phekunde's comments

My hypothesis is that this might be indirectly related to the drug. Because sex increases blood circulation to the whole body, including the brain, this circulation helps the brain cells. Taking Viagra regularly for sexual pleasure has this positive side-effect of regular blood flow to the brain, thus reducing the chances of damage to the cells.

> introversion

It is not a skill-set :) You cannot develop introvertedness. It is a natural thing; it is the nature of the person. You could try to change it but it is very difficult.

> ...learn interesting thinks about other peoples careers.

This is a very good approach.

> Honestly that sounds more like social anxiety than introversion.

For intoverts, social anxiety stems from the fact that they do not fit into the very nature of "social events". Otherwise introverts are very good in other aspects e.g. put them in a "slow-paced social gathering" and they will be perfectly fine, infact they will enjoy it. But social events are fast-pased, this is where it is a mismatch for the intoverts.

> introvert means you find social situations incredibly tiring > If you find social situations difficult then you're probably just anti-social.

No, that is not entirely true. The way I differentiate between intoverts and extroverts is this "introverts think a lot before talking" where as extrovers "talk and then may be think". You mentioned that intoverts find social events tiring is because of this, they always have to play catch-up with non-introverts during discussions. Hence introverts try to be in(and flourish in) an environment that promotes deep thinking. Social events are anything but deep thinking venues.

Introverts are exactly opposite to what you have described; they are uncomfortable at social events.

I have the exact opposite problem to what you have described. I am uncomfortable at social gatherings, but somewhat okayish at online discussions. It takes me a lot of mental preparation to attend any event so that I don't stand in a corner or outside the event venue during the event. It is not that I don't mingle with other participants, but it takes me extra efforts to do so and it just seems like I have to fake it. And it shows and the conversations don't seem natural(I think this happens to you when you are online).

It starts with being happy, and then turning into a feeling of guilt and despair once you realise that you have spent hours reading the posts, comments and following the links posted by others.

> My team is looking for people...

What location? What company? Please could you provide some details?

When I was a kid, one day my dad took me to the nearby "meat shop" where they use to slaughter goats in a nearby room of the shop. My dad's aim was to prepare me to go to the meat shop on my own in the near future. What I saw had a very deep impact on me and I decided to not eat meat and fish after that. It took me one and a half years to stop eating meat and fish. What I saw in that shop that day was chilling. Two goat kids were slaughtered in front of their mother(the goat). The goat kids had by now realised that going inside the room meant death, so when the shop owner tried to take the first goat kid into the room the goat kid refused to enter the room and the owner kept pushing and forcing the goat kid inside the room. Seeing this the customers gathered around the shop started laughing. And the goat(the mother of the goat kid) couldn't look at her kid being taken to the slaughter room and was crying for help looking at the laughing customers(I had never heard a goat make such loud and chilling noises)! The same repeated for here second kid. And finally the goat herself was slaughtered after sometime.

Experiencing this horror, I decided there and then that I will not eat meat and fish again to satisfy my tastebuds. It has been years since I left eating meat and fish. But even now when I see non-vegetarian dishes(at home or other places) I have urge to eat non-veg. It is very difficult to leave eating non-veg; it is like addiction. But everytime I have that urge to eat non-veg, that scene from the meat shop plays in front of my eyes. It is very painful.

Another scene that I regularly see in my local area every morning is when cattles are transported in a truck to a near-by mass slaughter house. The trucks are enclosed from all sides with just a slit open for the cattles to look outside so that they do not panic in the metal enclosure. Looking at their eyes one can easily see that they are trying to understand where they are and what is happening. And everytime I see that I say to myself, these unsuspecting defenceless animals are going to face a gruesome death within an hour just to satisfy the appetite of some humans!

> I 99% believe that you think these things are real;

Again, go read the last sentence of my original post.

> There is evidence that there's no evidence: we've been digging holes....very recently, in the Indian subcontinent.

Hmmm.

Yep, this could be one potent reasoning. And that is why I said in my original post that it will be interesting to find out about that ancient civilisation that was able to think about so many advance concepts.

> I could interpret it as sailing ship

In air? Then how is it better than the general characterisation as "Air vehicle"?

> Or a ballon.

Yeah, could be. And flying a balloon from Sri Lanka to Nashik(while crossing ocean) and back again would have been an achievement in itself during that period.

We had teleportation ;) Jokes aside, the link between car/trains and aerial vehicles is superficial. There is no hard requirement that one has to come before the other.

> it appears that the conclusion you're drawing is that these texts refer to real things that actually existed

Please read the last line of my original post.

> If you're not drawing the conclusion they actually existed, what conclusion are you drawing?

I am saying, that the description given in the text is too specific for it to be dismissed right away. And even if it is hokum, then the sheer level of imagination of ancient civilisation to mention flying vehicles, missiles, teleportation, body preservation and test-tube baby is appreciable. It will be good to know what type of civilisation was that that was able to imagine these advance concepts.

> Since we know where (fairly precisely) these things took place, we should have significant archaeological evidence for them.

Sure, I am all for scientific evidence. In fact I would like to see that it is either supported or refuted with evidence. From some of the comments it looks like for rejecting a hypothesis no evidence is required, but for supporting it evidence is demanded. If there is no evidence to either support or refute it, then the matter should be inconclusive rather than concluding it either way.

>> In Indian there is a distinction between vehicle("yaan") and chariot("rath").

> Clarification: in modern Hindi.

https://kosha.sanskrit.today/word/en/Chariot/sa

You don't know Samskrut, do you?

"yaan" means both vehicle and travel. You both are correct :)

> Which is a valid translation for most mythology's flying chariots.

No, that is not true. Your own sentence use the word "most". In Indian there is a distinction between vehicle("yaan") and chariot("rath").

> We use the translation "chariot" because, at the time, the only vehicles we know of in the relevant culture were chariots.

How do you know? If the ancient text itself makes a distinction between "vaayu yaan" and "rath" then that indicates there were more than one modes of transportation.

> Is every culture's flying chariot also a heavier-than-air flying machine?

Who said it was a chariot? I think you are linking some "flying chariot" from other text to "vaayu yaan" from some different text. "vaayu" means "air" and "yaan" means "vehicle". This is far more specific that "flying chariot".

> And every chariot carrying the Moon a lunar lander?

Just curious, isn't carrying a Moon very different from landing on the Moon? Equating "carrying a Moon" to "landing on Moon" does not even mean same thing, so that can be thought as extrapolation. But the more specifics of "using vaayu yaan" to travel on earth from Lanka(which exists today) to Panchavati(which also exists today) does not need the extrapolation as was required in the previous sentence.

> My sense is we tend to relate what was described abstractly with advancements we see around us.

How is the mention of ""vaayu yaan" abstract? Can we similarly say that to the mention of present day "aeroplane" abstract and dismiss it as non-existent?

> For e.g. with flying vehicles in ancient epics I'm skeptical that they describe in any detail how flight was achieved besides magic or divine power.

In present day writings(fiction or otherwise) when we mention flights or aeroplane, we don't mention every nut and bolt of the aeroplane. So saying the ancient text did not give much details is unfair to those texts. As I mentioned in my original post, these advance ideas were mentioned in a matter-of-fact way as if it is not a novelty, similar to how we now mention air travel or space flights.

> For example the Tower of Babel could be interpreted as...

But there is no need for interpretation or misinterpretation of some of these texts because the text directly mentions the transportation e.g. in Raamaayan, the then king of Lanka(present day Shri Lanka), Raavan, flew from Lanka on his "vaayu yaan"(i.e. aeroplane) to Panchavati(in present day Nashik in the western state of Maharashtra in India) to kidnap Sitaa, wife of Raam.