Topic
Colours,are they in the eye of the beholder?
Hilarious, you're suggesting using mind ALTERING drugs to get "experiences" is rational, but that people that actually do science on these (most mind altering drugs were either invented, or discovered by what was that thing again.. ah yes, SCIENCE). Science very much knows what they do to people, it's why they're used in medicine to help people, and science knows it does not allow for magic insights into the world.
I should stop applying stereotypes says the person that calls me a zealot at every turn.. really, you're breaking my fave new mega hypocrite here. And yes, drugs DO alter how people process experiences or acts (or reacts). Which is why it's ILLEGAL to drive under the influence of drugs (or generally work at anything where errors can cause injury to people) and why drugs are illegal in sports. And also why drugs are generally illegal, as they MESS YOUR BRAIN UP. The brain has a very fine tuned chemical and hormonal balance, and quite a few drugs can alter this permanently to devastating effect.
What can the brain suddenly pull out of it's illusory behind without facts or experimentation? Yes, ILLUSIONS. And no, the wise ones, use a method that tries to discard the errors that human emotions and feelings has when trying to find a truth. Its' called; The scientific method.
Again, pot, kettle, black and all that. And it's ever so hilarious that you now say that our perceptions are flawed, yet you seem to think they get better by randomly scrambling them with chemicals and by not basing ideas on facts or proper experimentation (ie, double blind tests, replicating effects observed or claimed etc) My flawed perception indicates you're a moron, an utter tool for frauds and conspiracy theorists. However, I acknowledge that you might just be a really poor internet troll, or really a well meaning but so utterly clueless person that actually do believe what you're writing and can't see where you yourself are desperate to put the values that best describes yourself (dogmatic, zealous) on your opponents. But I know that this is merely my perpeption, I could empty this half bottle of cognac I have here and hope for magic insights into the matter, but somehow I doubt that would help. Without actual experimentation I just can't say for sure. |
|
Actually, mind altering drugs is the perfect example that that way we percieve reality is just an illusion. As you yourself put it, the brain is a complex organ with a finetuned mix of chemicals that allow it to percieve the world in a way that works well when the ultimate goal for the organism is to survive and reproduce.
If you reduced or increased the amount of any chemical in the brain, your perception of the world would be different. Which is why driving after a big emotional change in your life is just as, if not more dangerous as driving under the influence of mild drugs like !@#$%^-* or even low doses of alkohol. Nobody is claiming that mind altering drugs will somehow reveal the "truth" of things to the user. But it's pretty meaningless to argue against its ability to show the user that the world is only the brains intepretation of the different physical forces acting around us. With mind altering drugs, the user will often percieve the world as strange, or even see things that are not there. But make no mistake. These experiences are just as real as when you are off the drugs. The big problem when discussing these topics is that people just see reality as a constant and unchangeable thing, thinking that the way we percieve the world is the only real way, when in reality, any way of percieving the world is just as correct as any other. The brain still intepret the physical forces in it's own way. Reality around you has not changed, but the brains model of reality do. There is little reason to believe the model of reality you experience every day is any more correct than when you are under the influence of any drug. I'm not going into the whole "why some drugs are illegal" topic, because that would deserve a topic of its own, but there is definately potential to understand many things you would otherwise never thing of when properly using these kind of drugs, simply because all they do is to temporarily change your perception of the world around you. |
This is indeed the case and scientists knows it, and doctors use it to treat patients. If you reduced or increased the amount of any chemical in the brain, your perception of the world would be different. Which is why driving after a big emotional change in your life is just as, if not more dangerous as driving under the influence of mild drugs like !@#$%^-* or even low doses of alkohol. Not "would" but "could" and what mostly changes is not your brains interpretation of facts, as green doesn't become blue and hot doesn't become cold, but how it interprets it emotionally and thus bases it's decisions.
And nobody did. (I'm smelling strawman here)
Yes, the EXPERIENCE as in the actual reactions are as real, but science KNOWS that experience is not scientific evidence for anything. The big problem when discussing these topics is that people just see reality as a constant and unchangeable thing, thinking that the way we percieve the world is the only real way, when in reality, any way of percieving the world is just as correct as any other. Again, strawman. No, people with a clue KNOWS that our brains aren't objective. That's why the scientific method evolved to what it is and why experimentation (in particularly double blind tests) are done as they are because scientists knows that their own brains cannot be trusted. Which is why scientists use cameras/detectors that can see the electromagnetic spectrum, the things that are too small or too far away or inside something else. The people that claim that their emotions and experiences are fact, are religious and superstitious people. So in essence you're doing the same error as toumen, you're putting forth a false claim you can debunk when the claim is actually only applicable to yourself.
Actually it is. And you've pointed out the reason yourself. It's very bloody obvious that people under the influence of drugs have our already limited senses very much impaired, alcohol alone would tell you that, blurred vision, bad balance, prone to ignore pains that makes you injure yourself ever more and on and on. So there's infact EVERY reason to believe that our senses work more accurately and our brain also works better at interpreting input without extra chemicals. Just look at sports, there's barely any drug use in concentration or pure skill based events at all.
Funny how you just in this very post already said that "Nobody is claiming that mind altering drugs will somehow reveal the "truth" of things to the user". Or are you just trying to do the same thing I see here all the time, using "maybe" and "potential" and "it could be you can't prove it couldn't" or whatever to get around that? What they do is NOT to give us amazing insights into the world. Because how could they? THC is not a telescope that lets you understand the composition or Sirius, !@# So tldr rebuttal of your post: All your arguments against the scientific views are strawmen which oddly ONLY applies to how supernaturalists view the world. And your post is internally inconsistent and contradicts itself. |
|
Edited by Toumen on 18/03/12 01:42 (GMT)
Ttbank, while some of your observations from logical text analysis are accurate, what you greatly lack is self-analysis. You are seeing many things, like tactics, logical flaws, and sometimes you are right, but you are completely unaware of how the same stuff is all over your own writings. And that greatly reduces the usefulness of your intellect. It is being hijacked by emotions. And this lack of self-insight is what messes up science, because science is done by humans, and humans are often not in control of their emotional complexes.
Which then might show in all capitals writing and empty insults, haha. They will still call it proper science because of the very lack of scrutiny towards their own inner state. And how would, say, a physicist have the tools for doing that if he's all specialized and has little clue about psychology? Take this statement for example, from leading greenhouse advocate (about global warming), Dr. Stephen Schneider. Could hardly show more clearly about what is going on in so-called 'science': "To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest." |
|
Edited by Ttbank on 18/03/12 02:15 (GMT)
Give points and I'll address (or as it's coming from you, I fear it's probably an outrageous lie, strawman or simply absurd, and then I can refute it, though I know you'll never reply with anything sensible to that) And that greatly reduces the usefulness of your intellect. It is being hijacked by emotions. No, again, that is you. You are the one claiming drug influenced experiences can give you some insight into the universe, not me. And this lack of self-insight is what messes up science, because science is done by humans, and humans are often not in control of their emotional complexes. AND SCIENTISTS KNOWS THIS. Supernaturalists are the ones that actually claim that feelings and emotions says anything about anything outside of explaining how the brain works. And again I have to explain because you as usual ignore it, either through ignorance or through YOUR lack of self insight where you refuse it because it contradicts you. THIS IS WHY WE HAVE THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Which then might show in all capitals writing and empty insults, haha. Because you utterly refuse to grasp the simplest points and never, ever acknowledge your ability to be wrong. They will still call it proper science because of the very lack of scrutiny towards their own inner state. And how would, say, a physicist have the tools for doing that if he's all specialized and has little clue about psychology? That is why we have different fields of study. Though these are linked in all sorts of way, nuclear and quantum physics are allowing psychiatrists insight into how the brain works while people are in different states of mind. Psychiatrists knows how we think and can help other scientists to avoid what you continue to claim they do (while it's infact only you here that do so), ie, to avoid human emotion or error to influence experimentation (and again, double blind tests are an example of this, since it not merely hides the experiment from the subjects of it, but also from the scientists). Take this statement for example, from leading greenhouse advocate (about global warming), Dr. Stephen Schneider. Could hardly show more clearly about what is going on in so-called 'science': Yay, out of context quote mining, or as it's also called, LYING. You're actually managing to extend from merely crappy strawmen to new ways of using false argumentation. THIS is the actual quote which gives it an entirely different meaning: "On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both." Guess what? I've never heard about that guy before, yet it took me 30 seconds to find this in google. So again we've proven that you have NO ability to think for yourself and research what you claim. |
|
|
It is not a sign of a healthy mind to refer to yourself as "we". It shows a felt need to conjure up support to boost your self-esteem.
You found a longer-worded quote with the same meaning, and apparently details that don't change the meaning are all that matters to you. And how could it? Wording is superficial, meaning is deep. Your mind tells you there is no forest, only a lot of trees. ;-) You get all hyped up about the wording while failing to realize that the guy indeed advocated sacrificing truth for efficiency. And that's a mentality of end-justify-means. (Also, the desire for efficiency is fear-based - it's about the desire to be useful in life, and also somewhat connected to the also fear-based idea of scarcity that is often used to keep people under control.) Every deviation from being truthful should be regarded as a failure, for any action based on untruth is not based on reality, and accordingly it has consequences. |
|
Edited by Ttbank on 18/03/12 03:26 (GMT)
Really? He's a scientist talking about his field. What's not to "we" about that?
It bloody well changes the ENTIRE meaning of it and you bloody well know it. One say "we should do Y" The other say "We should do X even if Y would make it easier for us to get our points across, so hopefully we can manage to find some ground where we can still get our point across without going too far over to Y"
Again, meaningless drivel to hide the fact you have NOTHING to say. Just stating that there is some deeper meaning does not magically conjure this meaning out of the ground or the sky. If you find deeper meaning? Fine, it's a philosophical, spiritual or religious view and completely unrelated and uninteresting to science that only pertains to fact.
Which shows how ridiculously simple minded you are. Yes there are trees in a forest but there's also huge amounts of animals and other vegetation. A forest could not possibly exist without the entire ecosystem. What I don't need is so deeper meaning to it. I don't need to feel that the tree I'm steading my rifle against to ensure a quick kill has a magic reason for being there. It's there because it the soil was capable to sustaining the seed from the pine cone that some squirrel forgot it'd buried there. Neither do I think that by thinly slicing up the heart of that deer with some garlic and eating with my hunting bud afterwards is gonna give us the power of the deer. We just find it tasty as we talk about the experience (which while having facts intermingled) is a construct of our brains and as is the enjoyment we derive from this activity. You get all hyped up about the wording while failing to realize that the guy indeed advocated sacrificing truth for efficiency. No he didn't. What he said amounted to "It would be easier to scream that sky is falling but we also have to keep ourselves honest" This is the last bit of it and a summary of what he was trying to get across "Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both." So please stop this outrageous lie before you dig yourself an even deeper hole. And that's a mentality of end-justify-means. (Also, the desire for efficiency is fear-based - it's about the desire to be useful in life, and also somewhat connected to the also fear-based idea of scarcity that is often used to keep people under control.) Yes, and this mentality is ever so obvious in you. You lie, quote mine, don't answer when you're pointed out as being ridiculously wrong (as in the expanding earth nonsense) because you know deep inside that you're wrong, that all evidence says your wrong but you're so desperate to not live in a world without magic and/or some afterlife, that you make up a world view where everyone with provable experience and success are all liars and frauds.
Yes exactly, as this ridiculous quote mine of yours. There's but one here not being truthful and that is you. You're lying both to us and yourself. |
|
|
Simply logic, not apparent to the naive: You cannot find a balance between being effective and being honest while being both at the same time.
My approach is: If being totally honest means being totally ineffective, then being totally honest is still preferrable. And the quote still contains folly, because putting honesty as a counterpoint to efficiency is a ridig belief system that makes it easier to justify not being honest. As I mentioned, end-justifies-means thinking. Honesty creates positive effects that are not seen by those who don't consider their existence. |
Which I guess is what someone as dishonest as you would conclude. However that's not either what he said, he said try. My approach is: If being totally honest means being totally ineffective, then being totally honest is still preferrable. Yet you choose to lie and quote mine and ignore facts put forwards that shows the absurdity in your claims
This is you 5 lines higher up in YOUR OWN BLOODY POST "You cannot find a balance between being effective and being honest while being both at the same time." This.. this.. I have no words for being so hypocritical. You're actually managing to disagree with yourself within 10 seconds of typing. Nevermind that his words were about the "controversy" (again, a lie, as it's not a controversy if it the people that actually have the knowledge agrees, while people with religious or financial reasons disagrees) of human influenced global climate change which very much is a case of trying to bring the message across effectively and honestly. Particularly with todays global press and the amount of moronic wannabe idiot blog posters disseminating info they have no idea how to actually critically evaluate and where utter morons then takes that to even further extremes as so very well shown by you.
Which is odd for a rampant liar to say. |
|
Edited by Detectable on 18/03/12 13:16 (GMT)
Why are you so worked up about this? How do you expect us to have a rational discussion when you constantly bombard us by attacking person instead of our arguments?
Anyway, I think we are talking about different things. The scientific method is used because it is so effective at what it does. But the clue here is that you always start with an observation of something before you move on to gathering data on this observation before you try to draw a conclusion. Based on this conclusion, one should be able to make prediction about future events with relatively large accuracy, and this is exactly what the scientific method is. It is important to stress that how you arrive at your conclusion is irrelevant as long as the predictions you make matches future observations. It also seems you are confusing mind altering drugs with narcotic drugs. Narcotic drugs work by slowing down your brains senses or inner working so your body can get relief from whatever problem is present, like pain. Mind altering drugs dont do this. Instead of reducing the effectiveness of your senses it simply distorts them, making your brain intepret reality in a different way, often with the result that you can draw new conclusions based on what your senses tell you, that you otherwise would not be able to draw. These conclusions have to match up to reality to be of any value, but I dont think anyone would disagree with this. Probably the most famous example of this is Francis Crick, who were able to visualize the double helix shape of DNA under the influence of L SD (forum cencoring) |
Because attacking the person does not imply irrational behaviour. One thing is to base your conclusions on the attack, another is for the attack itself to be a conclusion of what you observed from that person. Example 1: You are stupid, Therefore you are wrong. This is illogic because he is denying an idea based on an insult. Being stupid or not does not influence the idea at all. An idea can be said by anyone and it will remain the same idea, it is not determined by the speaker. Example 2: You saw super man flying on TV and you tried to fly by jumping off a bridge, therefore you are stupid. This is perfectly logic. The fact that someone tried to fly based on what he saw in a superhero movie, which is clearly fictional, is a good indicator of how stupid he is. The same applies to what people write. If someone makes claims without any basis to back it up then he's clearly mental, because that's what crazy people do. The human eye is a well researched organ, and we know how it works. Any question that arose here can be answered just by going to wikipedia. The fact that people prefer to make themselves look dumb by defending how they believe the eye works, even though all the evidence we have points to another conclusion, is enough proof to conclude that they are stupid. |
I can only assume you're talking about toumen here, as he's a proven liar that uses ad hominems when he have no other arguments. If you don't then you're as dishonest and blind as him.
And? Ideas comes from all sorts of places, the scientific method is just the best way we've found to actually use these ideas.
No, the way you arrive at your conclusion HAS to be relevant and correct, or no prediction, no matter how correct, is completely pointless. Why? Because all sorts of old disproven idea could be said to be correct. And this is why peer review works like it does.
Err.. wrong and doubly wrong. Even the drug you yourself mentions later do not work like this. There are some that slows you down, but plenty that speeds up reactions and brain activity.
The only meaningful part here is that you might get new ideas.
Yet he had to actually prove this using the scientific method. Merely having had the idea IS NOT ENOUGH. Which is the point of those here that understands science, and there's no reason to believe that drugs were able to let him "sense" how it was shaped. Science however, using modern tools, were able to do so much later. |
|
|
No, you're simply not getting the profound subtleties here, because you lack insight. If you employ a mindset where you try to find a balance between efficiency and honesty, it is foolish to assume you can be both at the same time. You will, case-by-case put yourself in a decision about either being a liar or not accomplishing a set goal. If you do not try to find a balance between the two, you have freed yourself of that rigid belief system and can see more ways. You might, for example, enable yourself to see ways to be honest all the time AND being very efficient. I totally understand why you saw a contradiction there. Your mind is not showing a good ability to think outside the box. It's far easier to fight for principles than to live up to them. You are fighting so much that you have lost sight of yourself. P.S.: Subscription end. Bye. :-) |
Again, you merely stating it's "subtle" does not make it so. All we see is that you're being a dishonest hypocrite.
And again, this is where you contradict yourself. Not that it matters as even if you disagree with him on his point, you're free to do so. He says himself it's hard to balance it. The point was, that you LIED by using an out of context quote to make him say something far different.
Actually no. The only person here doing that is you. You're lying to try to accomplish a goal, you're just failing at it. But at least we know see why you write as you do.
Ie, as you do, lie.
Your "thinking outside the box" amounts to being a liar.
Again, strawman and ad hominem with no substance coming from a proven liar.
Ie, another lie where you pretend this so you don't have to answer for yourself and can sit back and not actually opening your mind to the possibility you could be wrong. |
|
I quit this thread. No point arguing with you Ttbank, you are too busy insulting others to even try to read what people write.
|
Yay, another strawman and excuse to not address my points. |
|
colour doesnt exist. Its your brains interpritation of the wavelengths of light.
The reason people can see colours differantly is due to your brain "making up" large amounts of what you see. |
