We are all born with the idea of God

nagirrac

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

nagirrac wrote: »

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.

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."

nagirrac

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

nagirrac wrote: »

As always, nothing to add to the discussion.

Just pointing out the irony in the guy who believes in crap like psychic dogs is whinging about people being the voice of reason.

nagirrac wrote: »

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.

No, that's not what his argument is.
It is what you are arguing by claiming that because we do not yet have a total understanding of the brain, we can conclude that magic/psychic dogs/god/faires exist.

Again, you don't know what the words you use actually mean.

nagirrac wrote: »

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.

Lol, another star example of your scientific education and reasoning :rolleyes:

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?

nagirrac

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.

King Mob

nagirrac wrote: »

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?

I'm not attacking you, just pointing out your failure to understand what a fallacy is and the irony in you attacking Zombrex for a fallacy you actually are committing.

You can't explain it. You can't address any of the things I asked you. You never can. At best we'd get a wall of unsupported claims, random illogical conclusions, more fallacies and name dropping that you think supports your claims because you yourself don't understand half of what you type.

Brian Shanahan

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

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

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. /QUOTE]

Source for the latter allegation? What I have read is that Wilkins did not feel he had contributed to Watson and Crick's model.

Zombrex

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.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Zombrex wrote: »

All psychotropic drugs can do is effect the parts of the brain that are already there, in a manner that is already in the range of effects of the brain. They cannot produce effects that a human brain already cannot achieve.

I'm not particularly saying you're right or wrong. But if human thought has something to do with brain chemistry, surely it's at least possible that augmenting that chemistry can get a brain to do something that it cannot normally do. For the sake of argument, don't folk sometimes use stimulants to stay awake and alert for durations that they'd be unable to manage otherwise.

Again, I'm not taking sides as this is really just a question that's down to evidence. But it seems to me that drugs can produce effects that a brain cannot achieve. I've never managed to replicate the effects of a bottle of Captain Morgan's without actually drinking the stuff.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

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

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Again, I'm not taking sides as this is really just a question that's down to evidence. But it seems to me that drugs can produce effects that a brain cannot achieve.

It seems based on what exactly?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

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

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

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.

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

GCU Flexible Demeanour

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

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

But isn't duration an ability?

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

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

GCU Flexible Demeanour

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3aaaF2Ryjo

Geomy

Zombrex wrote: »

And ... ? Some people think the world is flat. The world is full of idiots.

It's the intelligent idiots I'm afraid of...

nagirrac

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.

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

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.

Present the evidence that drugs can cause the brain to be modified beyond its natural abilities and that "mystical altered states" actually produce new mental and cognitive abilities beyond what humans are normally capable of.

And no saying "Steve Jobs" is not presenting evidence of this.

nagirrac wrote: »

I have provided significant evidence to back up my claim.

No you haven't, you have just listed people who produced ideas while on drugs. You have presented no evidence that these ideas were incapable of being produced by a brain not on drugs or were produced by mental ability that were even produced by the drugs themselves.

You know you don't have any evidence because you littered your original claim with the qualifier that it was all subjective speculation, which is what you always do when you are about to self consciously start spouting nonsense you know people are going to call you on.

nagirrac wrote: »

You have provided none, and worse still made no effort to debate my evidence.

I did debate the evidence. I informed you it wasn't evidence. Try again.

dybbuk

Zombrex wrote: »

saying "Steve Jobs" is not presenting evidence of this.

How about "Bill Gates" and a bunch of other extremely successful mothers you are free to google for yourself?

Zombrex

dybbuk wrote: »

How about "Bill Gates" and a bunch of other extremely successful mothers you are free to google for yourself?

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:

dybbuk

Well, I bet/hope nagirrac never claimed LSD&Co would boost your programming skills. Programming has little to do with extreme success. Business administration does.

Zombrex

dybbuk wrote: »

Well, I bet/hope nagirrac never claimed LSD&Co would boost your programming skills. Programming has little to do with extreme success. Business administration does.

So Bill Gates thought that IBM throwing money at him was a good idea because he took LSD? And other mere mortals would have said "No thank you IBM, you can take your exclusive deal and shove it"

dybbuk

Pretty much. Supposedly a shift in perspective in a direction (or into a dimension if you will) was Gate's, Job's and the like competitive advantage.
What is important here, is keeping an open mind and, at least in my experience software people have a particularly hard time with that.
I understand that concentrating on software creation can be detrimental to other unrelated mental skills and that would explain why the impact of a mind-altering drug could be that significant.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Zombrex wrote: »

You have presented no evidence that these ideas were incapable of being produced by a brain not on drugs or were produced by mental ability that were even produced by the drugs themselves..

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

Now, I suppose we could list achevements that were not known to have involved drugs and give that as evidence that breakthroughs don't seem to require augmentation. But we can't make dogmatic statements. We can only bring it to the point where the probabilities suggest that a particular explanation is needlessly complicated.

Zombrex

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

dybbuk wrote: »

Pretty much. Supposedly a shift in perspective in a direction (or into a dimension if you will) was Gate's, Job's and the like competitive advantage.

Yeah because no one has ever made smart business decisions unless they are where on drugs :rolleyes:

In the case of Gates it wasn't even a particularly smart decision, it was an obvious one. Do you want millions of dollars, yes or no?

dybbuk wrote: »

What is important here, is keeping an open mind and, at least in my experience software people have a particularly hard time with that.

No what is important here is supporting claims with actual evidence and reason, not presenting any old idea because it sounds nice (oh, "mysticism", interesting) and then complaining when people expect you to actually back up what you are saying.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

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.

dybbuk

Zombrex wrote: »

Yeah because no one has ever made smart business decisions unless they are where on drugs :rolleyes:

This sentence betrays not just a fallacy but I would say hypocrisy of your position. In post 122 I have already suggested you do some research if you want "evidence". Your obsession with the DOS story indicates that you are quantity/money-oriented while demanding evidence and presenting none to the contrary yourself. I understand that you won't just take my word for it but you will have to concede that in matters like that there can be no mathematical proof and that seems to be the obstacle your software-infested mind can't overcome right now. I gain nothing from widening your horizon and I can only wonder what you think you can gain by winning an argument.

Zombrex

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

Solair

It seems more like human brains tend to try to explain everything in terms of what we currently understand. Out brains are very uncomfortable with unanswered questions, the unknown or any kind of gaps in knowledge about the world around us.

It's pretty obvious that we tend (more so in the past) to fill in the blanks with human-type explanations by personifying natural events as gods, spirits etc etc

GCU Flexible Demeanour

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.

nagirrac

Zombrex wrote: »

Present the evidence that drugs can cause the brain to be modified beyond its natural abilities and that "mystical altered states" actually produce new mental and cognitive abilities beyond what humans are normally capable of.

And no saying "Steve Jobs" is not presenting evidence of this.

You are arguing that all the testimony from people who claimed LSD, other psychedelics, and meditation enhanced their creativity should be discounted. Should we also discount all the evidence that anti-depressants relieve depression, that benzodiazepines relieve anxiety and panic attacks, that meditation techniques relieve OCD? All the evidence here, at least up to recently, is also based on testimony. Recent advances in fMRI and EEG allow us actually look at brains before and after treatment, and we can clearly see both physical structural changes and changes in the patterns of brain electrical activity.

Here is the evidence on LSD studies. There were thousands of scientific papers published betwee 1950 and 1966, before governments shut down the work due to LSD and other psychedelics being made illegal.

http://www.erowid.org/references/texts/show/7609docid6734

There is also a study which you can find online where treatment of alcoholics resulted in a 59% success rate. This is significantly higher than any other treatment options.

The strongest evidence today supporting my argument is neuroplasticity. You can find many studies online, Dr. Schwartz at UCLA is the leading researcher but there are numerous other researchers in the fild and more and more psychologists are using the technique. As an aside, how do you think psychological therapy works?, and it clearly works based on many studies for those that actually follow the treatment plan.

Brian Shanahan

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).

del88

If you think about most form very strong emotional attachments to our mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, girlfriend, boyfriend. These feeling are real and exist yet they are just another human being ,one of many billions on this planet.
Whether or not god exists the feeling and strong emotional / spiritual connection that are found in all civilisation to the deity would suggest that believing in god is an inherent human characteristic .
I've often though I am missing out on something by not believing in god especially in the shadow of the deaths of close friends and family,somehow having less of a human experience in life.
It'll be interesting to see where our believe in god goes in my lifetime . I suspect we'll try connect more to nature and Mother Earth . A new religion that can't be imagined at the moment ....I think John Lennon was on to something ..:-)

human 19

Solair wrote: »

It seems more like human brains tend to try to explain everything in terms of what we currently understand. Out brains are very uncomfortable with unanswered questions, the unknown or any kind of gaps in knowledge about the world around us.

It's pretty obvious that we tend (more so in the past) to fill in the blanks with human-type explanations by personifying natural events as gods, spirits etc etc

Indeed.
Consider the dawning of consciousness in our ancestors. Consider that much of their well-being and survival depended on what came from the sky, and hence rivers. Rain/sun.

What must they have made of thunderstorms...the power must have made them feel puny. They may have also being trying to figure out what the stars were. Hence , possibly, gods being placed in the sky.

Late rains or other such phenomena led them to rituals such as sacrifices to appease these gods as they assumed ordinary human motives such as displeasure to the actions of these "gods"

Then consider mate-bonding and the early conscious dealing with death of a mate or child....or fear of one's own death. If these were attributed to the actions of the gods, this could have given rise to the concept of an afterlife as solace.

As such beliefs take hold, they are passed on..and on...and on...

and this was before some genius decided how much power he could have if he claimed to understand how the gods were thinking and what they wanted.

Personally I believe, but am open to correction as I havent read anything about this, that religion entered and filled the gap between consciousness and knowledge.

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

You are arguing that all the testimony from people who claimed LSD, other psychedelics, and meditation enhanced their creativity should be discounted.

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

You still haven't done that, and I suspect you know that because you are now trying a ton of different tactics to weezle out of it.

I have not argued that testimony from people on drugs be discounted because I haven't made a claim about what people on drugs are like.

You made the claim. If you are now saying that the evidence to support this claim is the testimony of the people on drugs, well I can certainly counter that.

Is that what you are saying?

nagirrac wrote: »

Should we also discount all the evidence that anti-depressants relieve depression, that benzodiazepines relieve anxiety and panic attacks, that meditation techniques relieve OCD?

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?

That is what you are stating?

nagirrac wrote: »

All the evidence here, at least up to recently, is also based on testimony.

And are people generally able to assess in real time while on drugs if their brains are or are not acting beyond their natural ability? :rolleyes:

nagirrac wrote: »

Recent advances in fMRI and EEG allow us actually look at brains before and after treatment, and we can clearly see both physical structural changes and changes in the patterns of brain electrical activity.

And ... ? Who ever said the brain doesn't change when on drugs?

Being in a car accident will produce some interesting changes on an MRI scanner as well, but that doesn't mean the car accident has enhanced the mental and cognitive ability of the person.

nagirrac wrote: »

Here is the evidence on LSD studies. There were thousands of scientific papers published betwee 1950 and 1966, before governments shut down the work due to LSD and other psychedelics being made illegal.

http://www.erowid.org/references/texts/show/7609docid6734

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.

nagirrac wrote: »

There is also a study which you can find online where treatment of alcoholics resulted in a 59% success rate. This is significantly higher than any other treatment options.

And ... ?

Surely by the fact that you are desperately trying to change the terms of your claim that you recognize now that the original claim cannot be supported?

Why not just admit that and move on?

nagirrac wrote: »

The strongest evidence today supporting my argument is neuroplasticity.

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

nagirrac

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

nagirrac wrote: »

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:(

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

I first asked you to clarify that this actually was your evidence (because it is terrible if that was the case and I suspect you were going to try and hedge) and then pointed out why it was terrible.

No researcher past a leaving cert science course would consider the claim of a person on drugs that their mental ability had been enhanced beyond natural limits as actual evidence that this had taken place. How the heck would the subject know if this was or wasn't the case, what frame of reference do they use to determine that their brain is now operating beyond natural ability?

I suspect you know this which is why you attempted to drop in the straw man of researchers evaluating the success of anti-depressants based on whether the patient claims to be depressed or not.

You know how stupid your claim is so you are attempting to build support for it by laying the ground work for an analogy.

But of course you also must know that assessing whether a patient is depressed is nothing like assessing cognitive ability. You don't simply ask someone if they are doing something that is cognitively beyond the normal ability of their brain, particularly when they have already taken state altering drugs :rolleyes:

So once again all you have done is demonstrate that you have zero issue making wild unsupported claims and you will get ratty with anyone who points out that you haven't supported your wild unsupported claims.

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 ...

nagirrac

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?