S-Fury

A common understanding is that individuals are considered be int the same species if they can produce fertile offspring. Wolves can to that with domestic dogs, dogs with coyotes (coydog) and coyotes can do that with red wolves. Are they all the same species? I've seen places saying that red wolves and coyotes are separate species that can can fertile young. Is the definition of species just more vague and pragmatic?

Was learning about the heliosphere and how the sun's wind acts as a shield against cosmic radiation but if we are so much closer to the sun, shouldn't it be just as dangerous? Is one worse than the other?

Seeing the destruction brought about by our recent technological advancements, specifically our high rate of production since the industrial revolution, should we purposefully regress our used technologies? Acting on such a choice (removing medical/technological advancements) would a generate massive death toll and would cause population size to plummet, so this would be a grave decision. I don't think this should be the main concern though, and the main question I was pondering is as follows:

Is it better to continue advancement of human technologies, given that we are creating a world that is less easily inhabitable for our own species if, through such leaps in knowledge, we gain new secrets to the universe, and extend the limits of humanity?

If ATP holds energy in its supply of electrons which secure its bonds, and we have the ability to store electrical energy (availability to tons of electrons), why can't we create large amounts of ATP, using electricity as the power source?

So maybe, one day we can survive on nothing more that turbines at a waterfall, or fans in a field.

If stars turn hydrogen atoms into helium atoms through fusion reactions, why aren't we left with mostly helium? How do stars recycle fuel?

Either ideas are created by you, or they are just being perceived trough the process rationalization. The belief in Platonic forms would support my theory; that through thought you can be aware of the outside world (of forms / ideas).

Ideas exist on their own and perceiving them by thought makes it your sixth sense.

I believe that not enough genetic differentiation has separated us from our parents, and that we are just leading our parents lives (the one our our own sex), as if they were born in our situation.

Going to sleep last night, after returning from a dreamful fog, I wondered where my mind was. In this state, I wasn't really connected to reality, I was just viewing this dream environment, only being aware of what I was let to be. Is this unfocused, non-manipulative state of our minds worse that the focused one?

Is the dream a 'nightmare' just because you are holding so tightly to the illusion of control? What's makes it so much better to be focused?

it would happen in your own head, but: realizing Self isn't defined through living. Is the vanishing of "myself" good, if it is replaced with the 'one', whom we all are?

-or- Is it a tragedy that the person whom I've learnt to love is gone?

Are ideas and their physical counter-parts two manifestations of one mutable phenomenon? Like Matter & Energy.

Where you can perceive physical reality through your senses, and metaphysical, though reasoning, but are they really just one reality that is neither in essence?

If the world (universe) will end, doesn't that mean that infinity cannot possibly exist? So when we imagine it in mathematics, physics, or philosophy aren't we kidding ourselves?

If you go deep enough, past molecules, atoms, quarks, and such as that, do you have only one interaction going in every possible event? It doesn't have to be string theory.

-OR-

Are there infinitesimal particles that are always made up of something else? Could this be real, if 0.99999... = 1

Ive seen some fights get overturned because the fighter tested positive for weed. I.E. Nick Diaz and Kazuhiro Nakamura (although it didn't matter because he lost that fight to Machida).

I just don't understand the reasons. It's not a physical enhancing drug like amphetamines. Makes no sense.

I was thinking that the soul is only an experiencing being, with only one power; the power of will. I will to act, but then my body takes over. I am placing my brain's functions in the same category of my body, in that it is separate from my soul. Even now, I am willing myself to type this thought out, but my brain takes over and every thought that I come up with and view is of my brain's design. I then feel my mind saying it is a cohesive thought, and because of this I will the discussion to continue. So, feeling positive, like all other feelings/emotions are products of the body.

So, every belief that you have was not created by your soul, but by your brain. Every internal discussion you've had or are having, even about this, was/is only being viewed and is separate. You only think that is "you" having these thoughts both because you Will the answer to be found, and because you can't discern human from spirit. You have learned to attribute intelligent thought to humans, so it must be "you" creating it.

I was watching a video on genetic engineering, and was wondering how far you could alter human DNA, and still give that 'person' human rights. I think most would agree that you can "improve" infinitely and retain rights, but what if you were mixed 50/50 with a fly (Movie:The Fly)? 70% fly? Is there a point where we could kill you?

I was thinking that sleep is a based on human frailty, and in heaven we won't need it, but I can't imagine enjoying a continuous consciousness w/ no breaks. I don't know why I would enjoy sleeping, because really, it's just a separation of conscious states. I think I like having a break, where things can happen without me, so I don't feel that I have to be so actively aware of everything that is happening.

If we are Tabula Rasas (blank slates) at birth, and start off knowing nothing, or even if we are born with equivalent knowledge so that no one is advantageous; how can one person be responsible for his destiny, unless his soul is fundamentally different?

I think it would only make sense to have identical souls, for fairness, else judgment of souls is ludicrous and flawed. If they are identical though, how can anything be my personal short-coming, when any other soul would have done it, if they were born into my body? It seems to be simple bad luck to be born into a human who will eventually murder another.

So, I have two choices for you to choose from (though give me another if possible): 1) Our souls are significantly different as to change our future. or 2) Souls are identical, and no one can be judged upon death.

If we are Tabula Rasas (blank slates) at birth, and start off knowing nothing, or even if we are born with equivalent knowledge so that no one is advantageous; how can one person be responsible for his destiny, unless his soul is fundamentally different?

I think it would only make sense to have identical souls, for fairness, else judgment of souls is ludicrous and flawed. If they are identical though, how can anything be my personal short-coming, when any other soul would have done it, if they were born into my body? It seems to be simple bad luck to be born into a human who will eventually murder another.

So, I have two choices for you to choose from (though give me another if possible): 1) Our souls are significantly different as to change our future. or 2) Souls are identical, and no one can be judged upon death.

Why should letting yourself go in an emotion be a cathartic experience? When through rage, I let everything go; my thoughts, burdens, and happiness too. I would assume that it makes me feel better because although I lose what is good, I have more pain that is released, but isn't this an argument for suicide?

If suddenly the last man on earth, how many days would you give yourself before you succumb to insanity?