The Illusion of Self

[untermensche]

It is not the research talking to you.

It is researchers making claims.

When they claim that wild guesses about the start of an invisible "urge" are objective data I laugh at the self delusion.

No, that is your own claim.

You demand to see qualification even while you yourself have none.

Having no qualifications in the field, you flippantly dismiss the work of those who are qualified.

You do this because the research and the its results do not suit your own beliefs, which are not supported by the research.

I don't demand anything.

I have qualifications.

I have a doctorate in pharmacy. There are a lot of drugs that work within the brain.

I have worked as a physical therapist for 30 years. That is a lot of experiments and a lot of information gained.

I know that the differences between functional outcomes after a stroke are dependent on the human "will".

The brain will not heal functionally after a stroke without constant struggle and practice as the brain is healing.

The will directs the manner in which the brain heals.

The will causes the body to change.

 

[fromderinside]

With biological entities:

Similarity, yes.

Exact same thing, never.

How do I know that variation is all that is possible with biological entities?

I understand genetics.

I understand Evolutionary Theory.

I understand development.

Identical twins have different brains. They have different experiences and different motivations.

All biological traits have scope and limits.

Finding humans with similar abilities to perceive any experience is not surprising.

Members of a species are closely related.

My only quibbles with your bit are that the normal relation of sensoria are very similar and there can be within our ability to measure exact duplicates. Rather than feature distinctions within species I emphasize commonalities and rather than claim unrelated I claim mostly related.

IOW even though humans are expert at making distinctions it is this very thing that makes successful functioning social systems risky. We are pretty susceptible to fear and anger as well.

I'd rather encourage elites to provide guidance in social play. Saying that I'm looking for ones who want smooth operations rather than disrupters. Both are important, but good behavior from elites leads to good behavior from the proletariat. Since it is these featured individuals we try to emulate.

 

[untermensche]

Imprecision or too narrow a focus can give HUMANS the appearance of duplicates.

The experience of sound is a subjective phenomena.

For there to be actual duplicates you would have to know what subjects were experiencing. Not merely the results of a subjective task.

I did not grow up listening to Rap music. I never acquired knowledge or a taste for Rap music.

I do not like Rap music. But Rap music is extremely popular and people good at it make fortunes.

But how is that possible if sound is objective?

I would rather an electorate that punished elected servants harshly for bad behavior instead of encouraging it.

 

[fromderinside]

Why do I get the sense you are dancing on the head of a pin? Oh, right. Doing that is subjective.

 

[DBT]

It is not the research talking to you.

It is researchers making claims.

When they claim that wild guesses about the start of an invisible "urge" are objective data I laugh at the self delusion.

No, that is your own claim.

You demand to see qualification even while you yourself have none.

Having no qualifications in the field, you flippantly dismiss the work of those who are qualified.

You do this because the research and the its results do not suit your own beliefs, which are not supported by the research.

I don't demand anything.

I have qualifications.

I have a doctorate in pharmacy. There are a lot of drugs that work within the brain.

I have worked as a physical therapist for 30 years. That is a lot of experiments and a lot of information gained.

I know that the differences between functional outcomes after a stroke are dependent on the human "will".

The brain will not heal functionally after a stroke without constant struggle and practice as the brain is healing.

The will directs the manner in which the brain heals.

The will causes the body to change.

Pharmacy is a long, long way from neuroscience. In other words, you are not qualified in the field, and it shows.

Being totally unqualified in neuroscience you summarily dismiss the work of those who are qualified even while demanding that I who refer to legitimate research by qualified researchers produce my qualifications....which you would no doubt dismiss in any case!!!

Can you see the absurdity of your position? Try to do better.

 

[untermensche]

Who's research do you think pharmacists use to understand what drugs do in the brain?

And what qualifications do you have to say anything?

 

[DBT]

Who's research do you think pharmacists use to understand what drugs do in the brain?

And what qualifications do you have to say anything?

If you understand that drugs applied to the brain effect mind and consciousness, you would have to understand that mind/consciousness is clearly the work of the brain. You are a pharmacist, not qualified in the field, who cherry picks research by qualified researchers, rejecting whatever does not meet your own preconceptions.

 

[untermensche]

Who's research do you think pharmacists use to understand what drugs do in the brain?

And what qualifications do you have to say anything?

If you understand that drugs applied to the brain effect mind and consciousness, you would have to understand that mind/consciousness is clearly the work of the brain. You are a pharmacist, not qualified in the field, who cherry picks research by qualified researchers, rejecting whatever does not meet your own preconceptions.

As far as I can tell you are not qualified to talk about anything.

Drugs work in the brain by mimicking natural neurotransmitters and binding to receptors. Their activity is unnatural since they bind to many receptors on many cells all over the brain at once. That is not natural chemical transmission.

Drugs must pass through the blood brain barrier to work in the brain.

Morphine works by binding to natural receptors. It binds to several kinds of receptors but it's greatest activity is thought to be due to the binding to a class of receptors called mu-receptors. Heroin passes quickly through the blood brain barrier and is converted to Morphine. You get a "rush" if you inject Heroin because of the rapid transmission through the barrier.

I agree that chemical neurotransmission is related to consciousness. I do not think electricity is.

When you artificially stimulate a brain cell with electricity you start the chain of chemical neurotransmission.

And chemical transmission is related to consciousness.

 

[fromderinside]

Drugs must pass through the blood brain barrier to work in the brain.

Morphine works by binding to natural receptors. It binds to several kinds of receptors but it's greatest activity is thought to be due to the binding to a class of receptors called mu-receptors. Heroin passes quickly through the blood brain barrier and is converted to Morphine. You get a "rush" if you inject Heroin because of the rapid transmission through the barrier.

I agree that chemical neurotransmission is related to consciousness. I do not think electricity is.

When you artificially stimulate a brain cell with electricity you start the chain of chemical neurotransmission.

And chemical transmission is related to consciousness.

Dr. Strange, re: 'blood brain barrier', how do you account for drug generation in the hypophysis and locus coeruleus? You know those portions of the hypothalamus and hindbrain that produces 'drugs' for the blood stream, neuro-excitations, and cortical activation?

 

[untermensche]

Indigenous molecules are not referred to as "drugs".

 

[fromderinside]

Indigenous molecules are not referred to as "drugs".

Oh? Really?

Norepinephrine *noradrenaline' itself is classified as a sympathomimetic drug:

VASOPRESSIN and OXYTOCIN, though produced in the hypothalamus, are not included here for they are transported down the AXONS to the POSTERIOR LOBE OF PITUITARY before being released into the portal circulation.

Someone is speaking in nits not naughts.

You are ducking here very hard. The nit is the body produces drugs. That they aren't made in labs or factories has little bearing on what they do.

drug, drug, drug, drug, drug. ....

 

[DBT]

Who's research do you think pharmacists use to understand what drugs do in the brain?

And what qualifications do you have to say anything?

If you understand that drugs applied to the brain effect mind and consciousness, you would have to understand that mind/consciousness is clearly the work of the brain. You are a pharmacist, not qualified in the field, who cherry picks research by qualified researchers, rejecting whatever does not meet your own preconceptions.

As far as I can tell you are not qualified to talk about anything.

No, that's still you. Always was. As a pharmacist you are not a neuroscientist, so you are not qualified in the field. I on the other hand refer to and cite material produced by researchers qualified in brain research, pointing out their experiments, their results and their conclusions; the people who do the work.

Which you as a pharmacist, not qualified in the field, happen to reject. You, being unqualified, reject the work and analysis of those who are qualified....never seeing the irony of your untenable position.

 

[untermensche]

Oh? Really?

VASOPRESSIN and OXYTOCIN, though produced in the hypothalamus, are not included here for they are transported down the AXONS to the POSTERIOR LOBE OF PITUITARY before being released into the portal circulation.

Someone is speaking in nits not naughts.

You are ducking here very hard. The nit is the body produces drugs. That they aren't made in labs or factories has little bearing on what they do.

drug, drug, drug, drug, drug. ....

A drug is something put into the body in some way.

Into the GI system. Into the blood. Directly into the spinal canal. Through the skin. Through the lungs.

If the adrenal gland excretes Norepinephrine into the blood it is not called a drug.

If you inject Norepinephrine into the blood it is called a drug.

Words actally have meanings.

 

[untermensche]

As far as I can tell you are not qualified to talk about anything.

No, that's still you. Always was. As a pharmacist you are not a neuroscientist, so you are not qualified in the field. I on the other hand refer to and cite material produced by researchers qualified in brain research, pointing out their experiments, their results and their conclusions; the people who do the work.

Which you as a pharmacist, not qualified in the field, happen to reject. You, being unqualified, reject the work and analysis of those who are qualified....never seeing the irony of your untenable position.

Your opinions don't mean anything.

As far as I can see you lack basic reasoning skills and are little more than a fan of some research.

 

[fromderinside]

1. Your opinions don't mean anything.

2. As far as I can see you lack basic reasoning skills and are 3.(your are) little more than a fan of some research.

1. You are all about declarations.
2. You make claims without justifying them.
3.You conclude with an adhom.

Brilliant.

 

[DBT]

As far as I can tell you are not qualified to talk about anything.

No, that's still you. Always was. As a pharmacist you are not a neuroscientist, so you are not qualified in the field. I on the other hand refer to and cite material produced by researchers qualified in brain research, pointing out their experiments, their results and their conclusions; the people who do the work.

Which you as a pharmacist, not qualified in the field, happen to reject. You, being unqualified, reject the work and analysis of those who are qualified....never seeing the irony of your untenable position.

Your opinions don't mean anything.

As far as I can see you lack basic reasoning skills and are little more than a fan of some research.

It's not my opinion. A pharmacist is not in fact a neuroscientist.

Consequently, you as a pharmacist are not qualified in the field of neuroscience.

Yet you as someone not qualified in the field of neuroscience are on record as rejecting the work and analysis of neuroscientists. You can't deny this. Your words are there for anyone to read.

Moreover:
''It seems most likely the mind is not any kind of substance apart from the brain. There are two kinds of support for this conclusion. First, there is no empirical evidence in the brain of a force moving from the realm we call the ‘mental’ to the physical brain.Second, there is a strong body of evidence showing that mental life is absolutely dependent upon a functioning brain.

On the other hand, there is continued support from our own experience for the idea that the mind is some stuff apart from the physical brain. We feel certain that we are acting as independent agents who take the information from our perceptions and other experience and use it to make decisions. But if the mind is just a by product of brain functioning, it cannot be an independent causative agent, by definition. Materialistic science seems therefore to reduce us to automatons, whose actions are determined by physical processes over which ‘we’, as conscious agents, have no control, despite appearances.

Perhaps there is a way out of this dilemma. The mind could be described as the entire set of the activities of the brain. We are not conscious of most of these activities, but perhaps they give rise to conscious thought when part of the brain is focused inwardly on the various functions of the brain. Thus our conscious mental life is the brain observing itself (to the extent that it can) while it carries out its complex decision-making functions.

The mind is not just the part of the brain doing the observing – the conscious part – but rather the whole brain, functioning in the body. We make a mistake if we take the mind to be only the conscious part of our brain’s functioning, and then assume that it is directing the underlying machinery. Rather, conscious thought is only the observing part of the mind. We should think of ‘mind’ as the whole set of activities of the brain acting in the body.''

 

[fromderinside]

Oh? Really?

VASOPRESSIN and OXYTOCIN, though produced in the hypothalamus, are not included here for they are transported down the AXONS to the POSTERIOR LOBE OF PITUITARY before being released into the portal circulation.

Someone is speaking in nits not naughts.

You are ducking here very hard. The nit is the body produces drugs. That they aren't made in labs or factories has little bearing on what they do.

drug, drug, drug, drug, drug. ....

A drug is something put into the body in some way.

I'm pretty sure that when one organ or another introduces a drug into the body that the substance is actually a drug introduced by that organ or structure into the body.

Into the GI system. Into the blood. Directly into the spinal canal. Through the skin. Through the lungs.

I'm pretty sure that when one organ or another introduces a drug into the body that the substance is actually a drug introduced by that organ or structure into the body.

If the adrenal gland excretes Norepinephrine into the blood it is not called a drug.

a medicine or other substance which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body.

If you inject Norepinephrine into the blood it is called a drug.

Words actally (sic) have meanings.

drug:: a medicine or other substance which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body.

RU saying the hypothalamus and locus coeruleus aren't introducing something which has physiological effects into the body?. Yes, words actually have meaning.

 

[untermensche]

A drug is something put into the body in some way.

Into the GI system. Into the blood. Directly into the spinal canal. Through the skin. Through the lungs.

If the adrenal gland excretes Norepinephrine into the blood it is not called a drug.

a medicine or other substance which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body.

If you inject Norepinephrine into the blood it is called a drug.

Words actally (sic) have meanings.

[FONT=Roboto, arial, sans-serif]drug:: a medicine or other substance which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body.

RU saying the hypothalamus and locus coeruleus aren't introducing something which has physiological effects into the body?. Yes, words actually have meaning.[/FONT]

You don't understand what it means to introduce something into the body.

That means to go from the outside to the inside.

It does not mean to move from one place inside to another place inside.

Your "intelligence" does not rise above spotting spelling errors.

 

[untermensche]

It's not my opinion. A pharmacist is not in fact a neuroscientist.

Some know more about the brain.

Consequently, you as a pharmacist are not qualified in the field of neuroscience.

I can't make a living at it. I can't write books about it.

But I can judge bad research methodology.

That was a big part of my pharmacy program. It was surprising. I thought I was going to learn how great the research is and how perfectly we know the effectiveness and mechanisms of drugs. Instead I learned that the research is incredibly flawed and biased. Not all of it. But some. I was taught to first distrust the research and be skeptical about it. That is how all research should be approached.

Yet you as someone not qualified in the field of neuroscience are on record as rejecting the work and analysis of neuroscientists.

I reject the idea that wild guesses about the precise time invisible "urges" begin is objective data. It can never be objective data. No matter how many people guess.

That is not claiming to be a neuroscientist or an astronaut.

It is making a statement about a single research methodology.

 

[fromderinside]

In fact I do know what it means to introduce something into the body. I just don't accept that another science need be begun because of the method or locus of introducing the drug into the body. Often both substances are identical. The difference being that one is produced in a laboratory and the other is produced naturally.

For instance I take thyroxin because my thyroid doesn't produce enough. I used to take animal thyroid, produced outside my body but identical to what my body produced. Now I take a synthetic thyroid which works the same as normal natural thyroid product. Its a drug whether I produce it or whether it is a synthetic that works the same or thyroid taken from an animal. One science.

Going from outside to inside isn't what makes a drug. What makes a drug is its action on the organism. Please keep your thoughts in line with what we are talking about the effect of a class of substance on one.