We are all born with the idea of God

Zombrex wrote: »

Yes Nagirrac that is exactly the point. These drugs have no more profound physical effect on the mental capacity of the brain than a good walk does. Einstein was Einstein, Jobs was Jobs, Lennon was Lennon not because they took drugs that gave them these abilities but because these abilities were already their, present in their brains. The idea that these drugs advance human mental ability is bogus.

When did this forum turn into the forum of unmitigated nonsense. It is like the Enlightenment never happened ....

For a poster who it is claimed is the voice of reason around here, it is ironic that you display such a strong example of an argument from ignorance. You speak about the brain in this and above posts as if it is a kind of computer processor we are familiar with. Such nonsense, it is a processor but nothing like anything we are familiar with.

The brain's functioning is still largely unknown to us. There is a project underway called the BAM project which is about the same scope as the human genome project and is estimated to take 15 years to help us understand the brain and mental states better. The best objective data we have today is from fMRI where we can study the structures of the brain and EEG where we can study the electricial signals within the brain. How these physical structures and electrical signals give rise to the mind is still largely a mystery. The most difficult to understand is the binding problem, how does information from many centers in the brain come together to form a specific outcome? Let's say you are trying to solve a difficult mental problem, you will draw on many areas of the brain and then suddenly you get an inspiration and zap problem solved. There are 1) no known physical connections within the brain to facilitate this, and 2) the speed at which this happens is far too fast to be based on chemical migration across synapses which is actually quite slow.

The brain is nothing like a hard wired structure, it is a fluid plastic structure that is constantly being rewired. You make it sound like you are born with a brain and that is it ("these abilities were already there"). Not true at all, every time you learn something new, however you learn it, new structures are laid down in the brain. For example if you read my post seriously and then reflect on it seriously, you will build new structures in your brain. If you read a book and gain knowledge from it, you will build new structures in your brain. This is how neuroplasticity works, you can effect permanent changes in your brain by focussed thinking.

Meditation and psychedelic drug intake can cause permenent changes in your brain. Using techniques like fMRI we can study what is going on in the brain in various states. Someone meditating for example has completely different brain activity to someone not meditating, the same with certain drugs. If the brain were the brain and drugs do not change it, how do you explain people who become psychotic permanenty after ingesting massive quantities of LSD for long periods? How do you explain Syd Barrett and many others who were casualties of the 1960s psychedlic revolution? If we accept that brain functions can be damaged by LSD, why is it so outlandish that brain functions can be enhanced by LSD (which is the case in the vast majority of cases, brain damage is quite rare).

Einstein did not just go for a walk, he was meditating. Don't believe me if you choose, but he said so himself. John Lennon said that ingesting LSD was the source of the inspiration for the huge leap in quality and complexity between the Beatles earlier work and their later work. Steve Jobs said that the use of drugs made him more creative. Maybe they are all wrong and you are right, but these are just three examples and there are countless more. Remember also that psychedelic drugs are illegal, so its not like people are in a rush to admit taking them.

King Mob wrote: »

Lol, once again proving you don't actually know what a fallacy is. Then go on to use one.
"We don't know exactly how the brain works, therefore it's magic and has psychic powers."

As always, nothing to add to the discussion.

Zombrex' posts on the brain are an argument from ignorance as there is no evidence to back up his claims, in fact the opposite is true, the available evidence shows he is wrong.

We know a lot about how the brain works and this knowledge supports what I have posted. We also still have a lot to learn. Look it up and educate yourself.

King Mob wrote: »

Can you describe what the difference between "mediation" and just walking in the woods is, what causes it and how it effects the brain.
Or are we just going to stick to empty, fluffy, vague new age vomit?

Absolutely I can, but why would I bother wasting my time explaining something to someone who has no interest in learning the subject matter, and whose sole interest seems to be attacking posters with a different view?

Based on your latest ugly diatribe I have placed you on ignore.

nagirrac wrote: »

I assume you are talking about the x-ray crystallography work of Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins, which Francis Crick openly said was used in the model Watson and himself developed. Watson and Crick acknowledged the work of Wilkins and Franklin in their original paper describing the double helix structure of DNA.

A) just because they acknowledged the work of others doesn't mean they didn't rob it, it just means that they were thick enough to openly admit it. b) Wilkins refused the offer because his work was used in an immoral fashion by Watson and Crick, plain and simple.

My point still stands.

nagirrac wrote: »

The brain's functioning is still largely unknown to us.

This is how every freaking discussion goes with you nagirrac. You make a ridiculous claim that cannot be supported. It is pointed out that your claim is ridiculous and cannot be supported, at which point you make the mother of all logical fallacies and claim that because of our ignorance of the subject people cannot say we know you are wrong :rolleyes:

You appreciate that making a claim that requires a lot of knowledge about how the brain works (or quantum mechanics, or evolution), while simultaneously stating that we know hardly anything about how the brain works (or quantum mechanics, or evolution) is ridiculous right?

This has been pointed out to you before, but you clearly aren't getting it. So lets use a completely obvious example.

Person A claims that All life on this planet was seeded by super intelligent aliens from Mars

Person B points out that we have absolutely no evidence for that and it doesn't make much sense

Person A then points out that we don't know anything about how life got started on Earth, nor do we know anything about the ability of Mars to sustain life from 4 billion years ago.

Person B just looks with bewilderment and rolls their eyes.

You have to stop making claims about subjects that you then a few posts later claim we know almost nothing about, the latter claim you only ever make as a defense against those who say you are wrong.

nagirrac wrote: »

Sorry, I did go off on a bit of a tangent but I was responding to the specific argument about no evidence for a higher power.

I must be missing the point. How is any of this evidence of a higher power?

Zombrex wrote: »

It seems based on what exactly?

OK, just based on the example of stimulants that enable folk to function for longer without sleep.

Bear in mind, the point I'm making is simply that anyone who has every experienced a drunken state has to acknowledge that chemicals can certainly change your mental state. Whether that change constitutes augmentation is really just a matter of definition. Possibly, running round Stephens Green with a traffic cone on your head is a mystic state that raises you closer to the image of the divine creator. Certainly, no-one would do it without the benefit of some mind-altering drug.

Zombrex wrote: »

That isn't in dispute. The claim is that chemicals can give the brain mental abilities it doesn't naturally have.

But isn't duration an ability? And have you ever generated the effects of being drunk without actually putting enough booze into your body?

Zombrex wrote: »

Is it? I wouldn't consider it an ability.

In fairness, I'd feel it is - but if you're placing it outside the defintion, there's no point in arguing.

Zombrex wrote: »

I mean electrocuting your balls for 24 hours straight will keep your brain in a particular state beyond any naturally occurring brain function, but I would hardly call that an enhancement

But it is a talent.

Zombrex wrote: »

This is how every freaking discussion goes with you nagirrac. You make a ridiculous claim that cannot be supported.

Zombrex, we are both making claims. I am claiming that the brain is a fluid plastic organ that undergoes tremendous modification during our lifetime, and can be deliberately modified resulting in a positive outcome by a variety of causal effects such as meditation, legal and illegal drugs, etc. I am claiming there is significant objective evidence based on scientific measurement techniques such as fMRI to support this claim. Your claim is that this is bulls*** and our brain is our brain and there's nothing we can do to enhance it or presumably de-enhance it.

I have provided significant evidence to back up my claim. You have provided none, and worse still made no effort to debate my evidence. Your position is that of "conventional wisdom", which is the equivalent of an old wives tale, or believing in faeries at the bottom of the garden. You claim to be a man of reason. Well, reason this, which is more likely to be true; something that has lots of evidence backing up its claim, or something that has nothing, other than lots of people think its true.

You are on the wrong side of this argument zombrex. The sound you hear is me sawing through the branch you are sitting on the end of.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

In fairness, that's an impossible level of proof that actually exceeds what it would be possible for science to uncover.

That's irrelevant surely? Either something can be supported or it can't.

If I said that there are invisible unicorns on Mars and someone said show us the evidence it would be rather silly to reply that it is impossible to show such evidence because no one has ever been to Mars (which is correct, but then how do I know there are invisible unicorns there in the first place?).

Its nagirrac problem if it is not possible to present evidence supporting his claims.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I've no opinion as to which to ye is right on the substantial point. But all anyone would be able to say is "here's a list of achievements that occured in the presence of drug use." There's no way of positively confirming that those achievements either depended on drugs, or would have failed to have been achieved without drugs.

Which is probably a good reason not to assert that those achievements depended on the drugs and would have failed to have been achieved without the drugs.

Zombrex wrote: »

Either something can be supported or it can't.

Well, no, it is never as straigthforward as that. I think the issues around scientific proof were set out very eligantly in a well-known essay by Theodosius Dobzhansky on the subject of evolution.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/10/2/text_pop/l_102_01.html

Parts of the Copernican world model, such as the contention that the earth rotates around the sun, and not vice versa, have not been verified by direct observations even to the extent the sphericity of the earth has been. Yet scientists accept the model as an accurate representation of reality. Why? Because it makes sense of a multitude of facts which are otherwise meaningless or extravagant.

That's all we're ever doing; providing explanations that seem to make sense of facts.

If I said that there are invisible unicorns on Mars and someone said show us the evidence it would be rather silly to reply that it is impossible to show such evidence because no one has ever been to Mars (which is correct, but then how do I know there are invisible unicorns there in the first place?).

That's grand and, indeed, it's possible to point out that invisible unicorns on Mars is an extravagant claim. But all anyone will be able to do is visit Mars, and gather such evidence as might be associated with such a claim. So they might be able to report sightings of hoofprints, and observe a strong correlation between the appearance of hoofprints and the disappearance of sugar lumps.

Clearly, sugar lumps might vanish for any number of reasons while in the midst of an inter-planetary mission. Hoofprints might be harder to account for. But, in the absence of the sugar lump evidence, there would be no particular reason to associate hoofprints with invisible equines, rather than any other invisible ungulates. However, whatever way we'd regard the invisible unicorn explanation, all we're ever going to see are the symptoms. In the same way, all we'll ever see are the achievements and the drug use. It's a matter of judgment as to whether we feel a particular explanation is extravagant.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Well, no, it is never as straigthforward as that. I think the issues around scientific proof were set out very eligantly in a well-known essay by Theodosius Dobzhansky on the subject of evolution.That's all we're ever doing; providing explanations that seem to make sense of facts.

That is not what the quote means. Any explanation can seem to make sense of the facts if you have no standard of assessing what "makes sense of the facts"

For example when Katrina hit America the explanation "God is mad at the US because of the gays" was an explanation that made sense of the facts (God can cause hurricans, the US is more tolerant of gays). The issue with that is that it is an explanation that cannot hold up to any serious examination, which is where the scientific method comes in.

Anyone can look at two events (Steve Jobs took LSD - Steve Jobs lead Apple to be a multibillion dollar company) and "make sense of the facts" by saying that the two are connected and that the LSD did something to Jobs that ordinarily wouldn't have been possible.

But an actual explanation requires much more than that.

But of course a lot of people like a particular explanation a lot more than they like the correct explanation. The Christian Right in America liked the explanation that God is angry at gays because they wanted justification to reverse the gay rights movement.

nagirrac loves mystical supernatural explanations for things because, I'm assuming, it makes life seem more interesting to him. His posts are full of wondrous claims about the power of the human mind, and I've met plenty of people like that in my time and the thing that unites them is a strong desire for some mystical reality to be true in order to provide excitement for them.

The problem is that more often than not the actual explanation is, relatively speaking, boring or doesn't fit into any particular agenda.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

That's grand and, indeed, it's possible to point out that invisible unicorns on Mars is an extravagant claim. But all anyone will be able to do is visit Mars, and gather such evidence as might be associated with such a claim. So they might be able to report sightings of hoofprints, and observe a strong correlation between the appearance of hoofprints and the disappearance of sugar lumps.

Yes, but until they do that is there anything to support the claim that there are unicorns on Mars?

If not, then what grounds do I have for saying there is?

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

In the same way, all we'll ever see are the achievements and the drug use. It's a matter of judgment as to whether we feel a particular explanation is extravagant.

Well thank God humans are very good at making such judgements ... oh no wait, we are terrible at that sort of thing :P

Zombrex wrote: »

That is not what the quote means.

In fairness, it is, and he similarly advanced it as part of a refutation of ascribing a religious explanation as an alternative to evolution. But, you're right (if I'm not reading you wrong), the weakness is telling what constitutes extravagance.

Zombrex wrote: »

Yes, but until they do that is there anything to support the claim that there are unicorns on Mars?

No, but bear in mind the point I'm taking issue with is the way you expressed the need for evidence. I'm pointing out that no evidence is going to meet the bar that you set, several posts ago. Plus, in the more recent comment, it's never a case of something being supported or not. It's about degrees of proof. A (very, very flimsey) case for the existence of unicorns would be "They must exist, or we wouldn't know what the word means. There seems to be none on Earth, so they must be somewhere else. That would have to be somewhere close to Earth, or we'd never have heard of them. So they must be on Mars. And as the Mars lander didn't see any, they may be invisible."

Zombrex wrote: »

Well thank God humans are very good at making such judgements ... oh no wait, we are terrible at that sort of thing :P

T'is true, and we usually only know how bad when it's too late.

Zombrex wrote: »

Er no. Being a software engineer myself you won't get very far trying to convince me that Bill Gates did anything revolutionary beyond knowing when is a good time to sign an exclusive deal with IBM. :rolleyes:

Or knowing how slow Apple will be to patent their new GUI and walk out the door with it before it can be called theft (though in fairness they did the same to Xerox on an earlier iteration of it).

Zombrex wrote: »

I'm arguing that you haven't presented any evidence to support your claims.

So to be clear, the evidence you are presenting that LSD and other drugs enhance the mental and congestive abilities of the brain beyond what is naturally possible is the testimony of those who took the drugs?

Thousands you say. Well how about you pick out the ones you know support your argument, so I don't have to bother reading the thousands that don't.

Based on your previous mentions of this I've a very strong suspicion that you don't know what neuroplasticity actually means.

I can now clearly see from this response that you have no understanding whatsoever of the issue being discussed and further dialog with you is a waste of time. You continue to argue I have not produced any evidence and when I produce evidence you ignore it and repeat I have not produced any evidence:(

The evidence from those who testified that LSD enhanced their creativity is the work they produced while under the influence of the drug or in many cases afterwards. The testimony is not the evidence, the work is the evidence. The musical output of the Beatles from Revolver onwards is the evidence. The problem solving of scientists while on LSD is the evidence.

Based on your inputs on this and other threads I have concluded you know diddly squat about any scientific topic. Stop appealing to science when you are clearly so far out of your depth. You think I don't know what neuroplasticity is, I work in that field, of course I don't understand it:rolleyes:

Zombrex wrote: »

I didn't ignore it. So you are confusing "ignoring" with "laughing at how silly your evidence is"


But I guess it is ok because you are keeping such an open mind ... just be careful it is not so open your brain falls out ...

You have clearly not understood my post (again), so I give up. The evidence is the produced work, not what the person is saying while high.

The rattiest poster on boards is calling me ratty, do I get an award?