Jump to content

Genecks

Senior Members
  • Posts

    1488
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Genecks

  1. Well, deep homology was the aspect that made me believe the model would continue to have credence or eventually go into falsification. I think I read something on neurodojo about it:

     

    neurodojo: http://neurodojo.blogspot.com/2009/10/humans-do-not-have-reptile-brains.html

     

    link to deep homology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_homology

     

    Let me tear apart what I don't like about the neurodojo thing:

     

    It’s debatable whether reptiles are the ancestors of mammals, however. It may be that the two groups shared a common ancestor, then diverged. It's also somewhat misleading in that it lumps all reptiles together. Snakes, for instance, appear much later in the fossil record than the earliest mammals.

    Second, the suggestion that the entire reptile brain is essentially the mammalian hind brain is not supported by modern neuroanatomy. To give an example, in MacLean's model, the limbic system is characterized as a “lower mammalian” part of the brain. There is evidence, however, that reptiles have a limbic system (Bruce and Neary, 1995; Lanuza et al., 1998).

    MacLean’s “triune brain” hypothesis may have caught the popular imagination, but it has not proved useful in modern neurobiology.

     

     

    1. Well, yeah. Things diverged. Ok, but where?

    2. Ok, so repitles have a limbic system, allegedly.... I've not read the article (i got paywalled in the past few months; old uni revoked my access). But where along the evolutionary path are these reported reptiles in relation to humans? Furthermore, as that article in last 90s, I'm thinking the whole interdisciplinary stuff wasn't well embedded enough: psychology and neuroscience. Not enough information. I feel like a fallacy is being committed in that paragraph but I can't pull it out.

    3. In terms of modern neurobiology, it's a basis for some ideas. But I think the idea of saying that certain parts are "reptillian" may be a hasty generalization.

  2. Two links:

     

    1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triune_brain

    2) http://www.whatonearthishappening.com/part-1-the-solution/65-the-triune-brain

     

    Another link that may not be so relevant:

     

    3) http://mybrainnotes.com/memory-brain-stress.html

     

    Pseudoscience or still a credible model?

     

    From what I recall of my neuroscience, phil, and psych classes, the brain really focuses a lot on learning and conditioning, which then turns over into neural changes. I think the triune brain theory is interesting. However, MRIs give a different story in relation to the theory: MRI technology and research developed well beyond the theory.

     

     

    According to Wikipedia,

     

    While technically inaccurate as an explanation for brain activity, it remains one of very few approximations of the truth we have to work with: the "neocortex" represents that cluster of brain structures involved in advanced cognition, including planning, modeling and simulation; the "limbic brain" refers to those brain structures, wherever located, associated with social and nurturing behaviors, mutual reciprocity, and other behaviors and affects that arose during the age of the mammals; and the "reptilian brain" refers to those brain structures related to territoriality, ritual behavior and other "reptile" behaviors. The broad explanatory value makes this approximation very engaging and is a useful level of complexity for high school students to begin engaging with brain research.

     

     

    Ok, so there were no sources for that comment.

     

    Here's what I'm thinking.

     

    1. Evolution-wise, it's got some stuff to say. However, I'm not seeing enough animal models for comparison to the triune brain theory. There isn't enough "deep homology" discussion for me to find believability in the model. The field of developmental neurobiology has grown since the triune brain theory was developed. However, I don't know what current developmental neurobiologists think of the triune brain theory.

     

    2. I'm not too sure about the whole "emotions" thing. From a radical behaviorist view, I think the triune brain theory is non-sense, because of how brain plasticity and learning-and-conditioning occurs. It appears to allege that emotional knowledge is inherit. I once came across an argument that the act of smiling is inherit (I can't recall the source). Here is one: http://www.doctortipster.com/6920-smiling-is-an-inherited-behavior-that-begins-in-the-womb.html

     

    3. Alleging that the neo-cortex is responsible for calculations seems to be legit, for what I recall of MRI studies.

     

    More links:

    - http://openi.nlm.nih.gov/detailedresult.php?img=3505872_fpsyg-03-00516-g002&req=4

  3. It's fate, free will, or something else. Notecards turned into flashcards. Wrote memorization. Verbal practice.

     

    Everyone is supposed to have access to the lecture material. The professors generally give a lecture-in-a-can teaching style. As such, the lecture slides (ppts) are used over and over again. You learn to memorize the slides and abstract: Minimalize information and expand from just the slides.

     

    Turn the slides into flashcards: another idea.

  4. [...] When I first saw that someone [in the USA] was spotted with ebola, I thought to myself that the workers were seriously ignorant. Personally, I think the National Security Agency should step in, put things on lock down, and quarentine issues until this problem is solved. Am I right or wrong? Yeah, maybe some civil rights would be violated, but at least it won't be a plague.

     

    It looks like the issue is getting worse from what I'm seeing on the news.

  5. If you want to throw it in another board, by all means. If it's speculation so be it.

     

    I'm thinking this all falls under the mathematical universe hypothesis.

     

    I'm the citation. This is original research. I've not seen anything like this before.

     

    What possible difference does the artificial time-frame between the court of first instance and the court of appeal (or various other pairs of court) have on the existence of evidence?

     

     

    Something I've been terming "the culpability problem." It's as though things contradict each other. There will be a contradiction.

     

    I got into a legal issue a while back. I've since then been attempting to falsify the judge. I decided to use science and philosophy against the judge. In doing so, I came across a witness that discussed transcripts that contradict the judge. Interestingly, allegedly the judge marked out the transcripts. But there is a witness. Basically, no judge is perfect. No judge is their "reasonable person" ghost God. And then you have to consider entropy, so things break down.

     

    What struck me as odd, however, was the proximity (the temporal location) of the contradicting evidence: between (1) res judicata and (2) the hearing. I don't think the potential exists for contradicting evidence. I think it does exist at all times. However, to have access to it, a person would have to be a judge (or perhaps court reporter). It exists in the transcripts (what was said in hearings). I came to this belief after encountering a bunch of Jungian synchronicities.

     

    This gave rise to the belief that judges inevitably contradict themselves.

     

    If you think I'm looney, then feel free to test my theory. I think I have a way for it to be tested.

     

    It seems to me, the way to test the theory (at least best) is to falsify a judge rather than using case law with other judges. That focuses the issues down a bunch, so a person doesn't have to look at case law all over the state. That basically means showing up to all of the hearings the judge has directly after the hearing a plaintiff/defendant has. If there is closed hearing, then that would generate a problem. Eventually, the judge will generate a potential contradiction between "res judicata" and the next hearing. Unfortunately, for what I seem to have come across, judges may be aware of this conundrum, thus finding a way to omit transcripts and remove evidence.

  6. My question has to do with the legal system and the court of law. I've seem to have noticed something odd about law and science. I don't know how much law all of you know. However, there is a principle called "res judicata."

     

    When res judicata is in effect, nothing prior to res judicata can be argued in court UNLESS the appeal has not expired: If the appeal can be argued, then res judicata is not effect on the appeal. However, when the appeal has expired, res judicata is in effect on the appeal (and res judicata has already been in effect on the hearing). However, I've come to the belief that the potential for evidence to over-turn that case will by necessity exist between the point of (1) res judicata and (2) the point at which another hearing occurs. As such, an individual can predict that the evidence to over-turn the case will exist between those two points.

     

    However, I've been wondering if a person elongates the time between those two points, (1) the point at which res judicata goes into effect and (2) when the next hearing starts, whether or not it will be increasingly difficult to predict when and where the evidence to over-turn the case will be.

     

    Yes, it's weird. This goes into the realm of metaphysics.

     

    res judicata = "t=0"

     

    Basically, I think I've discovered a way to prove any judge incompetent.

     

    I say potential, because it goes into what I call "the culpability problem," whereby the reasonableness of the evidence as legal evidence is debateable.

  7. Law is trivial and subjective. Perhaps there is some Aquinian (Thomas Aquinas) nature to it, but I'm not sure. I think Nature finds a way to balance things out. Perhaps this balance is best recognized of the various forms of justice that exist: Retributive, transformative, therapeutic, restorative, etc.. And the legal system falls under Nature. The one kid that killed people escaped from prison. One question is whether or not he was justified in killing those people: Well, by Nature it happened, I could argue (and do). One could say that the legal system's act (actus reus) of retributive justice against him was unjustified, which is evidenced by his outbreak.

     

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/notorious-high-school-shooter-tj-lane-escapes-prison/story?id=25446686

     

    Nature spoke. The evidence occurred. He was able to escape; but was captured after the outbreak. Whether or not the event is interpreted that his punishment is too harsh and a negative against all of society is a different story and a matter of interpretation. I reason if people say he is as intelligent as he is, the government failed (government negligence) him and is to blame. Sometimes members of the government ignore members of society in order to better themselves: This is the corrupt and fraudulent aspect of government.

     

    But in relation to the original poster, to attack someone as that person be alleged a proximate cause to some deed, why not having undergone a legal recourse first?

     

    Granted, there are plenty of people who do undergo a legal recouse, not get what they believe they deserve, and shoot people. Judges have been shot dead by people before them in their courtroom.

  8. Mmm... Well, this is definitely a language issue to a degree. I don't believe the Ancient Egyptians, Greeks, and Babylonians called it the scientific method. Before Popperian science, there was Einstein's block universe. I guess that is like arguing that science as we know it could be gone in the future. But that would require falsification of Einstein's theory of relativity (at least on a Popperian science level). The next level is that physics as we know it change (or perhaps the realm of physics is more realized than before; and that the older theories are realized as wrong). But the curious thing is if they did change, would that still be part of some fatalistic, deterministic universe?

     

    Here is definitely a question, though.

     

    What did Karl Popper mean by a "genuine test"?

     

    Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.

     

    It seems like there can be no such thing as a "genuine test" in a fatalistic universe (or Einsteinian block universe).

     

    As such, I perceive a contradiction and have increased belief in psychologism.

  9. I currently believe there are two types of politicians: Delusional psychopaths and frauds. Since I've studied philosophy, I've held the strong view that judges and many other politicians are corrupt philosophers who engage in their activities to defraud people. In other words, their goal is to "guide the truth" rather than "seek the truth." I don't believe one bit that judges care about the Truth. I believe if they cared about the Truth, they sure wouldn't be judges. That's my issue with politicians: They're not truth-seekers. You ever hear a politician mention how someone has a "choice"? Wow, that's a strong metaphysical argument. Also, spend some time reading how people don't want atheists to be politicians. A lot of it goes back to philosophical quip of "I know that I know nothing." And with that said, any wise person has no justification to judge over others other than alleged placement as an authority figure. As such, the authority figure will ALWAYS come to the wrong conclusion.

     

    Also, here is something I've been looking at: http://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_Western_constitutional_law_or_legal_theory_engage_with_Sartre_and_existentialism

     

     

    I wonder, does being a philosopher mean that you will inevitably be integrated into the studies that subordinate Philosophy?

     

    You ever been graded on a philosophy paper? Obviously the instructor has a bias. That's a somewhat satrical look at things. Yes, many philosophers gravitate toward a particular belief system yet often strongly believe it's not the truth: Many philosophers are utilitarians. You could argue that your philosophy instructor defrauded you. Philosophers are generally not suppose to let their philosophy be known.

     

     

     

    If there's a million people that one person is governing, don't you think that spending time on solving one individual issue is futile?

     

    Depends on how broad the issue is.

     

    Due to the philosophy of legal compatiblism, government agents have simply turned into violent thugs. I don't believe politicians are interested in helping society. I believe politicians are interested in helping themselves.

  10. Are false memories a common occurrence and how often do they affect people?

    Is it possible for someone's entire life, or a good portion of it, to be a false memory? Have there been cases of this ever happening?

    Thanks.

     

    Yes. Consider the brain like a hard drive with data that corrupts over time. Yes. How much do you remember about your life between ages 7 and 10?

     

    Nothing is remembered exactly the way things happened. All memories are false. Someone could argue about savants or those with alleged eidetic memory. However, I strongly doubt those people have an exact memory of things that happened. I guess this issue gets into identities. If you could recall the exact brain state you had at that space-time event, then it would be perfect recall. But then that contradicts, because during that space-time event that you're attempting to recall, you weren't taking effort to recall that space-time event at the time the space-time event occurred.

  11. I've given this all some more thought.

     

    Is Einstein's relativities science? They predate Karl Popper's falsification philosophy, for what I understand. I guess that's also like asking if Newton's physics, if his methodology of calculation can be called physics, should fall under science. Historically, I believe the answer is "no" to both Newton and Einstein. I guess it could be argued that before Karl Popper's falsification, there was the law of non-contradiction. They appear very similiar. Even then, what continues to bother me about Karl Popper's falsification is the issue of repeatability.

     

    At least, Einstein's relavitity and Netwon's mathematical principles of natural philosophy, cannot be considered Popperian science because they predate Popperian science.

     

    What is a "genuine test" according to Karl Popper? If we're working off Einstein's block universe, there is no such thing as repeatability... unless you've got yourself a wormhole and somehow watching someone repeat an experiment that you were already there to observe in the first place (but then, there appears to be a paradox).

  12. in the block universe conjecture its meaningless to have a beginning or ending the flow of time is subjective not objective, as such the arrow of time has little meaning to the illusion of time, everyone is eternal. There is no change and there is no flow of time.

    this is more philosophy than science but there is some science to it in that its consistent with SR, these artices can probably describe it better than I

     

    http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/reality_block_universe.asp

    http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/reality_mysterious_flow.asp

     

    here is a comment from a peer review paper

     

    "This block view is however an unrealistic picture because it does not take complex physics or biology seriously; and they do indeed exist in the

    real universe. The irreversible flow of time is one of the dominant features of biology, as well as of the physics of complex interactions and indeed our own human experience"

     

    http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0605/0605049.pdf

     

    personally I don't find the block universe or the arrow of time of any particular use to understanding cosmology or physics, quite frankly they are both too speculative and conjectural but you go ahead have fun with it. For me time is simply a measure of change or duration any attempt to try to place added meaning to it are just too speculative, and largely based more on philosophy than science, GR and SR can be understood without referring to the block universe

     

    I've already read those ipod pages months ago. I already get the whole "time is an illusion" issue when taking into account the block universe philosophy, as it's assumed that all space-time events already exist. My question is what's allowing all those space-time events to have their persistent existence?

     

    It could be argued that the past and future doesn't exist at all. That would mean that entropy, time, the flow of events, or what-have-you is unidirectional.

     

    As with hoola has said, I think you have a general idea of what I'm thinking. I can only hypothesize a few resolves, and one resolve is that there does exist something outside of this universe that gives all space-time events their persistence. However, I believe that would also mean that the past and future are being altered to maintain their existence within the space-time continuum or else those events would deteriorate: House cleaning if you will. I have the belief that if the universe did expand to infinity, then it would make a vacuum, and a new universe would appear. However, bringing forth the new universe is not relevant as to what I'm talking about: At least, for what I believe unless the driving force that maintains all space-time events is what will eventually bring in a new universe were a new universe to be made by all matter expanding outward at an infinite distance for which a vacuum would be made: In general, it's like osmosis.

     

    reality_block_time2.jpg

     

    Why doesn't the block universe deteriorate? What's allowing the block universe to maintain its form?

  13. I'm not sure if I explained myself well enough.

     

    In relation to Einstein's block universe, does it break down? If not, why not?

    I've read about the heat death argument. I think that's irrelevant when assuming that heat death is pre-determined and already exists as a moment in space-time. I guess I'm taking the psychological arrow of time view, whereby space-time events pre-exist but human biology works off a presentist intuition about the metaphysical reality.

     

    I guess if Einstein's block universe is a 4-dimensional object with all space-time events already existing, then does the 4-dimensional object ever break down? A rubik's cube would deteriorate with age. It would appear that Einstein's block universe never breaks down. But if not, why not? What's allowing the persistence?

  14. From what I understand from Einstein's relativity, time is eternal and all moments pre-exist. Alright, so, my next question is what allows all this peristence?

     

    I think if someone makes the "nothing is really there" argument, then there is nothing. However, at all moments in time, there is matter (Yes, it could be argued this is an assumption, as the understanding of matter may change). As such, there is something existing, regardless of energies balancing out to be zero. So, my question is what enables all of this to persist.

     

    I guess in another way, I'm asking "Why hasn't the block universe broke down due to entropy?"

     

    It's as though the universe is a 4-dimensional structure that maintains it's structure in perpetuation.. What is allowing this structure to be maintain in permenance? Does it break down? And if not, why not?

     

    Part of me considers if dark energy makes the universe accelerate, then possibly some vacuum could bring a new universe into existence with new matter. But that seems like a spring effect, thus making me consider that something has to be breaking down somewhere.

  15. The method you use is dependent on your physiology. People are turning all of into a science, though. I don't specialize in that kind of knowledge, because not only is it illegal (without a doctor aiding you), but it has dangerous potential side effects. There is a lot of hearsay on the Internet, and you may want to talk to someone who knows something about sports medicine.

  16. I'm reviewing the Theory of Everything wikipedia page, and I have this question: Can GR and QM be two separate things?

     

    The argument is that there may be something that meshes them together. However, can they be two separate things? And if so, wouldn't there be some underlying thing that enables them to be two seperate things (that itself could be argued to be a ToE, I think).

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.