I was using Google to do some research on the big bang, and I came across a promising looking site, All About Science. The creators of this site have worked very hard to make it look like a legitimate science web site. But it doesn't take long to realize that this is just more Creationist Woo Woo.

I am getting so fed up with all the blatant lying in our society, from the oil companies spending billions to discredit, or obfuscate the science of global warming, to the political lies we see in corporate funded slam ads.

I wish we had a liars' list for all these charlatans. They call it freedom of speech, but it should be illegal! Anyone have any ideas to help expose the hypocracy?

Views: 96

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

@Michael
Do they play the video game recently after sleep, or at about the same level of rest as before the sleep? (about 24 hours later)
Do they go through the exact same routine leading up to the game play?
Did they go through that routine for days ahead of time so that it's kind of the 'norm' by the time they began the study?
Are they given more than one task during these intervals? If so, is it always the most recent task before sleep that dominates the dream?
Anecdotally, for me, it usually is. I was playing an old Zelda game last night before sleep and had a dream about a similar game, with different controls, rules, goals, but clearly the same genre, and with no better graphics. ;) I ask about all these things because they all could be contributing factors to improved game performance. The person has also had plenty of waking time to process what they've played in the game as well. Either they're freshly rested, which should improve cognitive ability, or they've had a day to think about the problem, even if it's not the primary focus of their attention. As a result, i doubt that it can be said conclusively that dreams had anything to do with working out the problem at hand. The interruption to a train of thought that sleep provides may be the reset someone needs to pursue a different line of thinking instead of getting stuck in the same approach they might have cornered themselves in before sleep.

The brain is a processor of information. As said by Sagan, 'the simplest thought like the concept of the number one has an elaborate logical underpinning.... the brain has its own language" Modern microelectronics share this characteristic. We have memory, logic processors, inputs, and specialized subprocessors. If research is to be done, computer engineering might be a good place to draw hypotheses from. I know it's a side note, but. :P
It could also be invisible fairies sprinkling dust in my nose, but I have no proof of that. The default position is that it is a natural process, like everything else observed about the universe. To make the assertion that it is equally likely that it is an immeasurable supernatural force that causes the neurons to fire has no evidence and amounts to an argument from ignorance. (the logical fallacy, not the insult ;) )

There has been a lot of research done on brain state, both waking and sleeping. There are many, many brain states, but to assert that it is more than a natural process is no different than a god-of-the-gaps argument.
reread my post for your answers, i think you missed the point and shouldn't have all those questions. Or read about it and don't just make assumptions and spout off neurological bull.
What assumptions did I make? I did ask questions, but that was specifically to avoid assumption.
Also, what neurological bull? If I were to build a microprocessor on a completely different principle than binary logic gates, it would still be a microprocessor. If someone who has never seen this processor now had to reverse engineer it, it would still be a processor. If someone said that it is so different that it must not be a processor or it must have a soul or a metaphysical purpose, it would still be a processor. If I eliminate the electrical activity in the brain, it ceases to operate, same as a processor.
"The default position is that it is a natural process, like everything else observed about the universe. To make the assertion that it is equally likely that it is an immeasurable supernatural force that causes the neurons to fire has no evidence and amounts to an argument from ignorance. "

This is kinda funny that you use (default position). Often i find many people just take the default opinion of things, without thinking for themselves. I don't think i would say it is a supernatural force when discussing consciousness. maybe this is a problem with science and explaining why the brain works like it does. To many scientist if they can not explain it they just say, I don't know what it is but i know what it isn't.

Frankly i dont understand why this is such a touchy subject. Maybe it is the misconception that people think consciousness is linked to a soul, and many of you think the idea of a soul was invented by religion and has something to do with the afterlife.

I hear the argument o well it's just a natural process the brain creates the idea of consciousness. I have read a great deal of articles and talked to many scientist about there studies and many of them are inconclusive. A good scientist will never rule out any possibility.

I have read somewhere on here that many think consciousness comes later in life and is taught, or your brain makes it up to cope with all the information. I tend to think, based on research that consciousness comes first and is always present and one day can be proven to be natural in every living being. I also think that arguments against consciousness look at the facts wrong and use unreliable studies to prove it doesn't exist.

Take the brain dead or the coma patients or the mentally handicapped. Just because their brains are not processing the information right does not mean that their sub-consciousness or even conscious states are corrupted as well. I have a friend with a speech problem and a friend who has dyslexia. they both tell me that in their heads they have it right but when converting it into speech or writing, it comes out backwards or all jumbled up. May sound out there but you have to open your mind to the possibility and read both sides of the argument. never just write something off based on others research. Most science can and has been proven wrong on some scale. neurology is just one of the new fads that create great theories in explaining the mind, While many are right on, I will stick by we have a long way to go before we understand consciousness.
So what you're describing is a subprocessor, like in the case of dyslexia the one that would control speech or writing, malfunctioning, while the central processor is not affected. That would leave someone able to think clearly, but with a hard time verbalizing their thoughts.
I would agree that we have a long way to go before understanding consciousness, but to disregard neurology as a fad ignores advances in brain-machine interface. People have learned to communicate through a computer with thought alone, and have regained some sight even though their optic nerves were useless through direct interface with the part of the brain that controls visual interpretation. If a brain is physically altered, the personality can be changed. Recently an experiment was done showing that interfering with a part of the brain just above the right ear altered the ability of the test subjects to experience empathy. This is all evidence, not to be ignored.
If I can't write something based off of others' research, then I have to start from scratch, which if applied to science uniformly, would have slowed progress throughout history immeasurably.
All true and i never stated that neuroscience can not help us with the function of our brain. explaining consciousness by means of neuroscience is what i find im[possible at this present junction. I have read the research about altering motor skills and disrupting emotions, but does this change who you are inside and out. many claim the inside is the same as the outside, but it never is. people are always someone else inside their minds as to what makes it to the surface when interacting with people.

I don't think using your own research or starting over someones research to take a new direction would slow down progress. there are a great number of scientist who start over just to make sure that the findings are right.
So what are you defining as consciousness? Are you referring to self-awareness?
The reason it's touchy, by the way, is that this feels exactly like the common theist argument "We don't know for sure, therefor God". Similarly, this feels like "I don't think neuroscience will get it soon, therefore woowoo."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-FaXD_igv4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-8-Yxdphsg

Above are the kind of concept that it appears to me you are putting forward (both from Deepak Chopra)
While a good scientist will say something is possible, it is also a good scientist that will use Occom's Razor along with the default position to rule it out unless evidence is found to the contrary.
sadly it really cant. At least not right now.
Yes .. Singh. The libel laws here are in a bit of a state!
Hitler had ideas on how to get ride of them as did Stalin and many others. We just have to combat them with sound science. Which is sometimes hard to do because science itself can be misleading and confuse people. Even people who think they understand science dont look at the bigger picture or jump to quick on a solution that may be wrong. You will never reach everyone but you dont have to. Society works in a massive state of awareness. Once you break through to a large enough body of people the rest will follow.
.. tipping point and all that.

RSS

Events

Services we love!

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service