Home > Yahoo Questions > Your Questions About How To Discover New Things

Your Questions About How To Discover New Things

Nancy asks…

How do I get more skilled at guitar?!?

I’ve been playing guitar for close to a year and a half, and I’ve noticed a lot of progress and I’m discovering new things about the art of guitar all the time. But having trouble learning how to do them and get good at them. I’m a girl btw and I’ve never had lessons so I have a lot of unanswered questions. Like scales, harmonics, improv. There’s so much to learn but I want fast results. Please help me out:)

New Niche Finder answers:

The best thing to do is to PRACTICE!! Lol..like everyone always says. A tutor or instructor is going to tell you the same exact thing but they will be able to give you little tips and tricks to help out along the way..but all the work has to come from you. Ive been playing for about 13 yrs and when i first started i just sat in my room for about 3 hrs a day with guitar magazines and videos of metallica or Al di meola and just learned finger positioning and scales and just played for hrs. If you stick with it youll notice a big improvement i promise..you just have to be dedicated.

William asks…

Questions about Canada and it’s involvement in space advancement. Please help?

1. The first attempts which the Canadians aided or created in the advancement of aerodynamics,aviation, etc.in space or on earth. How they succeeded or not
2. Canadian contributions to space programs of it’s country and other countries and how they have affected technological advances. Also, how these inventions and advancements helped discover new things.
3. Why are satellites important to Canada and the rest of the world? Also, how they function.
4. Lastly, the perception of other countries on Canada and its contributions to space explorations and technologies.

New Niche Finder answers:


Helen asks…

can anyone tell me if I just discovered this brand new thing involving functions and their inverses?

so i found lots of examples supporting the claim that if a function f is 1-1, then so is its inverse, f -1. Did I just discover something or has this already been proved. Oh and I jsut found lots of examples to prove it, but I guess proof by example is not legitimate, so how would yopu legitimately prove this? I may have shocked the math world

New Niche Finder answers:

WEll, basically, if a function isn’t one to one, then its inverse isn’t really a function. Say, with y=x^2, then the inverse isn’t y=sqrt(x), but rather y=(+/-)sqrt(x)… Which isn’t a function anymore… See what i mean? So, that discovery is really just implied by the definition of functions and inverses… Sorry, keep trying! :).
If you’ve got more questions, i’m always open at stalepretzel@gmail.com… If you’re not quite clear on it or something.

Robert asks…

who believes the base of all matter and everything is thought?

some people beleive in a god some people beleive more in science…does anyone beleive in a universal mind….everything is mind, and everything is just a form of mind and thought. everthing has thought and created its self into a form of matter and all the rules and what is possible and not possible is controled by what we think or what the universal mind thinks…we keep discovering new things in science maybe were creating this with thought and uncovering it while we go along. The way people think does change how there life goes, i know that for a fact…maybe the way we all think and all the thoughts in the thought waves sums up what reality is.

I guess i just want to here other people’s theorys on this or what they think and why they think that. lol i just love to think, im not expecting anyone to agree with me or anything.
or answer me at all lol. Everything in the universe is made of energy which is vibration. Everything vibrates and we affect the vibration of things around us. Our very thoughts can affect the molecules of the physical things around us.

New Niche Finder answers:

I would actually change this from “thought” or “mind” to “consciousness”.

First of all, if my thoughts created my experience of reality, completely, then anything I thought about would be manifested. Rather, I believe that the correlation you refer to between thought and people’s experiences or life, represent a reflection aspect. That is to say that the thoughts reflect something yet deeper about a person, which actually influences their experience of life and reality.

Not to mention, as some have pointed out here, the idea that “thought came first”, doesn’t make sense if we view “thought” as arising from “brain”.

However, the idea that “consciousness” may be independent of brain, is a distinct possibility, no matter how much individuals wish to dismiss such.

In fact, I believe that the view that consciousness is emergent, rather than fundamental, may be that which is holding science back from making the truly serious breakthroughs in regards to reality, matter/energy, etc.

The fact is, we don’t exactly know what consciousness is. Just as we don’t truly know what gravity is. We set criteria, such as different levels of awareness, as indicative of consciousness, but that may not be fully accurate.

My point is that energy, matter and everything else one can attach to their experience (including experience itself), such as thought, emotion, etc., could be emergent properties of consciousness. Thus, our issues with nailing down the exact function of both ourselves, and reality may simply be evidence of a backwards approach, in thinking that consciousness is an emergent, sum-of-parts phenomenon, rather than the parts emerging from this fundamental ground.

Consciousness to Energy would be one configuration. Consciousness to Energy to Matter would be another configuration. Consciousness to Energy to Matter to Brain would be another configuration. Each configuration, being a level or layer of experiential content. The “brain” configuration would allow for “individual identity” cut off from other pieces or “configurations” of consciousness, necessary for the “looking back” at other experiential layers from a “distinct observational vantage point”.

We’ve traced the bread crumbs left, back through these various configurations, through the Matter to Energy trail, but now we’re stumped. We’re stumped because we see it as Energy to Matter to Brain to Consciousness. Rather than Consciousness to Energy to Matter to Brain.

We’re “certain” of this chain, at least in most scientific circles at the moment. People cannot “find” what they think they’ve already found. So, we’re not looking for consciousness on the other side of energy, because we already think we know where it is.

One interesting thing of note in this, is that David Bohm in his early years at the Princeton Physics Lab was doing research with particle plasmas. One thing he noted (which is still factored today in plasma work and known as “Bohm Diffusion”) was the tendency for these collections of particles to behave in ways that appeared quite organized. Not simply on the level of “biological” organization, but even appearing at times to evince some level of “intelligence”. Now of course, most “reasonable” scientists, put this down to some manner of “projection”, or “appearance of”, in the same way that they write off the “altruism” of prairie dogs.

Again, they do so because “we know where consciousness comes from”, so there is no reason to look for evidence of such at every level of the “chain”. Energy (plasmas), Matter, or primitive life on this side of the human brain (such as prairie dogs).

Yet, they take plants thousands of miles from their owners, then stress the owners and watch the plants “react”.

The philosopher Epictetus said that it is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows.

As long as we cling to the certainty that we know where consciousness comes from and how (even though we really have no real clue where it comes from, or how), we will not cross this hurdle. It will take another “Einstein” who has the tenacity, resource and recognized genius, more than likely, to break us from this “box” of thinking we have allowed ourselves to become lost in.


Chris asks…

(How) Did the industrial revolution encourage people to invent new things?

Like how did it inspire people to invent and discover things? Writing an essay on the positive effects of the industrial revolution and I need some positive things about it

New Niche Finder answers:

The development of the patent system encouraged invention and improvements. Since the law guaranteed intellectual property and profits for a time, inventors could publically share their inventions and designs because they could be assured of the right to profit from the devices built. This shared information about new devices so other inventors could improve the design in order to build even better devices and profit from them.

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

I love hearing from you so please post a comment. All I ask is that you contribute to the conversation in a meaningful way. If your comment is unrelated to the post or is solely self-promotional, your comment will not be approved.

Comments are closed.