*promote this technique and one of the best podcast i've discovered in the last few months.

"The Huberman Lab Podcast discusses Neuroscience: how our brain and its connections with the organs of our body controls our perceptions, our behaviors, and our health."
Also the tools to modify things you had no idea could be modified.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2D2CMWXMOVWx7giW1n3LIg

I mean, I guess you don't really need to understand how the brain works to do surgery on it. Just get the tumor out, or cut the appropriate pathways to stop epilepsy spreads, etc.

His lack of understanding in neuroscience is still pretty astonishing. Combining the ignorance with the god complex is more frightening.

There are some valid points here, but I think there are multiple interpretations to these issues and it's not so clear cut.

I'll just pick an easy one. Trigger warnings are no more a restriction of free speech then calling a movie rated R VS PG13, it's just more specific, so lets get that out of the way. Take a read of a classic like John Stuart Mills “On Liberty”. He does a great dissemination of freedom and balancing it with causing harm developing the harm principle and the offense principle. It's well thought out and addresses these very issues. There is a recognition that free speech should be regulated depending on if it causes harm. For instance it's illegal to yell “fire!” in a crowded movie theater since it could cause harm from a stampede of people trying to leave. I apologize if I get things wrong, but the following is my understanding here, but look here if you're interested. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill#Theory_of_liberty)

It's a difficult concept to define what is an act of harm. In general this is highly related to concepts of political correctness and has it's very roots in classical liberal thought. In my understanding, Mill would say not to restrict free speech in the case offense only in the case of harm. However, psychology and neuroscience make this line less distinct in caseses of trama or deep internalized concepts where we might see words leading to genuine harm of an individual, not just offense. This means that harm is less universal and depends on the individual and it leads to the idea of separating spaces based on the line between offense and harm. My understanding is the idea of rating systems, red light districts come from this. Also, now, a newer concept of safe spaces. It's easy to say that people should just suck it up, but it's not always that clear cut and there is historical precedence for this idea.

In anyone who doesn't have a split brain, left brain and right brain can share information through the corpus callosum. Right brain doesn't come up with the words, but it's happy to help you mash the correct keys, given a request from left brain.

I'm amazed I found exactly this question on a neuroscience blog :

http://www.neuwritewest.org/blog/2014/2/6/split-brains

Neuroscience research has shown that similar brain regions are involved when we think about the behavior of both humans and of nonhuman entities, suggesting that anthropomorphism may be using similar processes as those used for thinking about other people.

Anthropomorphism carries many important implications. For example, thinking of a nonhuman entity in human ways renders it worthy of moral care and consideration. In addition, anthropomorphized entities become responsible for their own actions — that is, they become deserving of punishment and reward.

Neuroscience and biochemistry yes. =)

You may not like it, or find it romantic, but it's something we can see and observe.

What evidence do you have to present?

As for science as a religion? Nah, it doesn't work like that. Science is a series of conclusions based on observations (very watered down term.) If things happen that change our observations, we change our conclusions. When is the last time something religious or spiritual changed how they think. It happens a lot in science. In a counter point, it took the vatican about 400 years to apologize to Galileo. =)

I'm not saying it can't happen. I'm saying there is no evidence to support what you're saying. Because there are processes in the brain that we can see and observe and form opinion off of.

If you have a way or process that can show some fact/proof/observations off of spirituality, I'd love to see them. It's the same thing with ghost hunters, in the history of the world and people, the answer to anything has never been ghosts. =)

@Bruti79
right on.
thanks for replying.

neuroscience is your answer in regards to consciousness eh?
how...unsatisfying.
the answer is no answer at all man.

let me try for you:
we dont know.
BUT we are making great strides in neuro transmitters and neuroscience and microbiology that it is possible that one day we WILL know.
but as of today?
we dont know,and what we dont know is a LOT.

see? better.

and your response concerning love!
breath-taking!
"We fall in love, or hate, or feel "meh" about something because of the stuff in our brain that makes our personalities"

how romantic!
ok..its not.im just being a huge ass.
in fact i am being a wicked smart-ass period.
thanks for putting up with me.

it irks me when people talk in regards to consciousness or love with a conviction that i know is not warranted.
but thanks for being a good sport about it.

in regards to type 1 diabetes.yeah...no diet is going to reverse that.sorry timmy.

maybe you thought i was trying to sell ya a bill of goods.i wasnt.
check that video out.
its a lecture by a doctor whose field is in disease and microbiology.
HE is the guy who proved that a plant based diet can reverse type 2 diabetes (not in all,but many)AND how a plant based diet can help prevent cancer and sometimes cure it.

he is entertaining,witty and its super informative.

if i didnt love double bacon cheeseburgers so much i would go vegan,but whenever i know i am eating too far on the crappy scale i watch that video and it pulls me back to reality,or the meat lovers pizza.
whatever..dont confuse me with details!

i know better than to try to get you guys to listen to my fluffernutter philosophies.
you guys are all about your religion..i mean science..yes.science!

it is all pretty exciting to me as well.
thanks man.stay awesome.

Alright,

this Wikipedia entry is a good start on the neuroscience and chemistry that goes on inside our brains when love happens:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_basis_of_love

As for the chemistry of conciousness, I'd recommend the book Neurochemistry of Consciousness: Neurotransmitters in Mind. I believe it's a free download on most readers. It's also a neat read.

It is exciting that we are those things. Because we all have roughly the same physical materials in our head, and we are all different people. The majority of us have the ability to record, interpret and recall information and stimulation, and it's all those chemicals and receptors in our heads.

We fall in love, or hate, or feel "meh" about something because of the stuff in our brain that makes our personalities. Even identical twins are still different people. That's amazing to me. The fact that we even reproduce at all, it takes a lot of work on a cellular level to even have a kid. That is amazing to me.

I have yet to see any proof that this is a god or a soul. What we can do is, look inside someone's brain and measure what's happening and what reactions we have. We can see it, we can observe and form conclusions from it.

We know that if you give a type I diabetic insulin, that insulin will act as a replacement inside their body. We also know, from the news, that if you try and think positive about getting that pancreas to work again, it fails to do so.

So, when someone says, that spirituality can cure disease, all I ask for his some hard proof. Not a bunch of hokem.

The difference here is between "punishment" and "treatment".

Punishment demands that one have an absolute and objective moral imperative . Such absolute imperatives quite demonstrably do not exist (save perhaps that the strongest tend survive and prosper which is of little use to us here)

Simply put, unless you want to invoke some absolute ethical standard such as the commandment of God, "punishment" can only ever be equivalent to forcing ones own prejudices and desires onto others. (and if you reject the existence of absolute authorities like God then doubly so)

This would be fine if we had any objective prejudices with which to inflict people, but we don't. We have only mob consensus and this is how human legal systems have worked for most of our history. The Crowd doesn't like something you did so they lynch/burn/flog/exile you for it. (pure democracy at its finest)

While naturally many dangerous and delinquent individuals are effectively dealt with in this way there is an unacceptable price. It enshrines personal prejudice in law and a great many otherwise perfectly innocent or relatively harmless individuals inevitably fall foul of this.
(much) Moreover it also demands that one accept the premise that some people are just born "bad", or rather that "criminals" are a breed apart from the rest of us. This assumption is essential if one is to justify "punishing" some and not others because you are asserting that they are inherently bad and will continue to be so. One is not concerned with improving them as a person or correcting the problem, one is instead concerned with justifying and demonstrating ones own moral superiority. "you are not like us and so we will subjugate you and inflict suffering to prove our way is the superior".

Due to the barbarism inherent in such systems many cultures have moved instead to systems based instead upon treatment of the "criminal" and protection of the victim in recognition of the fact that all humans share the same fundamental condition.
Many of the practicalities remain the same e.g. a need to segregate the perpetrator, set laws to prevent certain behaviours etc. (the need for this I think should be obvious), however there is a fundamental difference in how one deals with "delinquents".

Instead of an aberrant product of nature which must be defeated the unacceptable behaviour is instead seen as simply an undesirable/unacceptable but perfectly natural aspect of the human condition we all share.
All humans share an innate capacity for violence and subjugation, every single one of us has at some point felt the desire to hit someone etc. we only take issue with those that fail to control such impulses.
However rather than seeing this lack of control as anathema we simply see it as an underdeveloped or damaged aspect of the human condition we all share.

We must take steps to control it for the sake of potential future victims but the idea of actually "punishing" people for simply being human is to me patently absurd and backwards.
Further to that pretty much all of the modern psychology and neuroscience on the subject supports this position. There is no "criminal gene" or race, the only common factor that appears to exist is frontal brain damage (the bit that controls impulse and behaviour)

Treat them like humans and you might actually get a human out of the other side. Treat them like animals..............

Lets be clear though, I'm almost agreeing with you. The way you have used the word "punishment" is closer in some ways to my use of the word "treatment". But I've placed the emphasis that little bit more on "treatment" or rather against "punishment". As you've defined it "punishment" isn't the extreme example I have described with the term, but I did so in order to highlight the clear distinction between two positions.
Meaning is use and I don't want anyone to get too hung up on the semantics at the expense of the underlying concepts .

I understand now why you garner such hostility from other Sifters . Still at least your trying to engage me intellectually, in that respect at least you may consider yourself light years ahead of most of your brethren.

There appear to be two fundamental points of disagreement/misunderstanding here.

First if your reliance on Aristotelian Logic to attack my Dialectic argument. When I said you were using the language with which I described to counter instead of addressing the underlying concept it was to this I was alluding (not clearly enough it seems).
Philosophers (good ones anyway) have largely up on traditional Aristotelian logic as a means to extrapolate objective truth because it functions only upon linguistic syntax. The very fact that such a fundamental assertion as "nothing is true" is mutually contradictory as a prime example of this. The language we use to describe and frame the problem simultaneously limits our ability to comprehend it. As I suspect you well know deeper conceptual matters are often too deep to be fully expressed by mere syntax based language.
Instead we apply Hegel's Dialectic:

Thesis- all statements are false

Antithesis- therefore the above statement must be false and some statements must be true

Synthesis- statements can be both true and false simultaneously!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Nothing is true" is mere expression. It is a poetic sounding mantra which contains therein a deeper wisdom about the foundations of all human knowledge. You are not specially equipped to break the problem of "under-determination" as outlined by Philosophers like David Hume. God himself could appear to you and say/do anything he liked, it would not change the fundamental limits of the human condition.

How could you possibly know for certain that it was not Satan out to trick you? Satan is a deeply powerful being after all, powerful enough to fabricate a profound spiritual experience don't you think? How could you ever prove that the God you worship is not the greatest impostor in the cosmos beyond all doubt? I ask this because the God you worship DEMANDS that you do in fact worship him (and only him) on threat of divine punishment. No true God would ever require worship, let alone demand it! What kind of sick egotist are we dealing with? (the changes in the system related to that whole Jesus thing don;t make a difference here. Either This "God" started perfect or it is not what it claims to be! Past crimes count no matter what token amends were made later on)


Your not the only one to have experienced encounters with things you might call "Gods" or "Angels/Daemons". But the God I found lies entirely within and demands/threatens ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, and sets ABSOLUTELY NO CONDITIONS. It knows that all Monads (souls) will inevitably make their way back to it, and that it has the patience of eternity with which to wait.
The fundamental difference is that this God did not create the universe (an absurd answer which demands infinitely more explanation than it provides), this God is created BY THE UNIVERSE!
We are all "God" experiencing itself subjectively as it evolves teleologically towards perfection. If Consciousness is eternal then this is the only outcome that makes any sense. God being perfect and beyond all time experiences everything it is conceivably possible for a perfect being to experience within an instant of non-time. With all of eternity stretched it before it does the only sensible thing it could do, it commits suicide and returns the universe to a state of pure potential, ready to undergo the experience of evolving from the most basic "mathematical" principles to fully actualised and all powerful consciousness (i.e. back at God again). A fundamental part of this entire process is the journey from elemental and animalistic unconsciousness to fully self aware enlightened consciousness, the highest truth then is to discover that you yourself are God (at least in-potentia), not some mysterious external power.

R>=0 (R= distance between two points)



The other is your conviction that the Gospel is absolutely true and that you appear to see everything related to it and the greater human spiritual quest via this filter. I'm not going to trade scripture with you on matters of pedantry it'll take all day and get neither of us anywhere. Instead I shall focus on one key argument that undermines the entire house of cards. If the God of Abraham and the old testament is one in the same as the God of which Jesus preaches (/is in corporeal form) and further more that the Old testament is in some way a true account of his/its actions......Then the God of Abraham and Jesus is demonstrably A. not perfect and B. malevolent/incompetent.

Go ask the Benjamites or the Canaanites how they feel about this "God". Or how about the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah? The firstborn of Egypt? etc. etc.

Yaweh demands Abraham sacrifice his own son, truly the act of a benevolent creature no? And while were on the subject what kind of "God" demands a blood sacrifice for anything? Even if it was a legitimate test of Abrahams faith (a highly dubious notion unto itself) what about the poor goat sacrificed in his sons stead?
This leads into the key difference between the Gnostic God/The Buddha/Dau/Chi etc. (Esoteric) and the Abrahamic God (Exoteric).....

One merely offers the wisdom to transcend the suffering inherent in mortal life and make ones way back to union with that which we were all along. It is not invested in the material world, it is merely a higher expression of consciousness no longer bound by emergent natural laws. It never judges, it never condemns or punishes and it helps only those who are ready to help themselves.

The other demands blood sacrifices, incites genocides, sets strict rules and threatens you with damnation if you don't obey, demands worship (WORSHIP! WTF!!!!), inspires/authors deeply contradictory and difficult to understand written works (it expects you to accept on faith alone), claims to be a perfect creator of a universe into which suffering and imperfection are inherent (perfect beings do not create imperfect things) etc. etc.

I don't side with Lucifer (I think she has the opposite problem to Jehova i.e. enlightenment at all costs as quickly as possible and damm the journey to get there), but I do recognise her as the fundamentally opposing force to Jehovah/Allah out of which a higher synthesis emerges (Abraxas the Gnostic God of light, or whatever you want to call it). Jehovah represents supreme attachment to the material world (R>0), while Lucifer supreme attachment to the spiritual/mental (R=0). A wise man see's the two as a personification of the two highest drives in the human psyche and thus concepts to be transcended/mastered.
Or if you want to put your scientific head on for a moment they represent the Left and Right hand brain (all truths are relative, one can approach this from a purely psychological/neuroscience position and argue the same case just with less colourful imagery ).

Either way I regard worshipping the God of Abraham as the "one true God" to be a supreme mistake, if Jesus professes to preach that same God's gospel then following him would be a supreme mistake also. I show no fealty to torture Gods, I have more self respect than that.


For the record. I love you as much as any other creature in this cosmos but I don't pray to anything for your soul to be saved. Truly it was never in jeopardy in the first place! That part of you which lies beyond the limits of mortality will find its way back to the highest state eventually no matter what, even if it takes eons. In the mean time however I'm happy to waste a small portion of said eons arguing (I suspect futilely) with you on the internet.

(I'll get back to you on some of your other more specific points at a later point, I don't have the time or inclination to dig out the texts to make those counter arguments right now.)

^ You can make all of that make sense by simply shifting your epistemological position to the only ones which truly make sense i.e. phenomenology &/or perspectivism.

To rephrase that in less impenetrable terms:
"Materialism" (or in your case I assume "Scientific Materialism") that is to say 'matter is primary', from a philosophers POV is a deeply flawed assumption. Flawed because there appears to be not one experience in human history that did not occur entirely within the mind.
When one see's say a Dog, one only ever experiences the images and sensations occurring within ones mind. You don't see the photons hitting your retina, only the way your mind as interpreted the data.

However the opposite position "Idealism" (mind is primary) is also fundamentally flawed in the exact opposite way. If our minds are the only "real" things then where exactly are they? And how do we even derive logic and reason if there is not something outside of ourselves which it describes? etc. etc.

Philosophers like Husserl, Heidegger and Sartre' got around this by defining a new category, "phenomena". We know for certain that "phenomena" exist in some sense because we experience them, the categories of mind and matter then become secondary properties, both only existing as definitions we apply retrospectively to experiences. i.e. stuff happens and then our brains kick in and say "that happened because of X because in the past X has preceded similar experiences" or "that thing looks like other examples of Y so is probably Y".

The problem then is that this appears to come no closer to telling us what is objectively happening in the universe, it's more like linguistic/logical housekeeping. The phenomenologists and existentialists did a superb job of clearing away all of the old invalid baggage about how we try to describe things, but they did little or nothing to solve the problem of Kants "nouminal world" (i.e. the "real" stuff that we are experiencing by simulation in our minds).

Its stumped philosophers for centuries as we don't appear to have any way to ever get at this "nouminal" or "real" world we naturally assume must exist in some way. But....

I reckon ultimately one of the first western philosophers in history nailed the way out 3000 or so years ago. Pythagoras said "all is number" and due to the work of Euler, Riemann and Fourier in particular I think we can now make it stick. (yeh its turning into an essay sorry )

Without wishing to go deep into a subject you could spend half your life on; Fourier transforms are involved in signal processing. It is a mathematical means by which spatio-temporal signals (e.g. the vibration of a string or the movement of a record needle) can be converted with no meaningful loss of information into frequency (analog) or binary (digital) forms and back again.

Mathematically speaking there is no reason to regard the "signal" as any less "real" whether it is in frequency form or spatio-temporal form. It is the same "signal", it can be converted 100% either direction.

So then here's the biggie: Is there any reason why we could not regard instrumental mathematical numbers and operations (i.e. the stuff we write down and practice as "mathematics") and the phenomena in the universe they appear to describe. I.e. when we use man made mathematical equations to describe and model the behavior of "phenomena" we experience like say Physicists do, could we suggest that we are using a form of Fourier transform? And moreover that this indicates an Ontological (existing objectively outside of yourself) aspect to the mathematical "signals".

Or to put it another way, is mathematics itself really real?

The Reimann sphere and Eulers formula provide a mathematical basis to describe the entirety of known existence in purely mathematical terms, but they indicate that pure ontological mathematics itself is more primary than anything we ever experience. It suggests infact that we ourselves are ultimately reducible to Ontological mathematical phenomena (what Leibniz called "Monads").

What we think of as "reality" could then perhaps be regarded as non dimensional (enfolded) mathematics interacting in such a way as to create the experience of a dimensional (unfolded) universe of extension (such as ours).

(R = distance between two points)
Enfolded universe: R=0
Unfolded universe: R>0

Neither is more "real", they are simply different perspectives from which Ontological mathematics can observe itself.

"Reality": R>=0

I've explained parts of that poorly sorry. Its an immense subject and can be tackedled from many different (often completely incompatible) paradigms. I hope at the very lest I have perhaps demonstrated that the Holographic universe theory could have legs if we combine the advances of scientific exploration (i.e. study of matter) with those of Philosophy and neuroscience (i.e. study of mind & reason itself). The latest big theory doing the rounds with neuroscience is that the mind/consciousness is a fractal phenomenon, which plays into what I've been discussing here more than you might think.

Then again maybe you just wrote me off as a crackpot within the first few lines "lawl" etc..

I'm pretty sure dosages measured in milligrams will suffice. Pounds seem a bit excessive. Also, it's easier to be taken seriously if you seem slightly less enthusiastic about drugs. They're fun and all, but once you start talking about "real realities" it's tough not to laugh you off. If there are indeed "real realities" that we are unaware of, the necessary research is probably in physics, not neuroscience or biochemistry or whatever.

We already have some ideas about what happens in your brain during ego-loss that seem to be much less of a stretch than "real realities."

Steven Novella on Neuroscience & Consciousness at TAM6 has been added as a related post - related requested by kulpims on that post.

New Orleans was delightfully bustling with visitors when we were there in October. They had a huge Neuroscience 2012 convention in town, bringing in 30,000+ visitors, and in February the town is going to be super crazy with not only Mardi Gras, but the Superbowl!

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^shinyblurry:


You have to ask yourself, if he's willing to lie about his education, what else is he willing to lie about?
I got about 10-15 minutes in and couldn't listen anymore. I like hearing a well-(in)formed counter-argument but this guy isn't even on a high school level of scientific understanding.


Not only that, but even in the first few MINUTES he already doesn't understand the very NATURE the way the brain interprets data and information. He's spending time talking about this important ability in humans yet leaves out ALL of psychology and neuroscience and what they have to say on the subject. Guess what they have to say? So he goes on and on talking about this WORTHLESS notion of design and doesn't understand that his brain is forcing him to BELIEVE this IS TRUE! All you have to ask him to disarm him is , "Why? Why does it look designed? Why?", then watch him splutter till his brain explodes, you know why, because due to psychology you BELIEVE it does, WITH BIAS--and it goes deeper too (much how you see optical illusions, why do those appear to be optical illusions? I don't know, why does that image appear to be designed?)--he will NEVER be able to answer that question, cause quite frankly he doesn't have the education obviously needed to do so.

His entire speech was over in the first few minutes, let alone ten to fifteen. Doctor my ass, "I" could lecture him into oblivion (as I'm sure a great many other people here could too).

This is why I've watched about three of shiny's video embeds (this being a semi-fourth as I only watched enough to know it was an epic failure). They all come from Christian based scientists that have credentials from said "Universities" or "Colleges" (next to public school, these are actually a step down in your learning experience) and are woefully unexperienced, have literal no knowledge IN THE FIELD they supposedly are talking about; or even worse they do terrible even IN the topics IN their field. This stuff works wonderfully for the religious media, religious politicians, the religious faithful, BUT you never see CERN, ITER, MIT, NASA, The Jet Propulsion Laboratory (NASA's JPL), and the various host of scientific federation teams and organizations working on ALL sorts of projects. They are never together because the other side only presents LARGE quantities BUNK "science" and BUNK or JUNK "scientific" videos. They are rightfully scorned by the media and the true scientific establishment.

You have to understand that the nature of what this man was saying in his video, like what @xxovercastxx said in his post, it's complete garbage. You can't even listen to the first minutes of it because he's already missing the boat. NO ONE except for fellow Christians will come out in support of this man's argument. There will be no "HOLY SHIT, HOW COULD WE NOT HAVE SEEN THIS" moment, because the man is an idiot. While shiny will think it's just bias and bigotry at work on the part of media and "THE WORLD'S SCIENTIFIC MINDS" (that's a lot of people shiny), they'll continue to build us useful things like planes, computers, fusion reactors (2018 for the first one), rockets, satellites, medicines, gene manipulation (already here)--->cures to genetic diseases (around the corner), cars, buildings, bridges, machines, new limbs (2030-40; stem-cell research could go FAR faster depending on how much we help), never dying (this one is tricky; some say 20!, I'd say more around 30-40 years out, BUT who gets it and what happens when we do get it--it could get scary), dams, should I go on i could list ALL night and never stop--scientists have done SO MUCH for us and still do. They are literally are best chance for a better future. People like the man in video are dangerous. They cause distrust and give mis-information about the greatest men and women that live on this Earth (other than those that are TRULY selfless souls, looking out for others always). People like that create a "rot" a disease in society; it's the "depression you feel in the air here in America. I point MY FINGER at them as the cause. They WILL NOT let progress nor happiness win, they are only concerned with what they "think", and what they "think" is not right.

What will these Christian scientists make, invent, or create for humanity, to help? Dams, cars, trains, light-bulbs--no...more videos to show scientists they're wrong... What did you get taught in school?