>> ^snoozedoctor:

Airways are my business. In one review of 50 prehospital surgical airways (performed by paramedics in the Phoenix area), only 2 had meaningful neurologic function on discharge from the hospital. A "save" from a pre-hospital surgical airway is a rare event.

I'm not arguing for the procedure, nor am I qualified to, but some clarification would be helpful:


Presumably, paramedics in the Phoenix area have a range of airway management tools available, including intubation. How do you think that influences the rate of successful/useful cricothyrotomies reported in the study you mentioned?
Also, what do you mean by "meaningful neurologic function on discharge from the hospital"? Do you mean "alive"?
2 of 50 lives saved in a sample where other tools were available and the surgical procedure was used only in the most dire circumstances doesn't sound like a bad ratio to me.

Airways are my business. In one review of 50 prehospital surgical airways (performed by paramedics in the Phoenix area), only 2 had meaningful neurologic function on discharge from the hospital. A "save" from a pre-hospital surgical airway is a rare event.

>> ^shinyblurry:

You should get to a church and find out how funny it is. Demon possession is definitely real..I've personally witnessed a person possessed by multiple spirits who writhed and raved on the floor and had supernatural stregth..the evil spirits also spoke about the spirit world and their hatred for humans.


It's far more reasonable to attribute that to neurological issues rather than to believe that.... wait, you trollin?

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:

The same could be said, as Harris puts it, the best advice to a country with high infant and mother mortality, is not to burn down schools designed to teach small girls to read.

This is clearly not "just" a real world descision anymore than our basic concepts of health at an individual level


If the goal is to engineer happiness for people, then you may spend time and effort on R&D in pharmaceuticals, biochemistry, neurology (Harris' background), etc. If the goal is to achieve happiness by changing the world around us, then you may spend time finding ways to improve education in poorer countries.

There's a stark difference in which one of these you invest in; whether you find one is more achievable than the other or not.

Granted, a "perfect happiness pill" may not ever be achievable; but we already know there is some degree of success with existing medication for a range of disorders such as anxiety and depression.

In health we look at the effects of medication (anti depressant helps this; anti-biotic helps that); but we also look at the effects of behaviour (eating too much does this, not exercising enough does that). The practice of one does not exclude the other; and I can concede that you could apply the same to morality.

I'm just not confident that there is as good of a correlation between moral decisions and happiness as there is between practice and health. Therefore you can't use happiness to measure the success of moral decisions in the same way that you can use health to measure the success of medical practices.

ah my friend...
remember it was you who asked me to help you understand my faith.
and i did so openly and honestly and with the total understanding that you would wholeheartedly disagree.
were you looking for some form of evidence?
i did not promise you any.
what we have here is a philosophical discussion.
i thought that was something self-evident.
we are discussion an intangible:faith.

reading your response i am puzzled at the volume of presumption based on very little.
much of which i had already addressed.
what were you trying to accomplish in your response?
what was your intent with all this?
i have been open,honest and put myself out there because you were respectful and curious.
i held no illusions you would ever agree with how i viewed things but i did think that maybe if i shared you would at least understand where i was coming from.
and that is always a good thing.

but i have to say for someone so adamant about evidence and research you presume volumes based on little or no information.you took it waaay past what i offered and formulated your own dynamic.
and while it kind of irritates me and i dont feel i should have to point this out,
i shall anyways...just because....

1.(No, I don’t suspect that you are anti-research, I suspect that you don’t value research or the scientific method as much as people should. If you did, you would find no value in faith.)
-i already stated that when new information is gained.the paradigm is changed.of course i value research but maybe i am not as schooled as you.maybe i dont have access or was unaware of certain research.
did this not even occur to you?
then you go on to ostracize EVERYBODY who does not value research the way you do and that if we did we would find no value in faith.then my friend..you dont have the first clue about faith (which means i have failed from the get-go..lol).but has the arrogance of this statement eluded you?you are judging people based on YOUR perceptions.

2.I suspect that you don’t read many science books, if any. I suspect that you don’t follow the most recent information coming out of neural science research labs.
-now on this i will agree.your suspicions would be correct.not because i avoid them but because i dont follow them.my studies are in cultural religious history,american history,world history,US and european governments and comparative religions.(and of course art,poetry and music).
if you have some suggestions and in video format i would be delighted to watch and learn.

3.I suspect that the only research that you are primarily interested in is the kind of research that supports your pre-existing idea of the nature of reality. I suspect that you don’t actually understand the scientific method. I suspect that you’ve never read “The Demon Haunted World”.
-and you base this presumption on what...exactly? when i have clearly stated the opposite.do i need to point out that i am a man of faith who frequents a predominantly atheist web site? i have never even heard of "demon haunted world" what is it about? it sounds interesting.

4.I suspect that you don’t really understand causation verses correlation.
-ok..now you are just being snide.many religious folk fall into this trap..i am not one of them."see? there is your evidence!".i thought you would understand what i was implying.i guess i was wrong.

5.I suspect that you generally aren’t very skeptically minded and that your definition of “evidence” is loosely constructed.
-again.what are you basing this on? because i have faith? is THAT what you are basing this presumption on? i addressed this in my letter to you.

6.I suspect that you aren’t actually doing anything to falsify your beliefs. I suspect that you identify with your beliefs to the degree that if realized that they weren’t true you would feel a sense of loss of personal identity. I suspect that you value any answer, even if it’s potentially incorrect, over no answer at all. I suspect that you would rather believe in “spirit” than to disbelieve it because, as I suspect, it makes you feel good and it gives you the answer that you want.
-are you projecting? or having a conversation with a different person and sent this to me? if my beliefs (which just by using that word means i have utterly failed to convey how i view things)were proven to be false..then they would be false.i would not curl into a ball and cry like a little girl.my faith is expressed through who i am but is not integrally me as a person.my faith is neither stagnant nor static but flows,drifts and morphs as time goes on.and to say how my faith in spirit makes me feel.well you are just guessing based on little or no information.i find this particularly hypocritical of how you present yourself.you have no idea HOW i feel or how i would react if it turns out that there is no spirit.come on man..you are better than this particularly nasty nugget.

7.I suspect that you like the writings of Deepak Chopra and that you probably like movies "The Secret" and "What the Bleep Do We Know". I suspect that you have very little respect for truth and that your beliefs are more about perception rather than what can be known to be factual.
-ok.here is where you literally take the gold for presumption.deepok chopra? really?
let me explain something so we are crystal clear here.every and all of my philosophies have been hard won.while the revelations may have been a gift my understanding of them has taken me on paths and roads you cannot even BEGIN to understand (or maybe you can.my turn to assume).my wisdom has been hard won,epic battles with my own self and the world around me.scars upon scars to garner the wisdom i now hold and the path i walk is a solitary one. NOT one i read from deepok fucking chopra.
i find the sciences fascinating and consume as often as i can with my limited understanding.i wish my curiosity for these things had not blossomed so late in my life but for 12 years i have been absolutely ravenous for information and for you to suggest that somehow i avoid the truth because it may disprove my beliefs..
aw fuck you man..thats hubris times ten and just plain fucking wrong.you are painting a picture on how you perceive me and i gotta tell ya man.that person you are picturing? it aint me.
i am a poet my friend and everything i do,say or relate to is all about the truth.in everything.. and that includes..ESPECIALLY..includes..self deception.
read my poem.its right here on my page under my favorite video.my first published actually.
and you included the SECRET? for real? let me tell ya and i say this often (ask my friends who read that garbage) if i ever meet the authors, i am slapping them dead in the face.may not be the same reason you would but we can do it as a dynamic duo../SMACK.

my friend,
you state the all importance of evidence.the absolute value of truth based on facts and testable results.yet what you have done to here is base your opinion on almost no evidence nor facts.
you have judged me falsely.

now.lets move on to the questions.understand i asked them not looking for the correct answer but rather how you would respond to them.because there really is no "correct" answer,only what we know up to this point.
1.What is ego? I don’t know. I don’t study neurological brain functions as much as I wish I had the time for. The thing is, I’m not the one providing a bunch of nonsense answer about how it’s some sort of separate entity apart from myself, or that it has its own wants and desires part from my own. The burden of proof rests on the person making those claims.
-berticus could answer this more scientifically than i could and since you do not believe in spirit any further discussion would be redundant.
my stance is that the ego is who you THINK you are,not who you actually are.i would elaborate but i dont think you would respect any of my conclusions.which are mostly anecdotal and not actual evidence.

2.What is reality? From Wikipedia “Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or may be thought to be.” I would use that definition. I would also say that we absolutely can know what is real vs. what is not real by performing rigorous investigations into phenomenon that we observe and that during these investigations we use the scientific method to keep us from lying to ourselves. Contrary to the beliefs of people of “spirituality” and post-modernists, there are things that we can call objectively real and there is such thing as truth, that knowing the truth requires hardcore investigation and that once you know the truth, at least to a very high degree of certainty, you can know what is not true. By definition, reality is the collection of things and phenomenon that are real. Things like fairies, unicorns, leprechauns, flying spaghetti monsters, gods, etc, aren't known to be real, they don't really exist, they aren't a part of reality. Sure, the idea of those things is real, but those things themselves aren't.
-we dont fully know.that is the correct answer.we only know what we know by our standards and abilities to date.reality keeps becoming more and more grander and complex as we dig deeper and reveal more.this is an ongoing project and the rabbit hole keeps getting deeper.this is something that really excites and fascinates me.look at how much of reality we have uncovered in the past 100 years.dont you find it all fascinating?what was once unknown is becoming known and things never even suspected are becoming possibilities.that is just too awesome.

3.What is consciousness? It sounds as if you’re asking me what consciousness is as if consciousness is a thing. Consciousness isn’t a thing; it’s a bi-product of certain biological systems and it can be affected and manipulated by various means. It’s a collective brain state. Consciousness doesn’t exist somewhere in the universe and we’re interacting with it and even if that were true, there isn’t any actual evidence of that being the case. In humans, it is just the sense of awareness of one’s self with respect to others and of the relationship between the mind and the world that we interact with. You talk about consciousness as if it’s some sort of mystical force; it just sounds like magical thinking, attributing animal qualities to the universe. There is nothing magical or mystical about it. This notion that consciousness and the ego are somehow “outside” of us or separate from who we “are” is just a fantasy similar to fairies and unicorns. I know people that believe in actual fairies, the kind with wings, who control certain aspects of our lives. I put spirituality in the same exact camp as belief in fairies, there just isn’t any evidence that it’s actually true.
-consciousness is a subject that is still discussed in philosophical and theosophical schools.just like the subject of reality we dont fully know.we suspect and there have been great strides in understanding but at the end of the day...still dont really know.and i do not speak of something "outside" sorry if i came across that way.must have been a tad confusing for you,but consciousness is another rabbit hole.the more we learn the bigger the picture gets.which again..fascinates me.if you want to play around with reality and consciousness drop some acid,or mescaline,shrooms even and let creation melt like a chocolate sundae on a hot summers day.there are levels of consciousness and awareness and everybodys is different.theories that plants have a form of consciousness and we all pretty much agree that animals have a consciousness.

4.Who am I? I could say that I am who I define myself to be based on what information that I have about myself combined with the model of myself that is retained in other people’s minds whom I interact with and also the collective actions that I’ve taken and continue to take. It just seems like you’re adding a layer of mysticism over the nature of humans, as if there is something magical about humans over other primates, or other carbon based life forms. Again, there is nothing mystical or magical about who people are.
do you let everyone tell you how to act?
i tease...
this is a very scientific..and BORING... answer.and very,very one dimensional.but it has the value of allowing me a peek into your inner workings.so i thank you.
this is actually an exercise in self-reflection.was meant to make you think about just you and who you were for a second (mostly i get people telling me their occupation).
short..to the point..and very boring.
while we may be more self-aware than other animals i never stated we were magical beings,unless you count my faith in spirit and if thats the case...fair enough.
i am nothing special and hold no hidden secret key to the temples of delight and neither are you.i deal with everybody based on that assumption.

now lets deal with your conclusion:
1.The reason why I suspect that you are not scientifically minded is because you’re prepared to dismiss ongoing research which may or may not be conclusive but you’re willing to provide your own answers and form your own beliefs based on your own subjective experiences.
-where have i dismissed science that has been proven to be factual?or even remotely hinted i was prepared to?where are you getting this from? if i gave you that impression then i apologize because that is not how i view things.
now i shared a very personal revelation with you that i normally do not share.please do not dishonor that trust with contempt or disdain.i understand you do not believe and that is your right but at least respect my offer of something valuable to me,even if it is garbage to you.
this is why it is called "faith" and not "evidence".i did not offer evidence,i offered a revelation given to me which is where my faith resides.and all of our experiences are subjective.

2.What good are those answers if they have no basis in reality. Just because there is no definitive consensus doesn’t mean that you can substitute in your own beliefs. Doing that, in and of itself, is irrational. Everything that you’ve said that you believe in has its basis in magical and wishful thinking, not in science, even though you're using scientific terms (incorrectly I might add).
-again.this is why it is called faith and faith in and of itself is irrational.i do understand these concepts and realize their implications.and whats up with the snide remark about my incorrect usage of scientific terms? then teach me correctly..or are you one of those people that will let a dude walk around with his fly open? come on man...uncalled for.

3.If there isn’t a conclusive answer, than why make one up? The only thing that individualized answers to these questions offers to me is evidence of how scientifically illiterate people actually are. Scientifically literate and rational people don’t answer questions that they don’t have objective and research driven answers to and if they do propose an answer when there isn’t something they can be objectively highly certain of, they submit it as conjecture, a mere hypothesis, very little more than an inconclusive guess.
--again i refer to faith.i get it man.you dont have any unless it is scientifically proven factual.
and most people are scientifically illiterate.you ever think instead of calling them retards (you didnt use those words but you may has well have)that maybe you could help them a bit? maybe share some of your understanding? point them in a direction that may answer their questions?
you are kind of being a douche in this last part,i dont think its intentional,but its very...douchey.
i mean..
you ask me a question.one in which i attempt to answer based on a revelation that was given to me over 30 years ago,and THEN turn around and basically say that im making shit up and that i am scientifically illiterate.
of course i am scientifically illiterate.
i am an ordained minister and a fucking poet!what did you expect?
but i own an insatiable curiosity.
i am constantly prodding the edges of my own understanding and attempting to further my knowledge base.
but i hold no illusions that i knew everything,nor do i look down upon those i disagree with.
i view every interaction as an opportunity to learn.

as i stated earlier.
i offered my faith,not certitude.
if the factual realm of science gives you comfort and makes you smile then i say ..good for you!
and might i suggest you share this passion with others?
i do not know what you meant to accomplish with your letter to me.
its tone is far different than our other transactions and some of its content and wording has me perplexed.
you have never been presumptuous with me before nor have you taken an arrogant tilt.
yet i find both of those in this letter.
meh../shrugs..text lacks the nuances of eye to eye conversation.
and being a person who uses words often i am fully aware of their total inadequacies to express ones thoughts/feelings/dreams at times.

just know that science reveals my understanding of creation to be spot on..
every..single..time.
and if you wish to call "god" the "universe"..
feel free.it is just as appropriate.
my path may be far different from yours but i still think your pretty cool.
while the fundamentalist stagnates in his own certitude..
i do not.
i am just me.
be well my friend.
namaste.

(No, I don’t suspect that you are anti-research, I suspect that you don’t value research or the scientific method as much as people should. If you did, you would find no value in faith. I suspect that you don’t read many science books, if any. I suspect that you don’t follow the most recent information coming out of neural science research labs. I suspect that the only research that you are primarily interested in is the kind of research that supports your pre-existing idea of the nature of reality. I suspect that you don’t actually understand the scientific method. I suspect that you’ve never read “The Demon Haunted World”. I suspect that you don’t really understand causation verses correlation. I suspect that you generally aren’t very skeptically minded and that your definition of “evidence” is loosely constructed. I suspect that you aren’t actually doing anything to falsify your beliefs. I suspect that you identify with your beliefs to the degree that if realized that they weren’t true you would feel a sense of loss of personal identity. I suspect that you value any answer, even if it’s potentially incorrect, over no answer at all. I suspect that you would rather believe in “spirit” than to disbelieve it because, as I suspect, it makes you feel good and it gives you the answer that you want. I suspect that you like the writings of Deepak Chopra and that you probably like movies "The Secret" and "What the Bleep Do We Know". I suspect that you have very little respect for truth and that your beliefs are more about perception rather than what can be known to be factual.

What is ego? I don’t know. I don’t study neurological brain functions as much as I wish I had the time for. The thing is, I’m not the one providing a bunch of nonsense answer about how it’s some sort of separate entity apart from myself, or that it has its own wants and desires part from my own. The burden of proof rests on the person making those claims.

What is reality? From Wikipedia “Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or may be thought to be.” I would use that definition. I would also say that we absolutely can know what is real vs. what is not real by performing rigorous investigations into phenomenon that we observe and that during these investigations we use the scientific method to keep us from lying to ourselves. Contrary to the beliefs of people of “spirituality” and post-modernists, there are things that we can call objectively real and there is such thing as truth, that knowing the truth requires hardcore investigation and that once you know the truth, at least to a very high degree of certainty, you can know what is not true. By definition, reality is the collection of things and phenomenon that are real. Things like fairies, unicorns, leprechauns, flying spaghetti monsters, gods, etc, aren't known to be real, they don't really exist, they aren't a part of reality. Sure, the idea of those things is real, but those things themselves aren't.

What is consciousness? It sounds as if you’re asking me what consciousness is as if consciousness is a thing. Consciousness isn’t a thing; it’s a bi-product of certain biological systems and it can be affected and manipulated by various means. It’s a collective brain state. Consciousness doesn’t exist somewhere in the universe and we’re interacting with it and even if that were true, there isn’t any actual evidence of that being the case. In humans, it is just the sense of awareness of one’s self with respect to others and of the relationship between the mind and the world that we interact with. You talk about consciousness as if it’s some sort of mystical force; it just sounds like magical thinking, attributing animal qualities to the universe. There is nothing magical or mystical about it. This notion that consciousness and the ego are somehow “outside” of us or separate from who we “are” is just a fantasy similar to fairies and unicorns. I know people that believe in actual fairies, the kind with wings, who control certain aspects of our lives. I put spirituality in the same exact camp as belief in fairies, there just isn’t any evidence that it’s actually true.

Who am I? I could say that I am who I define myself to be based on what information that I have about myself combined with the model of myself that is retained in other people’s minds whom I interact with and also the collective actions that I’ve taken and continue to take. It just seems like you’re adding a layer of mysticism over the nature of humans, as if there is something magical about humans over other primates, or other carbon based life forms. Again, there is nothing mystical or magical about who people are.

The reason why I suspect that you are not scientifically minded is because you’re prepared to dismiss ongoing research which may or may not be conclusive but you’re willing to provide your own answers and form your own beliefs based on your own subjective experiences. What good are those answers if they have no basis in reality. Just because there is no definitive consensus doesn’t mean that you can substitute in your own beliefs. Doing that, in and of itself, is irrational. Everything that you’ve said that you believe in has its basis in magical and wishful thinking, not in science, even though you're using scientific terms (incorrectly I might add). If there isn’t a conclusive answer, than why make one up? The only thing that individualized answers to these questions offers to me is evidence of how scientifically illiterate people actually are. Scientifically literate and rational people don’t answer questions that they don’t have objective and research driven answers to and if they do propose an answer when there isn’t something they can be objectively highly certain of, they submit it as conjecture, a mere hypothesis, very little more than an inconclusive guess.

P.S. I agree that Freud is now useless in the light of research from cognitive sciences. The reason for this is primarily because his conclusions were based on subjective and anecdotal information.

P.P.S. In the other comment you talked about your definition of god as being all of the particles and the material in the universe, basically, you're saying that the universe is god. Why not just call the universe the universe rather than attaching something unnecessary to it. I realize that you probably like to look at it that way, that the universe is god but that really isn't necessary and in a way, it isn't very helpful either.

In reply to this comment by enoch:
do you suspect that i am somehow anti-research?
on the contrary my friend.research is the very thing that proves my premise concerning our curiosity and drive to know.the very "spirit" or essence of what i am trying to convey.
do you think that i am fearful that maybe research and a desire for the truth may prove my thesis wrong?
why would i be fearful?
i make only claims of faith not of certitude.
i hold no illusions that my faith can be certified by any verifiable means and hence a main reason why i do not espouse some hidden truth and force others to respect or believe my conclusions.
thats religions job,not mine.

let me ask you these questions:
what is ego?
what is reality?
what is consciousness?
WHO are YOU?

please do not answer with a scientific paper because none of these questions have been answered adequately.they are an ongoing investigation and there has been no definative concensus.
but they are worthy questions,maybe the most important of all questions.
i guess that is relative.
i find them to be very important questions and the answers on an individual basis reveal much about that person.

ps:freud was a cunt.avoid using him as a basis for the ego.his work concerning that particular dynamic has already been eviscerated.

>> ^Sketch:
I think this needs to be in my playlist for the discussion alone, but also as a prime example of how the brain can easily misfire. I once had a salvia trip where I was absolutely certain, and despondent, that I was trapped in an insignificant, utilitarian corner of reality as a kind of giant roller stamped down every moment of existence on top of me and then passed me by. When I came out of it I was emotionally drained and relieved. I certainly do not still believe that time and space is actually rolled out, and I certainly don't call my experience "testimony" for anything. This man has done nothing but misinterpret imagery from his own temporarily broken brain into something far more meaningful than it was, and then told everyone that his experience was true.
Do a lot of people come up with this same imagery when they have similar situations? Absolutely! When your culture is super-saturated with religious imagery (particular religion dependent on region and parenting, of course), then it's not a stretch to find it seep into one's subconscious mind and present itself in delusional visions during such extreme neurological events.


I think there is probably a bit of difference between tripping out on drugs and thinking that the Universe is trying to destroy you and having an experience where God comes to you, heals you on every level to the extent that your life is profoundly changed, and then proceeds to review your entire life with you before sending you back to your body. He explains all of this with an uncommon clarity..doesn't seem like it was a fever dream to me.

I think this needs to be in my playlist for the discussion alone, but also as a prime example of how the brain can easily misfire. I once had a salvia trip where I was absolutely certain, and despondent, that I was trapped in an insignificant, utilitarian corner of reality as a kind of giant roller stamped down every moment of existence on top of me and then passed me by. When I came out of it I was emotionally drained and relieved. I certainly do not still believe that time and space is actually rolled out, and I certainly don't call my experience "testimony" for anything. This man has done nothing but misinterpret imagery from his own temporarily broken brain into something far more meaningful than it was, and then told everyone that his experience was true.

Do a lot of people come up with this same imagery when they have similar situations? Absolutely! When your culture is super-saturated with religious imagery (particular religion dependent on region and parenting, of course), then it's not a stretch to find it seep into one's subconscious mind and present itself in delusional visions during such extreme neurological events.

Jesus. What an astonishing story. Being autistic, it's hard not to ask the question... What's the neurological distance between me and her? Godspeed, madame. I'll buy your novel.

found a paper published in a neurological journal about fluoride. I can't read the damn thing though.
http://www.mims.com/Page.aspx?menuid=pubmeddetail&pmid=medline10n0113%5C4339152.xml&h=sodium+fluoride
titled

"Effect of sodium fluoride on the uptake of serotonin by human thrombocytes and on the aggregation of human thrombocytes.
"

>> ^Psychologic:

>> ^criticalthud:
>> ^Psychologic:
>> ^criticalthud:
Seismic activity has increased
Source?

http://www.detailshere.com/earthquakeactivity.htm
and google "poles shifting"
we are looking at trends of course. and theory...ie: probability.

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/increase_in_earthquakes.php
It depends on where you look or who you ask. I could see higher sea levels affecting plate tension, but the end effect is unknown. The quake off the coast of Japan has likely been building tension for several thousand years, so it's a stretch to blame that on climate change.

As far as the poles shifting, that isn't new. They always move around at varying speeds and have even flipped entirely multiple times in the earth's history.


yes yes, of course this has always gone on. moreso with a younger planet, finding it's equilibrium. But we're looking at recent trends and recent changes to the ecosystem. recent increases that coincide with recent changes in other areas. that's all.
i'm not saying there is a definite correlation, i'm only saying that probability suggests that there may indeed be a strong correlation.
science is all about making hypothesis based on probability, then sorting it out from there.
i'm no geologist. i do neuro theory. however, any change in neurology requires that the whole system adapt, no matter how small the change is. and some aspects of the whole (the neurological aspect) create far more change to the whole than other aspects, regardless of relative size.

Another reason why I think he has schizophrenia rather than bi-polar: he has his kids with the porn stars and him. Even when they party! (Although, I must admit it could be bi-polar as mania can get REALLY bad accompanied by psychotic/hallucinatory type situations and grandeur; and this happened after a binge...)

The porn stars have even said publicly that the children don't belong there. Charlie sounds like he's having some disconnects with reality. Most likely due to drugs (which is why bi-polar is popular, because of it's typical "self-medicating" issues, but this isn't self-medication as that entails that there is a lacking in mood, and Charlie never seems depressed. Plus during the interview he said he was clean for quite sometime; he didn't sound like it.

This all sounds like schizophrenia (if it is bi-polar, I'm guessing it's more drug related than anything else, due to his own words): ranging from psychotic, to normal, to semi-delusional or completely delusional; the drugs would increase the effect and also create more issues if the use is heavy. I personally think he's created this psychotic, semi-delusional state most likely from the "hardcore" drugs (his seven rocks, and self created non-terrestrial based logic). That stuff is like a Vulcan mind meld with a potato if you use it non-stop; it'll force your mind to neurologically connect itself in all sorts of ways it shouldn't. That's assuming there isn't some damage in there (like plaques, causing shifts in personality; that's a determination only the closest to him, or himself, can make).

I like how he sues Warner Brothers for firing him. The other actors on the show should counter-sue him.

There's a reason why Donald Rumsfeld won't give this a straight answer: lizard people are neurologically incapable of lying. THINK ABOUT IT. (damnit, Louis CK made the same joke later in the clip...)

and the answer is: because i work in the field, somewhere in the middle of alt treatment and mainstream treatment. i'm quite mainstream in many parts of the world, alt in others. it's really pretty stupid.
i work mostly with fairly severe spinal issues. i'm particularly fond of somatic theory, from a structural perspective, and i practice and teach manual therapy utilizing a neurological approach focusing on rotational distortion. On the whole, what is often dismissed as alternative in treatment turns out to be the most innovative, that pushes mainstream treatments into new and more effective territory. "Touching" a person was pretty out of style in the accepted medical practice until late, -- PT's are actually starting to get a clue.

i'm quite aware of the fluff that is out there, the weird, the barbaric, the hippy dippy, the downright stupid. both the alt side of things, as you might define it, and the mainstream side of things, often fall into these categories. There are however, powerful lobbies that make one form of treatment more acceptable than others.... Big pharma is insanely powerful, and insanely profitable... we're drugging our kids for fucks sake.
and lets put it this way, the profit margin is very small in what i do. it's just too time consuming and labor intensive.

And while the business side of things has thoroughly poisoned mainstream medicine, there tends to be more, but not necessarily all, of "alt" providers, who purposely shy away from it. we'd all be better off in a socialist medicine system that was not for profit. In every socialist system, some form of what i do is commonplace, mainstream, accepted science...goddamn common sense.
anyhoo..., would you like some figures on iatrogenic death?

I worked in an acupuncture clinic for a bit, mostly treating cancer and HIV. The acupuncture was most effective for treating nausea, pain, and other symptoms that came with the chemo.
In china it is combined with herbs to treat the cancer. I don't know the success rates. i know they take their acupuncture very seriously, and very scientifically... and western docs are starting to wake up to it.
For chronic pain issues (back, neck, pain) etc...i probably bat somewhere in 80-90%. That destroys mainstream. I'm an anomaly, but i shouldn't be. more talented people should be in this field. and being able to spot and work with spinal issues at young ages would save billions of dollars in lost labor, workers comp, SSI, medical expenses, drugs...a shit ton of pain and suffering.

foresight. preventative medicine.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing, I'm arguing because you seem to think "alternative medicine" is superior to medicine. What point are you trying to make about chemotherapy, exactly? In many cases it's a very effective treatment. Do you know what the success rate of, say, acupuncture is for treating cancer? How about therapeutic touch? Or chakra realignment? Or ground turtle shell? Or homeopathy? Or vitamin megadosing? Or evening primrose oil supplements? Or magnetic wristbands? Nil. Nothing. No demonstrable effect. And there's a reason for that. There is no alternative to medicine. There's medicine, and there's "crap that doesn't work".
You're right that the major difference between scientific medicine and "alternative medicine" is the degree that it is run purely as profit generating business. Except that you have it completely the wrong way round. "Alternative medicine" has no chance of curing you, and costs money. Medicine has a chance of curing you, using products and medicines backed up by science, and costs money. I know which I'd rather go for. "Western medicine" (as you call it, though you should note that the practice of science-based medicine isn't limited to the Western world, thank goodness) is interested in cures because the effective interventions are the ones that get used, thereby generating income. It's only in the field of "alternative medicine" that "crap that doesn't work" can be sold for a profit without anyone ever questioning it. If a medical intervention or treatment doesn't work, the scientific method roots it out eventually, but tellingly there is no such self-regulatory framework in place when it comes to "alternative medicine", and the practitioners don't care.
Put it this way: if it were true that science-based medicine didn't "know their ass from a hole in the ground" when it comes to chronic pain then what the hell would make you think that the pseudoscientific bullshitfest that is "alternative medicine" would stand a chance at solving the problem?
>> ^criticalthud:
alright there. not really getting the gist of the statement, are you?
you're arguing for the sake of arguing.
do you know what the success rate of chemo is for curing cancer? pretty much the same as not having it
back surgery? the same
there's plenty of crap out there, and no "medicine" is immune from it. the one major difference between what is labeled as alt and what isn't is the degree that it is run purely as profit generating business. Do you get it? western medicine isn't necessarily interested in cures. doctors might be, but the biz side of it ain't. it's quick fix, in and out, write the latest scrip that has been peddled to you by big pharma, and do the treatments and tests that you are allowed to do by the insurance company.
western medicine doesn't know their ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to chronic pain, because treating something that typically has it's roots in the structure of the body isn't profitable.

>> ^MycroftHomlz:

As a physicist, I am utterly confused how quantum mechanics plays a role in determining random differences between humans. I think probably chaos is more at work here.
It seems like the rest is conjecture. Even twins sometimes turn out very different. I highly doubt that two people with different genetics when subjected to the same environment and conditioning will arrive at the same end state. There are just way too many variables to assume that that is always true.
>> ^kceaton1:
...True, free will has and will always be an utter joke. People claim they would not do something in someone else's shoes, but if you impose the same biology and conditions--YOU WILL do EXACTLY the same thing (except for random quantum mechanical variations). In fact when it is said and done your mind will be indistinguishable from theirs...



Well to be honest when I wrote "quantum mechanical fluctuations" I'm talking about extremely small scale instances that get "measured" slightly differently (I explain a tad further down below). As particles have a pesky nature of doing two things at once or being measured somewhere else than expected or acting different than expected--it's even been shown to a limited degree that quantum mechanical effects like the dual slit experiment, entanglement, and superposition/duality may have some large scale implications (large scale meaning, the size of a few atoms or a molecule). Anything that would have large scale influences would have to be akin to "The Butterfly Effect". Repeating an event over ,as far as we know, can't be done "perfectly". Hence, the only reason I said fluctuations--yes, folks they would "most likely" be incredibly negligible. Give it 10 billion years then we might have something to talk about (like the small-scale setup at the big bang basically determining the layout and setup of the Universe as we see it now).

Second, what I mean by "wearing someone else's shoes", is to show that that this line of reasoning is impossible as we understand physics and neurology. In my opinion it also shows a very large lack of empathy or understanding in someone. At the least they do not have a good grasp of multiple subjects and how they interrelate; especially concerning the sciences.

I'm saying we would take whatever constitutes "the soul" and stick it in the baby. From my understanding and point of view, as I don't believe in a magical source of self that exists at any level. This would mean, literally nothing changes. Then let things go from there; this really is a time-travel experiment. This is a ludicrous idea. Experience and time, what we face and our decisions, our neurons and their connections and the chemical composition and topography of the brain IS our soul. If you switched places, you WILL be that person; as you don't exist. In your example the other twin would have to literally occupy the exact time and space as her twin--which can't happen; it's untestable. It's a thought experiment. Quantum mechanics would by definition require some changes to occur if "the test" is possible to be created by us--we would change things by interfering in any way.

Only someone religious could ever find a separate or different answer.

I'm talking of a literally switch not a philosophical attributed example (like religion) or a biological test and study of nature/nurture. It is ludicrous, as everything we know about our psyche shows that we experience reality as a type of delusion (practically the only way to describe our reality, psychologically speaking) which can be changed by a great many factors (your biology, drugs, or any interaction). When we communicate to each other (and this is what makes humans so important on Earth and different) we are able to communicate and describe across that sensory and brain created "delusional" void. What can and does get across IS also immense: our experiences, our own point-of-view, our senses, our own delusion. Then we can compare and make a determination of what constitutes reality by ourselves or in a group. Even if someone is high or I should say using anything that will change perception or alter senses, they/we can tell that there is a change through internal logic and experience a new "delusion" or perception. Some religions see this as a way to communicate divinely or likewise; i.e. examples like Native Americans and peyote. It's THE supreme attribute and ability we have as humans as well as "old world" monkeys. They seem to also, "possibly" grasp this "void" and how that barrier can be crossed too. A VERY limited version of ours, however.

We have found ape fossils that suggest that there may've been apes in the past that had I.Q.s in the 300 range. But, without the ability to teach each other, in a very complex manner, they were useless and died off. The fact we can retain old knowledge and teach and re-teach, write it down, save it to a drive, etcetera is the reason why we prosper with a smaller I.Q..

I hope that's much clearer. Or at the least helps. Some is meant for general consumption by others.

/One thing. If you're a physicist as you say, please tell me you don't think "chaos theory" or something akin to it, works on any other level than "maybe" (as we don't know yet) the quantum mechanical level. Everything that is bigger than a particle has very straightforward understandings. Otherwise, we'd have nuclear reactors blowing up everywhere, planes falling out of the sky, etc... Even people would start doing things "for no reason" except: well chaos theory made me do it. If you're talking merely about small-scale interactions still bigger than an atom, then still if you had the detectors, math, and "layout" ready beforehand you'd be able to "predict" an amazing array of things.

The only reason it seems chaotic is sensory and theory deprivation. The main forces of physics (weak/strong/electromagnetism/gravity/pluswhatwefind) describe actions very well. Especially, when we build it.

//Sorry, I think that may be a little too adversarial, but chaos to me is just a lack of "x"--whatever your dealing with.
///Lastly, (a bit more about above) the brain is amazing, but I definitely know I do not even come remotely close to being able to claim I've made a choice due to free-will; modern psychology is starting to understand that this is a fallacy of perception--The Matrix got one thing very right (as much as I hated the second and third shows, THIS was a great line that bears repeating and understanding): It's not the choices that we make that should surprise us, it's why we made the choice in the first place. Free-will is used best with LOTS of pre-planning and thinking ahead; most choices are made for you already. Understanding the way the human brain is doing the stuff it's doing is showing us that "WE" or "ourselves" have a great ability to take horrifically misunderstood or saved-sensory information and make it fit what we want it to fit. It's our rational ability that is the amazing and saving grace for us, or we would ALL be truly mad and lost in our own delusional worlds--each person seeing the world immensely different; like people with illnesses/on drugs/ or having a true mental illness do.

It should be noted that other people can also act like drugs, illnesses, senses, and other type affects on you. Hence, religions do very well at self sustaining belief and manipulation; this goes for all group-think.

A bit long, but this is a subject that I'm impassioned about and I do hope some take it to heart and understand it's implications and ramifications as they're far reaching. It has brought me great peace to know I found some truth in this life. I also have peace in what I would say is my spiritual health (psyche, but more general--including memories and thinking). Losing faith with nothing to use is an extremely disheartening event; I know. Science and understanding helped me transition immensely. I know many others that did not have this to use; I'm not kidding when I say that all sciences and math comes to me easily--many I know don't have this ability. It caused me to fight lies, fear, misunderstandings, and ignorance with patience and the ability to never give up. Truth has one great quality in that it is a lot like water. It finds every nook and cranny on a rock. It goes everywhere and ultimately will collapse and destroy anything that isn't waterproofed and all it needs is time. Ideas are the same, but truth is like water. If you find someone that is willing to at least ask a question of you, that is the half way point. Point them in the right direction and time will cause the change, but they must be curious, steadfast, and ready to question the questions.

Adults are the most lost. With my understanding of the human mind it makes perfect sense why they are the hardest to change. It may eventually be shown that it's impossible to reach everyone, physiological and psychologically speaking. Their own neural pathways and memories literally make it impossible for them to make that change or escape their own delusion, their current mind/brain has no way physically to do it--maybe with drugs or surgery--extreme, I know, but this also goes for chronic depression, mania, and SO MANY other type of conditions.

/Wow, that covered a lot of ground--heavily edited in a few spots for better clarification or expansion of a notion that needed some meat to be understood correctly. Tom Cruise is a moron who may be like what I said in the last point (unfortunately). I hope this is more informative than derisive as some points will be no matter what.

WARNING: Meant to be long and informative.