tkadm30

Facebook and related social networks are corporations-sponsored spying site to monitor your behavior online. They use the latest technologies in terms of data mining and artificial intelligence. For a teenager, it is a huge virtual world to meet friends online and share thoughts (or tweets).

A few notes:

1. I think the online surveillance of individuals through monitoring (big-data) of Internet content can be abusive and a potential privacy issue.

2. We need not to give up our digital rights to corporations.

3. Teenagers also have digital rights on the web...

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights

 

 

Citation needed.

Why? We already know the source of true love is independent from our evolutionary/genetic traits. True love is transcending from your mama. It is this relationship in my opinion which is the origin of true love. Learn to sense true love and then you can measure it with objective parameters/variables.

True love is not influenced by our behavior nor our genes you say? What then causes love? Cupido?

The source of love is quantum energy independent from biological influence.

Clearly bollocks.

"Love and sexual orientation are evidences that we have free will over our thoughts. "

No, it demonstrates the opposite.

Plenty of people fall in love with "unsuitable" partners.Think of Romeo and Juliet.

They would, generally, prefer to fall for someone more attainable- but they don't have any choice in the matter.

That's because it's down to chemistry in teh brain- rather than logic or common sense.

 

And this

"he mind/matter connection is not directed by genes, and thinking consciousness is nothing but a electrochemical soup is incorrect. You have to consider macroscopic quantum-like effects in the phenomenology of love, to understand how/why love is "quantum energy". "

is word salad.

I disagree. True love exists independently of sexual evolution and biological factors. True love is not programmable by genes in the brain, nor can it be influenced by our behavior. Try to educate yourself on the phenomenology of love before attempting to understand why it is independent from neurological/genetic influences.

Our consciousness is a mix of stored knowledge and intelligence.

Your intelligence and the amount of knowledge you can store is in your DNA.

But the kind of knowledge that is stored is obviously not in your DNA.

 

Love and sexual orientation are directed by your genes and external factors.

Love and sexual orientation are evidences that we have free will over our thoughts. The mind/matter connection is not directed by genes, and thinking consciousness is nothing but a electrochemical soup is incorrect. You have to consider macroscopic quantum-like effects in the phenomenology of love, to understand how/why love is "quantum energy".

True love is independent from gene-directed activation of oxytocin. True love operates beyond the dimension of classical physics and is a form of subtle/discrete energy. The resonance of our bioelectromagnetic fields is evidence of the quantum mechanics of love and consciousness.

 

 

 

Please provide some evidence for the "energy potential of consciousness". How is it detected / measured?

 

Is consciousness a form of energy? I don't know the answer to this. What I trust is that consciousness and love are immaterial

energy sources. The electromagnetic brain waves vibrations are a evidence of this energitic presence.

"sexual orientation is not something we inherit from our genes" - Are you sure? Do you have any references for this? I am sure there are people that would argue otherwise and I am not sure what it has to do with love.

The point I was trying to make is that love is independent from sexual orientation. Anyways, it seems logical to me that love and sexual orientation are not directed by genes but from a emerging property of our consciousness. The energy potential of consciousness is Love. Love is a non-physical energy mediated by the mind/matter link.

I'm still not convinced true love is genetic. Sexual orientation is not something we inherit from our genes. Love is a emerging property of the human consciousness. The essence of love and consciousness are non-physical phenomenons because we cannot measure the mind capacity to acquire love. In my opinion, the feeling of love is not a gene-mediated function but rather a complex experience of the unity of consciousness: The mind/matter link is evidence that love is a type of energy independent from DNA regulation and is purely immaterial/emerging in nature.

 

4 - "source"... "mother.." - well I think this fits in with the evolutionary argument quite well - we get those genes from our mother - our mothers are genetically programmed to love their offspring to give them a better chance of survival. It isn't a mysterious "type of energy" - it is a natural drive to protect your young engrained into us from evolutionary hereditary. It manifests in the brain due to a chemical called oxytocin.

I don't think the essence of love is genetic. For example, love is not a feeling which can be learned. It is "acquired" by our consciousness in the womb and emerges as the intrinsic nature of (loving) humans. Furthermore, there's no empirical evidences that DNA interacts with the unity of consciousness: The science of love/consciousness is a emerging scientific domain to investigate the immaterial nature of love.

There are many types of love - the Greeks have about 5 different words for it where we have one that covers many situations (family love, erotic love, parental love, freindships, brotherly and sisterly love).

 

The classic man/woman love is re enforced by a chemical in the brain called oxytocin. It's all just chemistry.

A more exiting question might be 'what is the sauce of love'?

Hi DrP,

The source of love is clearly misindurstood by science.

I'm interested in the philosophical validity of scientific love.

What do you mean by the "sauce of love" ? Do you mean to categorize love on different perceptual sensations?

I'm thinking the "source" of love must be immaterial in nature and a type of energy we acquire from the mind/matter link of the mother

during pregnancy.

What is the source of Love? Is love transmitted to newborns like a virus from your mama? Can the study of love (Loveology) measure the power of love from the beginning? Can artificial intelligence replicate love? My opinion is that the essence of love is immaterial and not bound to classical physics. Your mama is the source of love. The power of Love can be seen as the fourth dimension of consciousness: It require incredible psychological energy to share true Love; Love is energy of the mind to accept your mama as yourself.

Congratulations StringJunky for quitting to smoke.

Today is my first day without smoking.

I've been a heavy smoker for 3 years now, until I realized it is really a psychological addiction.

Unlike cannabis smoking, nicotine has not been proven useful for anything.

I think quitting to smoke tobacco will help me to lower my BP and rebuild my cardiovascular system, destroyed by smoking and lack of exercise.

Peace!

Assuming memory formation is genetic, can cognitive memory be improved by the activation of synaptic plasticity?

 

I am unsure as to what cases of "antipsychotics causing psychosis" you're referring to. I haven't seen such a case yet (which doesn't mean they don't exist, I'm just curious as to where you picked that up). I would expect antipsychotics to cause or aggravate negative symptoms, but not productive psychosis.

Neuroleptic-induced ex vivo dopamine alterations may negatively affect dopamine neurotransmission and hippocampal synaptic plasticity. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3597980/

Impaired synaptic plasticity and NMDA receptor hypofunction are prevalent models of drug-induced schizophrenia.

Maybe I have overlooked it, but where the heck does everybody live where physical altercations ending in assault seem to be the norm? Among youths, sure, but adults?

I totally agree with you. Violence is the tool of the weak. Bullying can be defeated by using psychology.

Even if you instruct/program a machine to speak chinese, it doesn't necessary means it understands the semantics of the language.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room

A behavior or misbehavior is not a disease.

Concentrations found in standard caffeinated drinks (such as coffee or tea) are not diuretic (compared to equivalent water intake). Caffeine is only diuretic in large doses in non-adapted individuals (i.e. if deprived of caffeine for a couple of days).

 

Also, IIRC as Strange mentioned in hypertensive individuals caffeine intake can result bursts of blood pressure that at least have been associated with cardiovascular events (obviously these were not controlled tests). Though it is generally assumed that in well-controlled hypertension patients caffeine consumption is of little risk.

I disagree. Caffeine-induced diuresis is caused partly by the blocking of adenosine receptors.

See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27225921

It appears delta9-THC can inhibit the synthesis, maturation and cellular transport of HSV2-type glycoproteins.

See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3033681

 

 

That doesn't seem relevant.

It matters to me! Diuretics are potential antihypertensive substances.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diuretic

One should be concerned about one's intake of caffeine if one suffers from high blood pressure. See http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/high-blood-pressure/expert-answers/blood-pressure/faq-20058543

Not really a concern. Caffeine is a diuretic.

Not all marijuana smoking is part of a lifestyle, but I don't think many people would contest that for regular users it is an important part of their lifestyle. Much like regular alcohol consumption or regular tobacco smoking are part of other peoples lifestyle. Just because a behaviour is a lifestyle choice does not mean it is not harmful. Are you claiming that lifestyle choices are automatically going to contain no negative consequences?

 

 

 

. What is your doubt based upon? I won't be convinced by anecdotal evidence, since I can offer anecdotal evidence suggesting you are wrong. What substantive reason do you have for harbouring this doubt?

 

 

Please offer meaningful evidence to counter what you claim is government sponsored disinformation.

.

Let's put the facts straight.

• Cannabinoids really promotes brain cells growth: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1253627/
• Cannabinoids protects astrocytes from ceramide-induced apoptosis: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12133838
• Chronic (long-term) THC exposure increases serum BDNF levels in the frontal cortex: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22821081
• Ultra low dose of THC protects brain cells from inflammation-induced cognitive damage: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25042014

In conclusion, the disinformation on cannabis prohibition is all about fear mongering and is not based on scientific data. It is a much safer lifestyle than alcohol drinking or smoking tobacco, if you ask me.

Marijuana smoking is a lifestyle. I seriously doubt that it can "permanently" affect the brain, except in positive ways. Thoses who claims the opposite are either trolls or disinformed, thanks to the government-sponsored propaganda about cannabis prohibition.

 

 

That is an idiotic website. For example:

 

The diagnosis is not the disease, even for physical disorders. And, in the case of physical disorders, they can often only be diagnosed by the patients description of what they experience. That doesn't make the disorder any less real. And all treatments, for all disorders, have side effects. Even something as simple as aspirin.

 

It seems to me that the only people who argue that there is no such thing as mental illness (despite the many people who are severely impacted by it) are those who just want to deny there is anything wrong with themselves.

 

Fine. Just don't tell anyone about the voices prompting you to kill strangers, and no one will think there is anything wrong with you ...

You have absolutely no idea how a psychiatric diagnosis is declared. Feel lucky I don't report this as an abusive rant to make people thinking that I'm mentally unstable.