Iggy

She's really good too. She's an Australian girl.... or maybe New Zealand... whatever it is, she's really freakin good.

It can't be pulled apart like that? Hum... According to you, Popper doesn't pull theories apart. He trashes them wholesale. You said this: I've read at least two of his books, so I knew that wasn't true. Rather than just saying "that isn't true", I found a relevant chapter and found a salient quote: Your statement: "we need to throw out the theory wholesale... Anytime we have a falsifying observation, per Popper, the whole thing goes out the window" is a mischaracterization of his system: "In a theory thus axiomatized... the falsification of a logically deduced statement may sometimes not affect the whole system but only some part of it" "throw out the theory wholesale" is actually the opposite of "not affect the whole system but only some part, which may then be regarded as falsified." Since the first few paragraphs of your OP are based on this premise of trashing theories wholesale I feel like it should be acknowledged before... Can I identify the mistaken aspect of the postulates of Newtonian mechanics and derive its domain of validity as a result?

The Logic of Scientific Discovery actually did a very good job of describing theories. He, for example, addressed the problem you are introducing in section 16: In a theory thus axiomatized it is possible to investigate the mutual dependence of various parts of the system. For example, we may investigate whether a certain part of the theory is derivable from some part of the axioms. Investigations of this kind (of which more will be said in sections 63, 64, and 75 to 77) have an important bearing on the problem of falsifiability. They make it clear why the falsification of a logically deduced statement may sometimes not affect the whole system but only some part of it, which may then be regarded as falsified. -The Logic of Scientific Discovery, s16, Popper In regards to the Neutrino observation, I believe the answer is yes. Were the observation verified, the consequences are well published: Furthermore, the predictions of general relativity are fixed; the theory contains no adjustable constants so nothing can be changed. Thus every test of the theory is either a potentially deadly test or a possible probe for new physics. Although it is remarkable that this theory, born 90 years ago out of almost pure thought, has managed to survive every test, the possibility of finding a discrepancy will continue to drive experiments for years to come. -The Confrontation Between General Relativity and Experiment, s7, Conclusions Don't get me wrong, I have my issues with Naive falsificationism too. Just gotta give Popper his props Another quote from the Logic of Scientific Discovery should handle that too... You seem to have mischaracterized his method pretty badly. He valued verification as highly as falsification (you learned something either way) just not as a demarcation for scientific laws.

Yeah... I am really drawn to the idea that you're consciously stimulating your sympathetic nervous system. I'm not a medical expert, so you should probably just take what I'm saying as a suggested area of research or the like. The sympathetic nervous system (SNS.. it's ridiculous to type) is the "something-is-about-to-happen" nervous system. It is the reason some people blush when they lie, the reason your hair stands on end when something doesn't feel right, the reason people in an emergency or a disaster often recount it by saying "I felt like I was outside my body watching things... like I was watching a movie". As complicated as the SNS is, it is a very evolutionarily fundamental system. It regulates our "fight-or-flight-or-freeze" response. It regulates the opossum's tendency to become completely dissociated (or "feign death" as they say) when in danger... it regulates the chameleon's tendency to change color when it senses a predator nearby, and regulates our human responses to danger and trauma (physiologically based psychology if ever there were a perfect example). So... that was probably the worst description of the SNS ever -- nonetheless, if you are willfully tapping into it then what is physiologically happening?... Your brain sends a message to a ganglion at the base of your neck. From there, messages get sent to the rest of your body where its systems are told to start acting very different. Blood vessels near the skin constrict and deeper ones dilate -- blood pressure goes up -- adrenaline levels increase (as do other hormones and neurotransmitters which can have profound psychological effects) -- the digestive tract stops working, sugar is liberated as an energy source, your instinctive reflexes can become more pronounced as the spine stops waiting for the brain to tell it what to do and starts reacting to stimulus on its own. What exactly happens, and how it feels, depends on your genetics and what specific situation you're in. If you are suddenly trapped -- perhaps your boss catches you in a lie and confronts you -- your SNS reacts. You could panic... you could become dissociated... everybody's different. But, you could perhaps imagine how it would physically feel. You would feel things in your gut, on your skin, with your heart... etc. Suddenly being frightened -- you might feel a jolt of energy which might be intense enough to make you physically flinch. If the threat is real I can say from experience that very noticeable physical things are felt in the body. Kissing someone for the first time (or similar activities ) is a dulled down example of the same system. You could blush, skin could tingle, heart start to race, butterflies in the stomach... it really depends on the person but there should be physically noticeable things. The poker table is absolutely a recipe for SNS overdrive. I've seen the hands of the most professional poker players shake. It is a primary evolutionary response and it is very hard to control. You say it feels pleasurable and that is understandable. People go bungee jumping and base jumping for the pleasure of it. So... if you recognize what I mean by all that rambling and you identify it as something very similar to the feeling that you are self-inducing then I would strongly suspect you are consciously aggravating your SNS. I do not mean that you should feel fear or excitement when you do it. I mean that fearful or exciting situations might generate feelings that you recognize as very similar to what you are feeling. There could be supporting evidence of my hypothesis. 1) does your hair stand on end or do you get goose bumps anywhere on your body when you do this, or... does your skin change color? That would be very good corroboration. 2) if someone touches your arm when you aren't looking at it you wouldn't normally flinch. But, if you are inducing this state and someone touches your arm, might it jerk as a response? 3) do your pupils visibly dilate when you do this? Those types of things (and other normal SNS responses) would support the idea.

Tingling like you would get with goosebumps? Jolts like you might feel go up your spine if you are just about to lift something very heavy off the floor? It sounds like you're describing the stimulation of the sympathetic nervous system. Being startled would give, I think, the same kind of symptoms to the average user. Actually, there is probably a lot of interesting psychology and physiology here. Let me ask what might sound weird... How would you compare your experience to a near-death experience or an out of body experience (if you know). How would you compare it to a feeling of awe, or an 'eerie' feeling... or maybe a religious trance-like state if that is something you could relate to. Uhhh... less extreme, let me think... How would you compare it to the goosebumps and the little flutter a person might get in their heart or belly with a first kiss? Without explaining why, I'm curious if any of that strikes a chord with what you feel.