Senior Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Prometheus last won the day on December 11

Prometheus had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

442 Beacon of Hope

1 Follower

About Prometheus

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Building statistical models for Raman spectroscopy.

Recent Profile Visitors

16856 profile views
  1. Dropping out of highschool

    Some people's youth is a terrible time, and i don't mean the usual teenage angst. Less a a case of rushing it, more like just surviving it. If the option to escape it is there, take it. @Raider5678 I don't know the US system so can't offer any practical advice. From what others say it seems the biggest risk is that you won't be gaining a safety net. If you've also lost other safety nets (friends and family) then the risk is even bigger. But your attitude is the most important thing: if you can keep your determination and avoid many of the traps life has to offer i'm sure you can follow your own path. Good luck.
  2. History Section

    Pliny the Elder was hardly being subjective when talking about the barbarians (i.e. everyone not Roman). Things have got a lot better, we just expect more now. Can there be a mythology subsection to the history forum (or can we put the entire religion forum as a subsection to mythology)?
  3. Could all diseases start with the head?

    It's sometimes useful to distinguish between necessary and sufficient causes of disease. So we'd say Mycobacterium tuberculosis is a necessary cause to contracting TB, but it's not a sufficient cause because, for instance, the number of bacteria might too small to overcome the host's immune response. Mental components are neither necessary nor sufficient for physical diseases to occur so the answer is no, all diseases do not start in the head. Which is not to say that one's state of mind isn't a factor, but you can't get TB without the bacteria no matter how hard you think about it.
  4. Here's another way to think about it. Can you imagine how this 'creator' came to exist? The creator's beginning is as problematic as the universe's beginning, you've just added a layer a complication for nothing. Maybe he didn't pop into existence from nothing, but has simply always existed. Then just take out the middleman and apply it directly to the universe. I really don't understand why people are happy with the idea of some being having always existed, but not the universe itself. Seems to me the other way round makes more sense.
  5. Was the snake a liar?

    I often do discuss such nuances in fiction: was the last thing in Pandora's box hope or deceptive expectation? was Smeagol smiling as he fell into Mount Doom ? whether the dark side really is stronger than the light side (Yoda never really answers that question). Fiction has much to offer us without being literally true. The Bible is one of the best collections of fiction and deserves its place amongst literary great works. As Hemingway put it: 'All good books have one thing in common - they are truer than if they really happened and after you are finished reading one you will feel that all that happened to you and afterwards it all belongs to you: the good and the bad, the ecstasy, the remorse and sorrow, the people and the places and how the weather was.'
  6. Better on forums than elsewhere.
  7. What are you listening to right now?

    Reminds me of this for some reason:
  8. Near death experiences ,proof of afterlife ?

    OK. So inside a cell a protein might move through the cytoplasm in a vesicle. And let's say we define consciousness as this communication. Without the protein or cytoplasm or vesicle can we agree there would be no communication and hence no consciousness? And neurotransmitters and electricity. I'm sure there's other forms too. And sight and sound and others. If i see a tiger in the trees i run very fast because tigers are detrimental to my homeostasis. My body responds by flooding my body with fight or flight precursors. We could say the tiger is inadvertently communicating via photons. My understanding is that the brain is not digital. I agree that NDEs are the product of an unconscious mind, although taking DMT can produce a qualitatively similar experience in the waking mind, hence its sinister name the death molecule. Why is imagination the product of only a conscious mind? What do you think is happening when we dream (not a lucid dream)? He most certainly does not state before that it is one indicator. His words: When the heart stops - he mentions the consequence of no blood getting to the brain, but when the heart stops all life processes go out. By the medical definition, this is not the case. Please read the article i gave before. Can you give me a time stamp on the first video when he mentions other indicators. It's so black and white. But then our side discussion with Endo was black and white yet you couldn't see that. Not when he's been so wrong about other things. It's virtually free and mostly involves testing reflexes and squirting cold water into the ear. Medical imaging like an MRI might be used as corollary evidence, but it's not needed. Seriously, read that article. When talking about kids at 5:59 he says: What do you think all means? I think he means to convey the idea that all the children had the same experience, because that's what i think all means. Again it just seems so black and white. Can you give me a time stamp on that first video when he gives percentages because i cannot find it. I'm wary of the person who thinks they suffer from no biases. Especially when they can't see that Endo was obviously referring to the supernatural, for what other possibilities are there? And this is why this is an important point, i think it belies your ideological blinkers despite your protestations otherwise. If we can't even agree on the meaning of a few simple words, how much harder will it be to agree on much more complex ideas. This is why i prefer details in this context.
  9. Chronic Pain

    Likely true, but did it inhibit their ability to reproduce? Experiencers of chronic pain are usually older, having had a chance to reproduce. Anyway, it would be irrelevant if chronic pain is some modulation of acute pain: you couldn't have the former without the latter.
  10. Near death experiences ,proof of afterlife ?

    I can agree that consciousness is a result of the communication between the trillions of cells that constitute our bodies. Can we then agree that without those cells, there can be no communication between them? When talk of a supernatural explanation was raised Endo literally said there could be no other possible explanation. If you can't see how this implies he believed in a supernatural explanation there is nothing more that i can say. But i can ask if she didn't mean supernatural, what other explanation could she have possibly been referring to? All i can think of is that it's meaning was lost in language. He quite explicitly says at (at 1.33) that doctors give the time of death as being when the heart stops. This is simply not true, for several reasons. One is practical, in expected cases a patient's heart may well have stopped some time ago but until a doctor comes around to certify it, it will not be recorded. Some doctors will ask the nurse for the time. Some doctors will put it down when they saw the patient (sometimes long time after the fact). But i admitted this was a bit of a rant: half the job of a nurse is making sure doctors do the job they are supposed to be doing anyway, and it leads to frustration, especially towards the lazy doctors of which i have seen many (nurses too, seems to be a human trait, go figure). Circulatory definitions of death are used as the definition of death, but the timing is far from precise. More importantly it's categorically not true in intensive medicine, which this doctor specialises in. Since 1968 in the USA (are you US based? this doctor is so i'll use their definitions) the medical definition of death has been brain death. This happened for various reason which you can read here: In particular, this paragraph Further to this, he quite explicitly states that a patient has died, but that because the cells have yet to decompose it is possible to bring the patient back to life. Again not true. The patient did not die. For the patient to die the process has to be irreversible (see above link). Yes, that means all those people who say that they died but came back are wrong: they were never considered dead. A doctor getting these details wrong is not sufficient grounds for being struck off alone. At best they would have to take a course in the subject. To be struck off it would need to be shown that he used his definition of death over the actual medical definition in his practice to the detriment of a patient. I might think the doctor a fool, but not someone who would deliberately harm patients. This is just the first 3 minutes of the first video: there are worse problems, which i have alluded to. His statement that death is peaceful, except for those who commited suicide and that they all report seeing a bright light, neglecting of course those who reported experiencing nothing, or experienced something completely different: cherry picking in it's simplest form. I could go on, there is so much wrong about what he is saying, but these things are probably sufficient for us to get into the details. In all this he brushes over the ambiguities of determining death, both medico-legal and biological (again see the above link, he uses the wrong definition whether circulatory or brain death), and uses his definition of death over the medical definition. He never makes that clear. He is deliberately avoiding these ambiguities to push his own agenda of what he believes. It is thus disingenuous and i stand by my statements. If anything i have said is untrue, or that i am manipulating data, please be specific. As do i. Now we both know we are not trying to insult each other let us proceed in our usual tones and not look for offence in each other words.
  11. Chronic Pain

    Evolution can be thought of a series of trials and errors. Acute pain was obviously a successful trial: people unable to feel pain usually die young. But chronic pain may be an 'unsuccessful' trial in that it confers no reproductive or survivability advantage, while not being erroneous enough to stop people from reproducing. I don't know, i'm just speculating. I think it more likely that chronic pain is some kind of biochemical and/or psychosocial modulation upon acute pain and hence the former is an inevitable consequence of the latter for some people. When i was a nurse i was thinking of becoming a pain specialist but life took me in other directions. I haven't looked into it for a very long time but the books i studied when i did though might still be pertinent: This one is a medical textbook, very detailed and expensive, but worth it if you want to delve deeply into the subject: This one is more accessible both in terms of price/availability and requisite knowledge:
  12. Chronic Pain

    There wouldn't be any changes to the genes themselves. It's possible there are changes in certain gene expressions in response to the environment, but that's slightly different. If you want to look at modulation the nervous system, including the brain, seems the best place to start. The stuff about the body deliberately simulating organ failure doesn't make sense. Ultimately though it's not a very well researched area so you are likely to find more questions than answers. Good luck.
  13. maths question

    I think it's more a question of psychology than maths. If the would be 'breaker' is picking all 4 numbers at random each time then your strategy of just changing the last digit would be fine. But would a breaker work like that? When i've tried to break into these locks i usually change one number at a time - so your strategy would increase my chances of breaking in. No idea how common that tactic is though. This reminds me a little of how best to play rock,paper, scissors: i particularly like the quote humans are predictably irrational.
  14. What are you listening to right now?

    You don't like Die Antwoord? I think you're freaky.
  15. Near death experiences ,proof of afterlife ?

    And you clearly know nothing about science. See, that was really easy, but hasn't done anything except maybe annoyed you a bit. Why don't you try to explain what i don't understand about consciousness, i might learn something. Review it again, pay attention to this exchange: Endercreeper01 claims that the only possibility to explaining NDE is supernatural. Endercreeper01 did not correct anyone who stated that that supernatural belief was life after death, and given the context of the thread can you blame anyone for thinking such? But if you have some special knowledge of what supernatural phenomena she was talking about then please do share. Edit: Cross-posted with beecee. I wasn't talking philosophy, i'm talking science. But I did share some personal experiences: if you think them irrelevant feel free to tell me why, or ignore them. What specifically was the 'false information about the time of death'? It was based on my over 10 years experience as a nurse witnessing hundreds of deaths. I've also been a part of end-of-life research as a nurse, from study design through ethics applications to implementation. I feel the experiences might be relevant to the discussion, but if not can you please be more specific as to what false statements i am making? Also, it your tone sounds as though you are accusing me of deliberately giving false information: is that true, or an artefact of text talk? Yeah, i'll admit i had a laugh at the expense of that youtube doctor, and i can see why it would offend believers in his stuff. But i reserve my right to offend people - i'll refrain from going out of my way to offend though. Yes Charon's post was informative, though i'm sure she can survive the indignity of not getting a thumbs up. What of it? Do you think it supports the case for NDEs? I think it detracts from the case. As i believe i have said elsewhere it's possible the brain is still functioning to some capacity during the death process, and even past the point when medically someone would be declared dead. Plenty of time for the brain to have dream like experiences. If with no brain there is no experience at all, this would prove the mind cannot survive the death wouldn't it?