The "cube" things you are talking about were so -called "bubble memory". they were about an inch on a side and IIRC (though I'm not too sure) they use magnetic domains to store data.
At the time it seemed pretty amazing that a 1-layer slab of these a foot square could hold the entire Encyclopedia Brittanica.
There was some disadvantage (I can't remember what) but it seems that research into that technology was abandoned as better technologies becae available. For example, DVD achieves a higher information density.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
OK, let's just see how difficult Linux's 21 separate updates are to install - (assuming you're stupid enough to want to wait for 21 updates to accumulate):
Why do you suppose Win95 is so unstable? Why do you suppose the only way to fix it when it breaks is to reinstall from scratch? The registry makes the system nontransparent and creates a single shared point of failure that can (and regularly does) invalidate the entire system, simply because one program screwed up.
The day that Linux gets a registry will be the day I switch to a different OS.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
you can still buy these things made in a decent size for TV screens, they've been around since at least the mid-1960's. They don't cost very much. And if you have one that's big enough to cover the whole screen you won't get a sore neck from peeping through the little hole.
Sheesh. The things some people do to save a coupla bucks. Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
Re:Can You Install Windows 98? I think I can!
on
CNN Installs Linux
·
· Score: 1
OK, it's true that the Win98 install is easier than it was - for some "ideal" system configurations. But that's not the whole story. I've spent two weeks so far trying to install Win98SE and although I eventually worked out most of the wrinkles in the subsequent driver upgrade and application installation procedures, I am still fighting a losing battle. I thought I had it last night finally. But on rebootin the PC this morning I found my hard disk trashed YET AGAIN. There's nothing for it but another complete format-and-reinstall. This must be about the eighth or ninth attempt now. I may get to the bottom of it in the end or I may not - I never did with Win95/OSR2. From my experience I draw three conclusions: 1) In comparing the ease of installation of Windows vs. that of Linux, you have to include the process of installing any applications since most Linux distributions automate this for you and in the case of Linux there are rarely any problems with this (SuSE Linux is a shining example). 2) Using this criterion, Windows installations are far from easy. I'm a fairly expert technician and the problems I've been facing with this Win98SE installation have been taxing me to the limit of my abilities. 3) Whatever the cause of these problems, be it buggy applications or install routines, or virus infestation, or bugs in the OS, or BIOS/hardware problems, Windows 98 is simply not a stable platform by any useful measure. The architecture is fundamentally flawed in that the OS is ultimately responsible for the ability of any other factor to bring it down. Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
Hilton envisage a ring-shaped construction. It shouldn't be a problem to set it rotating like the one in the film, giving the inhabitants a sensation of weight, somewhere between 0.17g and 0.5g probably.
Then there won't be a problem if the staff and guests spend most of their time in the ring. If the station has low gravity then staff will only be able to spend limited time there or they surely will sue for health problems later on. Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
I think it was Hemingway who pointed out: "There isn't a noun that can't be verbed." Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
You have gotten the wrong end of the stick wrt how the brain thinks.
To see a comprehensive and truly convincing neuroanatomical theory of how it really works read William H Calvin's "How Brains Think" and "The Cerebral Code".
I promise you will be completely boggled by these books. Nothing I can say in a few words will prepare you for the shock of revelation you will experience. So I won't bother anyway. Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
I've no idea whether there's any truth in the scenario you describe, but I'll tell you one thing for sure: at least some of us do suffer a progressive dulling of the wits during the 10 years following age 25.
It's highly noticeable if one was very bright as a youngster. I'm fairly sure people who were stupid to start with won't notice much of a difference though.
People falling into the latter category won't be reading Slashdot, naturally. Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
I want something now that would restore me to the level of intellectual and learning ability I had when I was 25.
Damn straight! I had exactly the same thought when I read the article.
I wonder just how many people in their mid thirties are aware of a general decline in intellect, memory and creativity since their mid twenties? It's not something that's often discussed; perhaps because the more senior types who are still mostly in control of everything don't want to see it mentioned in public...
I'd never have plastic surgery done to preserve youthful looks but I'd definitely scrape together the money to have this NGF gene inserted in my neurons. Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
I tend to view such attitudes ("it's not fair!!") as immature, but that's just the result of the particular journey I've taken through life so far.
As long as you simply rail against the unfairness of it all, such an attitude can certainly be described as maladjusted. It demonstrates an inability or reluctance (for there is little difference between the two) to adapt.
If on the other hand you were to devote a substantial proportion of your resources and time to changing the situation you perceive as unjust, then you'd surely be better than most of us. In my view the most supremely human form of adaptation is to force the world to adapt to you rather than vice versa!
Of course, you might not win... Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
Miller's experiment was important because it opened up a whole new line of research. Many people followed with similar experiments using different starting atmospheres and different methods of energy delivery but they all broadly achieved the same sort of result: simple reagents combined in aqua to make ever more complex organic molecules.
Now that's fine as far as it goes. But as I understand it the most common criticism offered by the unwary is that the reagents would have been too dilute in seawater for the necessary chain of reactions to progress very far, and the natural environment doesn't provide any way to collect the reagents in more concentrated form to overcome this.
However that's just plain ignorance I'm afraid. Several theories have been advanced to explain this, including evaporating pools at the shoreline and clay beds - which can contain rare metals by the way, and make excellent catalysts for organic reactions.
Currently the most popular theory is that life arose in or near "smokers" - chimneys at the bottom of the ocean where heat and hot gases escape from the earth's interior. Several species of archaeobacteria have been found subsisting on the environment these thinge provide. These archaeobacteria are virtually identical to the oldest fossil bacteria ever seen, and moreover genetic studies indicate that their kind are the common direct ancestor of every living species on the planet.
The smokers certainly provide a constant source of heat and raw materials, maintaining a high concentration of useful reagents in the immediate vicinity - the perfect environment for life to evolve in. And there's not too much oxygen down there, either, regardless of the makeup of the atmosphere.
As far as the theory of the seeds of life arriving as passengers on a meteor, or in the tail of a comet - only a few relative wackos believe in that stuff (the idea was pioneered by the eternally rebellious Fred Hoyle after all).
To start with, it would not be enough for non-self-reproducing molecules to arrive that way as there simply wouldn't be enough material to make a difference; and anything complex enough to be interesting is likely to be incinerated on the way down.
Since the discovery of possible nanobacterial fossils on the Martian meteorite the idea has become more popular but remember that these tiny structures are not yet proven to be real fossils, and even if they were it seems unlikely they could have survived the trip. Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
The main risks depend upon whatever directions such research should take. I don't think we have to worry about higher life forms yet though, since the human genome (for example) is really only poorly understood.
Those genetic scientists who imagine that the human genome project will quickly lead to easy tailoring of human beings have obviously never seen a large, poorly documented computer program written in a low-level language with lots of unstructured GOTOs. Which is what the human genome is, in effect. For the non-programmers out there - such programs can hardly accept the most minor modification without unwanted side-effects. And for 99.9% of the time, unwanted side-effects in a genome will mean that the organism doesn't survive very long (if at all).
No, there is a far more dangerous threat posed by this technology anyway. Many people worry about the "grey goo" scenario made possible by nanotechnology. Well, what about a green goo? Or a pink goo? Laboratory-designed microorganisms could in theory be so efficient that they just eat up everything in sight. Natural organisms simply might not be able to compete with an organism like that.
So that's the great nightmare for the children of the 21st century: mad scientist creates a bug from scratch, so different from everything else that it turns the surface of the planet into a giant turd within a matter of months.
I used to think that scientists were a fairly responsibly bunch on the whole. But announcements like this make me wish they were kept under even tighter control. Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
I'm getting heartily sick of this. It's not only Liam Neeson and Sir Alec Guinness who have expressed contempt for Star Wars and its following. I saw an interview with Ewan MacGregor on TV recently and he was just as condescending about the fans.
Were they forced to do these films? I don't think so. The problem is, because they've achieved a measure of success in their careers they think they're better people than everyone else.
What would it have cost them to keep their mouths shut and continue to support the illusion that they, the actors, might in _some_ small measure embody the graceful spirit of they characters they played?
At least Sir Alec kept his mouth mostly shut for some years. But Neeson and MacGregor couldn't keep quite for five minutes. I enjoyed Neeson's performance. But if George Lucas's first choice of actors are all going to stand up and burst the balloon right after his films are released, maybe he should concentrate on even lesser known actors without these grandiose pretensions. Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
...is an adaptation to an outside stimulus. So is homosexuality
Actually that's a fairly poor (though common) misinterpretation of how genetics is thought to operate. According to Dawkins, genes are the fundamental operator on adaptation, but they don't code for behaviour that "intentionally" abandons all reproductive opportunities, nor for any other altruistic behaviour, ie. self-sacrifice for the sake of one's distant kin. It's easily proven; a gene that results in an altruistic behaviour which effectively removes itself from the gene pool (eg a homosexual gene) will not be able to propagate itself, it is effectively committing suicide. Even if it has a beneficial effect on the population at large it is completely cut off from the positive effects of its own actions.
The only exception to this is self-sacrifice which directly benefits one's own direct descendants.
Don't take my word for it, go and read Richard Dawkins somewhat more deeply than you did before. His only serious critic is Steven Jay Gould but even he doesn't appear to contend this particular issue.
To summarize: homosexuality is not a positive adaptation in any respect. It is just one of thousands of possible maladaptations (we all have some of them). Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
Troll Tech shouldn't make the Windows version open source. It's a completely different development community and people would very likely abuse it. IT would also substantially reduce the incentive for Win users to migrate to Linux. I'd be just as happy to see Windows land completely starved of open source software. Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
If it doesn't kill in moderate [...] doses, it isn't poison.
Then what would you call a substance that does permanent damage to the body but doesn't kill you? A toxin? Fair enough. My point remains valid I think. Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
Yeah, sure. Right after he admitted to throwing himself down the police station stairs, and beating himself up while alone in his cell. Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
A substance can be poisonous without being lethal. I would certainly describe as "poisonous" any foreign substance which interferes with the body's biochemistry. And hallucinogenic drugs like THC and LSD certainly interfere with the brain's biochemistry - that's why they work.
If you haven't experienced nasty side effects from smoking cannabis yet - then you're obviously not smoking enough. Fortunately, it seems most people don't - in the US at least. But in the US you are used to much less potent forms. In the UK both grass and hashish is potent enough that one can easily smoke enough in one sitting to cause extremely unpleasant panic attacks. I've seen it happen to both first-timers and habitual users.
Moreover there is certainly a dulling of the intellect. You will tend to score about 10-20 pointe lower on IQ tests when your body is saturated. Remember that THC is highly soluble in fat, and the solid (non-aqueous) matter in the brain is mostly fat (cell membranes).
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
They are all poisons. How much less dangerous is cannabis than alcohol? Every study says something different. Unfortunately the debate is so polarised nobody has a chance to get at the full unexpurgated truth. I do know this, though: cannabis monkeys with your central nervous system in a big way. And it can certainly do you harm - in many different ways. So can all psychoactive drugs. Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
I've already read what I wanted to read from that period. There isn't an awful lot that's survived that was any good. And it's a bit short on science fiction. I've already read Verne, Wells, Shelley. Consciousness is not what it thinks it is Thought exists only as an abstraction
Slashdot Mirror
The "cube" things you are talking about were so -called "bubble memory". they were about an inch on a side and IIRC (though I'm not too sure) they use magnetic domains to store data.
At the time it seemed pretty amazing that a 1-layer slab of these a foot square could hold the entire Encyclopedia Brittanica.
There was some disadvantage (I can't remember what) but it seems that research into that technology was abandoned as better technologies becae available. For example, DVD achieves a higher information density.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Oh...er...first post?!?!
Damn! Gotta learn to read faster...
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Well written, I mean. i particularly liked the swipe at Jaynes ;o) Oh...er...first post?!?!
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Brian Aldiss? I thought he was dead...
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
OK, let's just see how difficult Linux's 21 separate updates are to install - (assuming you're stupid enough to want to wait for 21 updates to accumulate):
$ rpm -Uvh ftp://ftp.mydistribution.com/pub/updates/*.rpm
Now that was such a lot of work wasn't it?
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
That is the most idiotic thing I've ever heard.
Why do you suppose Win95 is so unstable? Why do you suppose the only way to fix it when it breaks is to reinstall from scratch? The registry makes the system nontransparent and creates a single shared point of failure that can (and regularly does) invalidate the entire system, simply because one program screwed up.
The day that Linux gets a registry will be the day I switch to a different OS.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
you can still buy these things made in a decent size for TV screens, they've been around since at least the mid-1960's. They don't cost very much. And if you have one that's big enough to cover the whole screen you won't get a sore neck from peeping through the little hole.
Sheesh. The things some people do to save a coupla bucks.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
OK, it's true that the Win98 install is easier than it was - for some "ideal" system configurations. But that's not the whole story. I've spent two weeks so far trying to install Win98SE and although I eventually worked out most of the wrinkles in the subsequent driver upgrade and application installation procedures, I am still fighting a losing battle. I thought I had it last night finally. But on rebootin the PC this morning I found my hard disk trashed YET AGAIN. There's nothing for it but another complete format-and-reinstall. This must be about the eighth or ninth attempt now. I may get to the bottom of it in the end or I may not - I never did with Win95/OSR2. From my experience I draw three conclusions: 1) In comparing the ease of installation of Windows vs. that of Linux, you have to include the process of installing any applications since most Linux distributions automate this for you and in the case of Linux there are rarely any problems with this (SuSE Linux is a shining example). 2) Using this criterion, Windows installations are far from easy. I'm a fairly expert technician and the problems I've been facing with this Win98SE installation have been taxing me to the limit of my abilities. 3) Whatever the cause of these problems, be it buggy applications or install routines, or virus infestation, or bugs in the OS, or BIOS/hardware problems, Windows 98 is simply not a stable platform by any useful measure. The architecture is fundamentally flawed in that the OS is ultimately responsible for the ability of any other factor to bring it down.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Hilton envisage a ring-shaped construction. It shouldn't be a problem to set it rotating like the one in the film, giving the inhabitants a sensation of weight, somewhere between 0.17g and 0.5g probably.
Then there won't be a problem if the staff and guests spend most of their time in the ring. If the station has low gravity then staff will only be able to spend limited time there or they surely will sue for health problems later on.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Brisk, warm airflow through either room is a necessity, if for no other reason than to clear bodily fluids from the atmosphere.
You must be joking. Having some other guy's wad blown into my face just while I'm trying to get it on* isn't MY idea of an aphrodisiac.
*Or at any other time either, either.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
I think it was Hemingway who pointed out: "There isn't a noun that can't be verbed."
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
You have gotten the wrong end of the stick wrt how the brain thinks.
To see a comprehensive and truly convincing neuroanatomical theory of how it really works read William H Calvin's "How Brains Think" and "The Cerebral Code".
I promise you will be completely boggled by these books. Nothing I can say in a few words will prepare you for the shock of revelation you will experience. So I won't bother anyway.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Heh! Young fool!
I've no idea whether there's any truth in the scenario you describe, but I'll tell you one thing for sure: at least some of us do suffer a progressive dulling of the wits during the 10 years following age 25.
It's highly noticeable if one was very bright as a youngster. I'm fairly sure people who were stupid to start with won't notice much of a difference though.
People falling into the latter category won't be reading Slashdot, naturally.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
I want something now that would restore me to the level of intellectual and learning ability I had when I was 25.
Damn straight! I had exactly the same thought when I read the article.
I wonder just how many people in their mid thirties are aware of a general decline in intellect, memory and creativity since their mid twenties? It's not something that's often discussed; perhaps because the more senior types who are still mostly in control of everything don't want to see it mentioned in public...
I'd never have plastic surgery done to preserve youthful looks but I'd definitely scrape together the money to have this NGF gene inserted in my neurons.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
I tend to view such attitudes ("it's not fair!!") as immature, but that's just the result of the particular journey I've taken through life so far.
As long as you simply rail against the unfairness of it all, such an attitude can certainly be described as maladjusted. It demonstrates an inability or reluctance (for there is little difference between the two) to adapt.
If on the other hand you were to devote a substantial proportion of your resources and time to changing the situation you perceive as unjust, then you'd surely be better than most of us. In my view the most supremely human form of adaptation is to force the world to adapt to you rather than vice versa!
Of course, you might not win...
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Miller's experiment was important because it opened up a whole new line of research. Many people followed with similar experiments using different starting atmospheres and different methods of energy delivery but they all broadly achieved the same sort of result: simple reagents combined in aqua to make ever more complex organic molecules.
Now that's fine as far as it goes. But as I understand it the most common criticism offered by the unwary is that the reagents would have been too dilute in seawater for the necessary chain of reactions to progress very far, and the natural environment doesn't provide any way to collect the reagents in more concentrated form to overcome this.
However that's just plain ignorance I'm afraid. Several theories have been advanced to explain this, including evaporating pools at the shoreline and clay beds - which can contain rare metals by the way, and make excellent catalysts for organic reactions.
Currently the most popular theory is that life arose in or near "smokers" - chimneys at the bottom of the ocean where heat and hot gases escape from the earth's interior. Several species of archaeobacteria have been found subsisting on the environment these thinge provide. These archaeobacteria are virtually identical to the oldest fossil bacteria ever seen, and moreover genetic studies indicate that their kind are the common direct ancestor of every living species on the planet.
The smokers certainly provide a constant source of heat and raw materials, maintaining a high concentration of useful reagents in the immediate vicinity - the perfect environment for life to evolve in. And there's not too much oxygen down there, either, regardless of the makeup of the atmosphere.
As far as the theory of the seeds of life arriving as passengers on a meteor, or in the tail of a comet - only a few relative wackos believe in that stuff (the idea was pioneered by the eternally rebellious Fred Hoyle after all).
To start with, it would not be enough for non-self-reproducing molecules to arrive that way as there simply wouldn't be enough material to make a difference; and anything complex enough to be interesting is likely to be incinerated on the way down.
Since the discovery of possible nanobacterial fossils on the Martian meteorite the idea has become more popular but remember that these tiny structures are not yet proven to be real fossils, and even if they were it seems unlikely they could have survived the trip.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
The main risks depend upon whatever directions such research should take. I don't think we have to worry about higher life forms yet though, since the human genome (for example) is really only poorly understood.
Those genetic scientists who imagine that the human genome project will quickly lead to easy tailoring of human beings have obviously never seen a large, poorly documented computer program written in a low-level language with lots of unstructured GOTOs. Which is what the human genome is, in effect. For the non-programmers out there - such programs can hardly accept the most minor modification without unwanted side-effects. And for 99.9% of the time, unwanted side-effects in a genome will mean that the organism doesn't survive very long (if at all).
No, there is a far more dangerous threat posed by this technology anyway. Many people worry about the "grey goo" scenario made possible by nanotechnology. Well, what about a green goo? Or a pink goo? Laboratory-designed microorganisms could in theory be so efficient that they just eat up everything in sight. Natural organisms simply might not be able to compete with an organism like that.
So that's the great nightmare for the children of the 21st century: mad scientist creates a bug from scratch, so different from everything else that it turns the surface of the planet into a giant turd within a matter of months.
I used to think that scientists were a fairly responsibly bunch on the whole. But announcements like this make me wish they were kept under even tighter control.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
I'm getting heartily sick of this. It's not only Liam Neeson and Sir Alec Guinness who have expressed contempt for Star Wars and its following. I saw an interview with Ewan MacGregor on TV recently and he was just as condescending about the fans.
Were they forced to do these films? I don't think so. The problem is, because they've achieved a measure of success in their careers they think they're better people than everyone else.
What would it have cost them to keep their mouths shut and continue to support the illusion that they, the actors, might in _some_ small measure embody the graceful spirit of they characters they played?
At least Sir Alec kept his mouth mostly shut for some years. But Neeson and MacGregor couldn't keep quite for five minutes. I enjoyed Neeson's performance. But if George Lucas's first choice of actors are all going to stand up and burst the balloon right after his films are released, maybe he should concentrate on even lesser known actors without these grandiose pretensions.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
...is an adaptation to an outside stimulus. So is homosexuality
Actually that's a fairly poor (though common) misinterpretation of how genetics is thought to operate. According to Dawkins, genes are the fundamental operator on adaptation, but they don't code for behaviour that "intentionally" abandons all reproductive opportunities, nor for any other altruistic behaviour, ie. self-sacrifice for the sake of one's distant kin. It's easily proven; a gene that results in an altruistic behaviour which effectively removes itself from the gene pool (eg a homosexual gene) will not be able to propagate itself, it is effectively committing suicide. Even if it has a beneficial effect on the population at large it is completely cut off from the positive effects of its own actions.
The only exception to this is self-sacrifice which directly benefits one's own direct descendants.
Don't take my word for it, go and read Richard Dawkins somewhat more deeply than you did before. His only serious critic is Steven Jay Gould but even he doesn't appear to contend this particular issue.
To summarize: homosexuality is not a positive adaptation in any respect. It is just one of thousands of possible maladaptations (we all have some of them).
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Troll Tech shouldn't make the Windows version open source. It's a completely different development community and people would very likely abuse it. IT would also substantially reduce the incentive for Win users to migrate to Linux. I'd be just as happy to see Windows land completely starved of open source software.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
If it doesn't kill in moderate [...] doses, it isn't poison.
Then what would you call a substance that does permanent damage to the body but doesn't kill you? A toxin? Fair enough. My point remains valid I think.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Yeah, sure. Right after he admitted to throwing himself down the police station stairs, and beating himself up while alone in his cell.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
A substance can be poisonous without being lethal. I would certainly describe as "poisonous" any foreign substance which interferes with the body's biochemistry. And hallucinogenic drugs like THC and LSD certainly interfere with the brain's biochemistry - that's why they work.
If you haven't experienced nasty side effects from smoking cannabis yet - then you're obviously not smoking enough. Fortunately, it seems most people don't - in the US at least. But in the US you are used to much less potent forms. In the UK both grass and hashish is potent enough that one can easily smoke enough in one sitting to cause extremely unpleasant panic attacks. I've seen it happen to both first-timers and habitual users.
Moreover there is certainly a dulling of the intellect. You will tend to score about 10-20 pointe lower on IQ tests when your body is saturated. Remember that THC is highly soluble in fat, and the solid (non-aqueous) matter in the brain is mostly fat (cell membranes).
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
They are all poisons. How much less dangerous is cannabis than alcohol? Every study says something different. Unfortunately the debate is so polarised nobody has a chance to get at the full unexpurgated truth. I do know this, though: cannabis monkeys with your central nervous system in a big way. And it can certainly do you harm - in many different ways. So can all psychoactive drugs.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
I've already read what I wanted to read from that period. There isn't an awful lot that's survived that was any good. And it's a bit short on science fiction. I've already read Verne, Wells, Shelley.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction