We can remove entire parts of the brain…or even destroy every tenth random neuron, and the brain still functions with no adverse effects.
On the other hand…programming the brain is a little freaky. I’ll double check with a buddy of mine. He’s specializing in neuroscience…maybe he’s heard of something on it.
December 14, 2004 at 5:00 am #18743AntjeParticipant
You’re right that is creepy, the fact that one could possibly program someone’s brain… It is right up there with choosing your baby’s everything 😕
December 14, 2004 at 8:27 pm #18754
Possibly…but one is akin to mind control. The other is the parents deciding on what (they think) is best for their child.
December 23, 2004 at 1:07 am #18829
Wouldn’t this brain programming thing be kinda immoral too? I mean, I wouldn’t want anyone treating me as a machine and insert chips into me and stuff. Besides, I’m agreeing with biostudent that it’s hype in the sense that I’ve accidentally spilled coffee inside my comp’s CPU and it haven’t exactly been running normally afterwards.
December 23, 2004 at 7:16 pm #18875Solid SnakeParticipant
i certainly think that anything like that can not be decided by one person for another. even parents for their children
December 24, 2004 at 5:52 am #18899
In addition, not to bring religion into this topic, but who are we to play God? Sure, we have numerous breakthroughs through the use of our advanced technology, but it’s not anyone’s right to control anyone else. One’s life is for one’s own to control, no matter how great our tech might be.
December 24, 2004 at 6:23 pm #18906
First off, I want to say that I would be dead-set against this…
But is this not far removed from using means to train a dog to sit or lay down?
December 25, 2004 at 2:14 am #18910
The way I see it, training a dog to perform various actions is like teaching someone how to do certain duties. That’s external involvement. However, fixing up someone’s brain to do things right would be internal involvement. You would actually be going into someone else’s body to correct things. Dogs can remember what you teach them to do, but once something’s amended in the body, I don’t think you can undo it.
December 25, 2004 at 2:17 am #18911
**insert evil grin here**
Once you teach a child the meaning of a nasty word, it is not easily undone, no?
Other than the actualy procedure, you would still get the same effect, yes?
December 25, 2004 at 2:41 am #18914
Haha, you fight fiercely.
But is it better to verbally teach a child the meaning of the F word or to perform an operation on his/her brain to make them remember what that word means? I would so much rather be taught how to use an AK-47 like an elite and forget it later on, than to have the method implanted in my brain so that I couldn’t forget it even if I tried.
December 25, 2004 at 4:38 am #18916
Oh, don’t get me wrong, I still am against it.
Not knowing much about guns, but isn’t gunnery a skill like most others? Once you learn it, it is difficult to forget..
Please explain why you think these two different methods of obtaining knowledge would have differing levels of effectiveness?
December 26, 2004 at 4:17 am #18919
Putting all morality issues aside, and just putting the level of effectiveness on the table:
Humans make mistakes, so if you are being taught by an instructor on the correct weaponry usage, there’s still a chance of error. It’s like spreading rumors, all in the memory. Then you have the other technique: neuro-operation. Yes, there’s also room for error during the operation, but if there is in fact a mistake, the person’s life might be in danger. If the operation is indeed successful, then there’ll be no forgetting-excuse on how to perform certain tasks (in our case, using a gun properly) because the skill is literally inside you.
December 26, 2004 at 4:34 am #18920
Having that said, then this NLP-once perfected-will be a more effective form of learning, yes?
December 27, 2004 at 4:03 am #18935
Yes, this NLP technique would prove to be more effective if perfected. However, since the use of a method and its morality issue are two different things, I am still against the idea of teaching one skills through fixing one’s brain.
December 27, 2004 at 6:34 am #18938
Good, at least you understand this now. Just remember that the scientists in charge of working on this have a JOB to learn as much about this as possible. They want to learn, not to inflict mind control on everyone. Haha, that’s the government’s job to want to do that.
May 11, 2011 at 4:53 am #104842Tata1Participant
Biology Articles — Agriculture
Straw Residue Helps Keep Nitrogen on the Farm
Cover crops have been found to prevent nitrogen leaching into waterways. They have also been found to reduce soil erosion — an implication of legume cover crops to be integrated with synthetic fertilizer in the future.
Non-point pollution is one of the major concerns of many scientists today. They have been looking for ways to lessen non-point pollution that results from agricultural practices. Recently, a group of scientists have found a possible and practicable solution. They found that using straw residue in conjunction with legume cover crops the leaching of nitrogen into the waterways has diminished. However, the economic return may also be relatively lower.
The practices applied in agriculture are considered as a major contributor of nitrogen non-point pollution as what is observed in the waterways in the United States. These contaminated waterways aggravate the situation as they flow into streams and rivers through erosion from farmlands or through nitrogen leaching into groundwater. If the contaminated water source reaches the aquatic systems, the excess nitrogen leads to aquatic ecosystem degradation. For instance, the pollutants in the water leas to oxygen deprivation, which in turn results in fish kills and the existence of dead zones. As for the potential health risks of nitrate leaching, nitrates reaching the drinking water supplies can truly be a health concern for they are associated with blue-baby syndrome, many cancers, and birth defects.
A research study by Penn State scientists identified the potential of straw residue to retain legume-derived nitrogen in a corn cropping system. In their study, straw residues were spread on plots that were later planted with to hairy vetch (a legume cover crop). Next, they planted a corn grain crop into the vetch with straw residues. Based on their findings, the soil inorganic nitrogen was about seven percent lower in the treatments with straw residue retention. Not only did the magnitude of the peak of nitrogen in soil is reached with this type of residue but also the timing of this peak. Timing is important since the nitrogen availability should coincide with the corn nitrogen demand. Although the results were promising, the reduced availability of nitrogen in the soil affects the corn grain yields negatively. In one year of the study, the yield is 16 percent below of the county average. Their study, however, has not been conclusive in terms of the use of straw residue to help retain nitrogen would be able to compensate the income losses from harvesting the straw.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.