Total Posts:44|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Can sleep be eliminated?

Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2010 11:41:41 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
That would be awesome. I hate sleep.

On the other hand, some people wouldn't know what to do with all that extra time on their hands. I think stress would increase and people would just have an overall decrease of happiness. I'd definitely be happier if sleep was eliminated, though.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2010 11:50:30 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I've heard that you'll go absolutely out of you mind after several days, and die within a couple of weeks.

But hey power to ya if you wanna try :)

I hear the best you can plausibly do is take like hour or so naps every couple of hours. Get a dose of REM sleep and then be alert for a couple of hours until you knock out again.

This though would require an odd lifestyle.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
collegekitchen7
Posts: 974
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2010 12:01:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/15/2010 11:50:30 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
I've heard that you'll go absolutely out of you mind after several days, and die within a couple of weeks.

But hey power to ya if you wanna try :)


I hear the best you can plausibly do is take like hour or so naps every couple of hours. Get a dose of REM sleep and then be alert for a couple of hours until you knock out again.

This though would require an odd lifestyle.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
: At 3/24/2010 1:38:15 PM, Mirza wrote:
: But it's human nature. You're born inside your mother, so what's wrong with having some sexual activity with her?

: At 3/18/2010 6:48:05 AM, kelly224 wrote:
: read some credible history books, unplug from the matrix.

: At 3/21/2010 4:13:56 PM, Scott_Mann wrote:
: Stocks would not go up 30% over something that hasn't even happened yet.

: At 3/21/2010 6:06:10 PM, banker wrote:
: It apears you have a wierd grasp of english..! its only second to
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2010 12:45:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/15/2010 12:01:07 PM, collegekitchen7 wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The only thing I remembered from that one was the scene where he takes the jacket... Perhaps I need more REM sleep :)
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Immortal
Posts: 350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2010 12:54:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
With that extra time, there's probably a lot of things you can do with your wife. For example, all-nighters wouldn't be a problem if sleep was eliminated.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2010 12:55:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/15/2010 12:54:56 PM, Immortal wrote:
With that extra time, there's probably a lot of things you can do with your wife. For example, all-nighters wouldn't be a problem if sleep was eliminated.

that is; until you die ;p
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2010 12:56:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/15/2010 12:55:31 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:

that is; until you die ;p

Which would supposedly be happen quite quickly
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2010 12:56:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
BUT then again I haven't yet read a word of the article :)
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2010 1:02:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/15/2010 10:34:59 AM, Immortal wrote:

http://health.howstuffworks.com...

I'd be careful with such pills... Even if you won't die, or go nuts (which they say you still eventually will), your memory storage and whatnot will probably suffer.

You might be more productive.. But you'll prolly learn less.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2010 1:20:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I find that prospect to be slightly frightening, myself. I understand the current scientific trend - trying to engineer our way toward superhumanity and whatnot - but I just get this eerie sort of "sci-fi" feeling that we're going to end up going a bit too far at some point. I think that there's a difference between molding the world to our liking (to make food, shelter, etc.) and disregarding nature altogether; obviously, I'm no scientific expert, but I just feel like the implications of something so revolutionary could be a bit unnerving. We need to tread very carefully when working with things like this. We oughtn't let our scientific lusts and intellectual arrogance get in the way of basic responsibility.

Again, it's all just paranoid speculation, perhaps; but, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't consider the possible consequences of this kind of tampering.
Immortal
Posts: 350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2010 1:23:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/15/2010 1:11:58 PM, Koopin wrote:
My sleep is usually eliminated with my alarm clock.

Mine too. =D Either that or my parents. =o

However, I was referring to eliminating all sleep. Not sure if naps are included in sleep.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2010 1:32:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/15/2010 1:20:44 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I find that prospect to be slightly frightening, myself. I understand the current scientific trend - trying to engineer our way toward superhumanity and whatnot - but I just get this eerie sort of "sci-fi" feeling that we're going to end up going a bit too far at some point. I think that there's a difference between molding the world to our liking (to make food, shelter, etc.) and disregarding nature altogether; obviously, I'm no scientific expert, but I just feel like the implications of something so revolutionary could be a bit unnerving. We need to tread very carefully when working with things like this. We oughtn't let our scientific lusts and intellectual arrogance get in the way of basic responsibility.

Again, it's all just paranoid speculation, perhaps; but, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't consider the possible consequences of this kind of tampering.

Yeah there's a reason why we on avg. sleep 7 hrs. and why that "short-sleeper gene" is recessive. It's cuz people who were Otherwise tended to Die more (or at least not have as many kids). Fck with this stuff at your own risk.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Immortal
Posts: 350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2010 1:41:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/15/2010 1:20:44 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I find that prospect to be slightly frightening, myself. I understand the current scientific trend - trying to engineer our way toward superhumanity and whatnot - but I just get this eerie sort of "sci-fi" feeling that we're going to end up going a bit too far at some point. I think that there's a difference between molding the world to our liking (to make food, shelter, etc.) and disregarding nature altogether; obviously, I'm no scientific expert, but I just feel like the implications of something so revolutionary could be a bit unnerving. We need to tread very carefully when working with things like this. We oughtn't let our scientific lusts and intellectual arrogance get in the way of basic responsibility.

I understand. Avoidance of sleep should not be taken lightly. It would be awesome if sleep could be eliminated without consequences. However, since sleep seems to be so vital to our well-being, that's probably not the case. But if we can somehow disregard sleep without any side effects, we can be more productive and learn more things. The current scientific trend seems to be manipulating science and technology for human enhancement. This is where transhumanism comes from:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Again, it's all just paranoid speculation, perhaps; but, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't consider the possible consequences of this kind of tampering.

Of course, we're probably not going to suggest that everyone avoid sleep. There's probably going to be experiments on mice first to see the effects of sleep elimination if scientists somehow finds a way to avoid it. I'll love avoiding sleep though. I wish I could do all my homework during the night without getting tired.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2010 2:04:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/15/2010 1:32:26 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 3/15/2010 1:20:44 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I find that prospect to be slightly frightening, myself. I understand the current scientific trend - trying to engineer our way toward superhumanity and whatnot - but I just get this eerie sort of "sci-fi" feeling that we're going to end up going a bit too far at some point. I think that there's a difference between molding the world to our liking (to make food, shelter, etc.) and disregarding nature altogether; obviously, I'm no scientific expert, but I just feel like the implications of something so revolutionary could be a bit unnerving. We need to tread very carefully when working with things like this. We oughtn't let our scientific lusts and intellectual arrogance get in the way of basic responsibility.

Again, it's all just paranoid speculation, perhaps; but, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't consider the possible consequences of this kind of tampering.

Yeah there's a reason why we on avg. sleep 7 hrs. and why that "short-sleeper gene" is recessive. It's cuz people who were Otherwise tended to Die more (or at least not have as many kids). Fck with this stuff at your own risk.

Um, genes don't become recessive because they are maladaptive as far as I can tell, they become recessive chemically. Maladaptiveness means you are less likely to pass on a gene, recessiveness by contrast affects the likelihood of acquiring the gene's trait once it is already passed on. The two have little to do with one another. Blue eyes are a recessive gene, but they aren't particularly adaptive or maladaptive.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2010 2:09:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/15/2010 2:04:45 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 3/15/2010 1:32:26 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 3/15/2010 1:20:44 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I find that prospect to be slightly frightening, myself. I understand the current scientific trend - trying to engineer our way toward superhumanity and whatnot - but I just get this eerie sort of "sci-fi" feeling that we're going to end up going a bit too far at some point. I think that there's a difference between molding the world to our liking (to make food, shelter, etc.) and disregarding nature altogether; obviously, I'm no scientific expert, but I just feel like the implications of something so revolutionary could be a bit unnerving. We need to tread very carefully when working with things like this. We oughtn't let our scientific lusts and intellectual arrogance get in the way of basic responsibility.

Again, it's all just paranoid speculation, perhaps; but, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't consider the possible consequences of this kind of tampering.

Yeah there's a reason why we on avg. sleep 7 hrs. and why that "short-sleeper gene" is recessive. It's cuz people who were Otherwise tended to Die more (or at least not have as many kids). Fck with this stuff at your own risk.

Um, genes don't become recessive because they are maladaptive as far as I can tell, they become recessive chemically. Maladaptiveness means you are less likely to pass on a gene, recessiveness by contrast affects the likelihood of acquiring the gene's trait once it is already passed on. The two have little to do with one another. Blue eyes are a recessive gene, but they aren't particularly adaptive or maladaptive.

Ok.. But if it were particularly useful then A lot more people would end up having it.

back in the day.. if it were really Useful it should've replaced other "dominant" genes across the board.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Immortal
Posts: 350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2010 2:16:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/15/2010 1:46:39 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Not to mention that a lot of couples tend to sleep in the same bed as a romantic gesture (I don't mean that in the sense of "sleeping together"). Obviously, they wouldn't be quite so apt to take the pill.

They can lie down together.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2010 2:17:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/15/2010 2:09:39 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 3/15/2010 2:04:45 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 3/15/2010 1:32:26 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 3/15/2010 1:20:44 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I find that prospect to be slightly frightening, myself. I understand the current scientific trend - trying to engineer our way toward superhumanity and whatnot - but I just get this eerie sort of "sci-fi" feeling that we're going to end up going a bit too far at some point. I think that there's a difference between molding the world to our liking (to make food, shelter, etc.) and disregarding nature altogether; obviously, I'm no scientific expert, but I just feel like the implications of something so revolutionary could be a bit unnerving. We need to tread very carefully when working with things like this. We oughtn't let our scientific lusts and intellectual arrogance get in the way of basic responsibility.

Again, it's all just paranoid speculation, perhaps; but, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't consider the possible consequences of this kind of tampering.

Yeah there's a reason why we on avg. sleep 7 hrs. and why that "short-sleeper gene" is recessive. It's cuz people who were Otherwise tended to Die more (or at least not have as many kids). Fck with this stuff at your own risk.

Um, genes don't become recessive because they are maladaptive as far as I can tell, they become recessive chemically. Maladaptiveness means you are less likely to pass on a gene, recessiveness by contrast affects the likelihood of acquiring the gene's trait once it is already passed on. The two have little to do with one another. Blue eyes are a recessive gene, but they aren't particularly adaptive or maladaptive.

Ok.. But if it were particularly useful then A lot more people would end up having it.
Not necessarily, for as you pointed out, it is recessive. Recessiveness and bad luck can prevent even adaptive traits from spreading. Wilt Chamberlain probably knocked up quite a few women due to his tallness and its consequences, but you don't see that many 7-footers even so.

Especially if they are much more potentially useful now than in the past (when food was scarcer, low-sleep people get the munchies).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2010 3:24:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/15/2010 2:17:25 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Not necessarily, for as you pointed out, it is recessive. Recessiveness and bad luck can prevent even adaptive traits from spreading. Wilt Chamberlain probably knocked up quite a few women due to his tallness and its consequences, but you don't see that many 7-footers even so.

And so Chamb. has a good chance of having more kids than others.

If other 7 footers do too then there are more people who have that recessive gene...

If two people with a recessive gene for 7 foot tallness get together Most of there kids will likely be beastly tall. If those kids too are more likely to have kids then they'll add people with such genes to the pool making Even More people with such genes.

Now also Genes mutate and the like... Evolution and all... and though we're generally taller than Chimps we're not usually 7 footers. Why oh why did we stop getting taller throughout evolution?? could it be that 5-6 1/2 feet is optimal???

could it be that 'round 5 1/2-8 hours of sleep is optimal???

I'd say it's a pretty good chance.

Especially if they are much more potentially useful now than in the past (when food was scarcer, low-sleep people get the munchies).
True, it sucks, but we do live different lives than we evolved for.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2010 3:30:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/15/2010 3:24:38 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 3/15/2010 2:17:25 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Not necessarily, for as you pointed out, it is recessive. Recessiveness and bad luck can prevent even adaptive traits from spreading. Wilt Chamberlain probably knocked up quite a few women due to his tallness and its consequences, but you don't see that many 7-footers even so.

And so Chamb. has a good chance of having more kids than others.

If other 7 footers do too then there are more people who have that recessive gene...

If two people with a recessive gene for 7 foot tallness get together Most of there kids will likely be beastly tall. If those kids too are more likely to have kids then they'll add people with such genes to the pool making Even More people with such genes.
They are more likely to than if it weren't adaptive. But there are elements of chance involved.
Why oh why did we stop getting taller throughout evolution?? could it be that 5-6 1/2 feet is optimal???
It was, probably-ish. For probably some of the same reasons (scarce food!)
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2010 7:03:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/15/2010 2:16:28 PM, Immortal wrote:
At 3/15/2010 1:46:39 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Not to mention that a lot of couples tend to sleep in the same bed as a romantic gesture (I don't mean that in the sense of "sleeping together"). Obviously, they wouldn't be quite so apt to take the pill.

They can lie down together.

Or they can not take the pill, and retain their ability to fall asleep with each other - and I'm sure a lot of couples would decide that way.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2010 10:46:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/15/2010 3:24:38 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 3/15/2010 2:17:25 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Not necessarily, for as you pointed out, it is recessive. Recessiveness and bad luck can prevent even adaptive traits from spreading. Wilt Chamberlain probably knocked up quite a few women due to his tallness and its consequences, but you don't see that many 7-footers even so.

And so Chamb. has a good chance of having more kids than others.

If other 7 footers do too then there are more people who have that recessive gene...

If two people with a recessive gene for 7 foot tallness get together Most of there kids will likely be beastly tall. If those kids too are more likely to have kids then they'll add people with such genes to the pool making Even More people with such genes.

height isn't mediated strictly by genetics. its more of a blend between genes and environment. nutrition can effect height a lot for example. had WC grown up in a third world country, for example, he would probably have been a lot shorter.

further, you talk as if height (or other traits) are mediated by a single gene when in fact, the influence is much more complex. very few traits are as straightforward as you assume them to be.

and finally, why, in today's society, would a 7 foot tall person be likely to have more kids? lol. personally i would not want to sleep with a guy 7 feet tall. it would be creepy...
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2010 10:50:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
and finally, why, in today's society, would a 7 foot tall person be likely to have more kids?
7 foot--> even with no athletic ability you get drafted by some idiot NBA team for at least a couple hundred thousand, with athletic ability and decent aim you make millions--> Cash--> Gold diggers.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2010 10:51:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Though keep in mind tall fellas, hunch down a little when Bella's in your sights.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2010 10:51:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Er Belle.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2010 10:55:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/15/2010 10:50:38 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
and finally, why, in today's society, would a 7 foot tall person be likely to have more kids?
7 foot--> even with no athletic ability you get drafted by some idiot NBA team for at least a couple hundred thousand, with athletic ability and decent aim you make millions--> Cash--> Gold diggers.

and you don't use birth control with your groupies? because you want a bunch of illegitimate heirs draining your fortune in the form of child support? whaaaaaa?
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2010 10:58:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/15/2010 10:55:19 PM, belle wrote:
At 3/15/2010 10:50:38 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
and finally, why, in today's society, would a 7 foot tall person be likely to have more kids?
7 foot--> even with no athletic ability you get drafted by some idiot NBA team for at least a couple hundred thousand, with athletic ability and decent aim you make millions--> Cash--> Gold diggers.

and you don't use birth control with your groupies?
There's a reason NBA player orientations include condom disposal tips (incidentally, ones that are bad ideas in terms of plumbing), and it's not because athletes tend to listen to it. (source is the radio).

Not to mention the likelihood that they'll find some way to make a hole in the condom. There are millions of dollars at stake here, only the best whores need apply.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.