*brain

charliem - you've exactly hit on the problem with this "moral question", though in a way I believe most folks would never think of.

I remember the first time this I heard this about twenty years ago. My immediate reaction was yes on 1, no on 2, because if I flip the track switch there is an overwhelming likelihood the train will follow the secondary track and kill one person, but in the second scenario, there is no such guarantee. Every time I've pointed this out to the questioner, they try some hand-waving physics to convince me that it will work, but ultimately fail. And I'm convinced that the vast majority of people also understand this - that there really is no guarantee of derailing the train by pushing a fat person onto the tracks - and that is why most people respond the same way.

This is a very old "moral dilemma" question designed to elucidate human nature, but as charliem points out, it is completely false and thus completely invalid.

The questions are invalid in terms of interpreting the answers of respondents. On the other hand, using it as a means of probing the neurological basis of morality with fMRI is probably useful, since the relevant systems will likely be engaged regardless of the physical anomalies.

@hatsix
you tend to speak in absolutes.

Yes, I work in the field, studying, practicing, teaching, and researching for the better part of 12 years. I am now looking the relationship of structure and health through the balance of neurological space in a fluid system.

Not one single modality out there has all the answers, PT included, but there are nuggets of value in every modality. Psychologically, we tend to focus on the distinctions in modalities, but the true value lies in the commonalities.

@hatsix
sure, Chiro is western as much as osteopathy is, but in the general scheme of things, somatic practitioners in the west are considered "alternative" health care. Chiro is good for acute subluxations. Poor for chronic. Most acute subluxations are however a result of a chronic misalignment that has suddenly become acute.

as for, homeopathy. quackery perhaps, but it also operates under the same exact same premise as vaccinations: "like cures like".

PT's operate under a principle of "strong vs. weak" muscles in assessing structure and prescribing treatment. Their general bent is to "strengthen" the weak muscles in order to stabilize the problematic joint. The problem with PT and any other therapy that is primarily concerned with relative length in contractile tissue (muscle and fascia), is that contractile tissue is a "reactive" system in the body rather than control. The control lies within the neurology. PT has thus been shown to be of limited effectiveness.

and, btw, the garbageman has done more for stopping the spread of disease than the doctor.

roughhousing = stress factor
a stress factor places a demand on the neurological system, which then adapts.

over-roughhousing your kids when they are at they're squishiest, also can leave them with a permanent physical impairment.

I still hate math...and now I hate brain neurology because I know I'm not going to remember these neat tricks.

Jesus H Christ man.

If you can imagine this. Maybe you cannot because you lack any psychedelic experience. You take twenty sugar cubes of LSD. It comes on quick because you are taking a heroic dose,so in maybe ten minutes you feel it. Say you did that? You would trip HARD for a couple days maybe. Maybe a week. You would never get anywhere close to where DMT takes a person on one toke, in ten minutes. LSD is also a tryptamine like DMT, in fact LSD is a much more complex tryptamine.

So, you tell me. Why is it that after that first toke it takes seconds to pass the blood/brain barrier like sugar? Seems to me, that there is a neurological function for this experience, which would also cater to the fact of why it is so heavy. Forget the fact that you are going to feel like you are dead, that you have literally been killed, maybe that is what makes it spiritual; we live in a reductionist society as you clearly believe. Forget all of that. Why is it that this molecule is so far and beyond the other tryptamines, that one instantly goes into a trance? That is first and foremost. After scientists figure out that one, then they might be intrigued by the fact that the imagery is otherwordly, the sound are otherwordly that the experience is otherworldly. Again, no one knows why or how. But, for you. YOU SHOULD JUST SHUT UP AND DO IT

the very act of standing erect - and going from quadriped to biped, demanded massive neurological adaption and compensation.

So your saying that I have gained the whole world and lost my soul because I seek to understand the meaning of existence without the bible? Since you can't show that I have a soul, I think that is a good trade! Joking aside, quoting scripture to me is a pretty useless thing, why would I care? We are talking science, and since we are talking about science, and the bible isn't a science book you are just quote bombing with no real usefulness, your knowledge of scriptures that pertain to your own believe structure aren't very useful in a conversation with others. It would be like me quoting the Koran to you, why would you care?

The topic of the video is what academics think about God. And when they're talking about God, they are really talking about the Christian God, so it is relevant to the conversation.

I don't know what you just don't stay out of science threads, it is obvious you have no respect for it, and all the advantages in life you that gain because of it you just toss aside with a mental gymnastics that should earn you a gold medal. You have no moral problems with using the technology that science creates while simultaneously saying we are twice as damned because of our pursuits.

Psalm 19:1-3

The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.

Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge.

There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard.

I don't have any problem with science. I think the exploration of the creation reveals the glory of the Creator, which is something I highly esteem. I only take issue with the hubris of men who exalt mans position in the Universe over God. It's kins of like that joke..

"God is sitting in Heaven when a scientist says to
Him, "Lord, we don't need you anymore. Science has finally
figured out a way to create life out of nothing. In other
words, we can now do what you did in the beginning."

"Oh, is that so? Tell me..." replies God.

"Well," says the scientist, "we can take dirt and
form it into the likeness of You and breathe life into it, thus
creating man."

"Well, that's interesting. Show me."

So the scientist bends down to the earth and
starts to mold the soil.

"Oh no, no, no..." interrupts God, "Get your own dirt.""

As for evil, what I do see is a time in man that we are finally closer to understanding and coaxing human nature away from immorality with science. We are starting to confidently grasp the physiological, neurological, and chemical elements of our existence that determine our behavior. And for many decades now, medical science has been helping people of all faiths with very measurable success rates in problems that in the past were relegated to prayer and usually suffering followed by death (god left infant morality rates much higher than science and technology has).

What's different in the world? 30 thousand people starving to death every day in a world that has a 70 trillion dollar GDP. The inequity in the world today is greater than at any other time. Most people aren't aware, and don't really care about anything which is happening outside their limited sphere of interest. There is no actual difference between the man of yesterday and the man of today. If anything, he is even more corrupt than ever.

As far as infant morality rates, God didn't create the world like this. It became this way because of sin.

It is important that you don't think I hate religion, but maths are what enabled Newton to formulate his theories, not bible calculus or some methodology set forth from the bible...it was all Newton and his brain. Religious value is at best intangible is what I mean, the fruit of Newtons efforts are entirely repeatable without any religious interactions at all.

It doesn't really matter if you hate religion, it's whether you love Jesus that is important. Did you?

Newton gave the credit to God, and said all of his inspiration came from Him. The value of his faith in God was very tangible to him, and the fruit it bore benefited all humankind.

Your 2 most important questions are also not only answerable with scientific inquiry, but also not really the 2 most important questions.

What scientific inquiry will answer them?

There are no "most important questions", only questions a specific person find important. I personally obsess over knowing "Truth", others just care to know how things work mechanically, others still to be a good father or wife or husband, others still how to cure global poverty...all of these quests are good, and all have answers that can be found outside biblical answers. Not to mention that most of the Christian world has vastly different ideas even though they read the same bible. So while you think your are quoting universal truth at me, Christians are as dis-unified in their believes as to make me question your main thesis of the "2 questions"; I doubt any significantly large group of christian's actually shares that those 2 questions alone are the most important 2 questions in a christian's life.

The vast majority of Christians have agreement on all of the core teachings of the bible, going back to the early church.

I don't expect you to agree with me that they are important; you of course have your own ideas about what is important. However, God did put you here for a reason, and you can only find that reason out from Him. If there is no God, there is no purpose, truth or meaning for anything. Did you catch this video?:

http://videosift.com/video/The-Truth-about-Atheism

I notice that you put the word truth in quotation marks. Do you know what truth is? Without truth, you are living in a world of uncertainty. You are staring down a hall of mirrors, not knowing which is the true reflection.

There are only two routes to know what truth is. One is that you're omnipotent. Two, is that you are given revelation of the truth by an omnipotent being. I am claiming the second option; that's the only way I know what the truth is. What is your route to the truth?

The only salvation the bible offers is from the own hell that it proclaims, it is saving you from the hell that isn't visible with a cure that isn't testable in a sea of other religious that claim similar and dissimilar truths. There is no reasonable argument (an argument that is undeniable from a logical standpoint) that can lead you to faith in any religion, it has to come from some other place that isn't your brain (and by this I mean reason and thought, not the brain technically)...and to me, this isn't worth investigating any further than when I did when I was a christian. Faith is ultimately irrational, and I have given up on indulging irrational behavior inasmuch as it is in my power.

These are rational beliefs until you are given revelation by God, and then you throw these theories out the window and start over. That's where I was at before I was saved, because I didn't grow up in a Christian home like you did. I grew up in a secular home without religion, and I thought along these same lines, and I was equally skeptical about all supernatural claims. It's only because God had mercy on me and showed me He is there that I know that He is.

The way it works is, God gives you enough information/revelation to know that He is, and then He puts the onus on you to seek Him out. You probably believe you are rejecting God for intellectual reasons, but you're really not when it comes down to it. You are rejecting God because of the sin in your life, because sin is what separates us from God. Sin corrupts your intellect and twists your logic just enough to keep you from seeing reality. If you honestly want to know the truth, and are willing to give up everything in your life to have it, then you will find it:

John 14:6

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Jesus is the truth. Those who are seeking the truth end up on his doorstep. The way you know God is true is when God reveals Himself to you through personal revelation. Would you give up everything in your life to know the truth?

A Christian is someone who has surrendered their life to Christ. It sounds like you, like many others I've spoken to, grew up in a Christian home and were never taught how to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. You had your parents faith and didn't really understand why you believed. When you encountered the skepticism of the world, you found you couldn't justify your belief to yourself and fell away. Does that sound about right?

You don't become a Christian through osmosis from your parents; you need to be born again. Without the internal witness of the Holy Spirit, you won't have any reason to believe. You have nothing to stand on if your entire experience of Christianity is is going to church, reading the bible, and praying. Why would you do any of it if you didn't experience the tangible presence of God? To know God is to know Him personally, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth.

Perhaps I am mistaken, perhaps there is some undeniable bit of logical truth that leads to Christendom and if I were ever exposed to such knowledge I would gladly embrace truth of any kind. I highly doubt such incorruptible knowledge exists, however, so Agnosticism for the duration of my life is the only reasonable thing to do. Do you know of some undeniable claim that can't be logically refuted that leads to Christianity as the answer?

Now this is interesting, what you're saying here, when you mention "incorruptible knowledge". I'd like to explore this, but before we do, could you answer two simple questions?:

Tell me one thing you know for certain, and how you know it.

Could you be wrong about everything you know?

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

@shinyblurry So your saying that I have gained the whole world and lost my soul because I seek to understand the meaning of existence without the bible?

@shinyblurry So your saying that I have gained the whole world and lost my soul because I seek to understand the meaning of existence without the bible? Since you can't show that I have a soul, I think that is a good trade! Joking aside, quoting scripture to me is a pretty useless thing, why would I care? We are talking science, and since we are talking about science, and the bible isn't a science book you are just quote bombing with no real usefulness, your knowledge of scriptures that pertain to your own believe structure aren't very useful in a conversation with others. It would be like me quoting the Koran to you, why would you care?

I don't know what you just don't stay out of science threads, it is obvious you have no respect for it, and all the advantages in life you that gain because of it you just toss aside with a mental gymnastics that should earn you a gold medal. You have no moral problems with using the technology that science creates while simultaneously saying we are twice as damned because of our pursuits.

As for evil, what I do see is a time in man that we are finally closer to understanding and coaxing human nature away from immorality with science. We are starting to confidently grasp the physiological, neurological, and chemical elements of our existence that determine our behavior. And for many decades now, medical science has been helping people of all faiths with very measurable success rates in problems that in the past were relegated to prayer and usually suffering followed by death (god left infant morality rates much higher than science and technology has).

It is important that you don't think I hate religion, but maths are what enabled Newton to formulate his theories, not bible calculus or some methodology set forth from the bible...it was all Newton and his brain. Religious value is at best intangible is what I mean, the fruit of Newtons efforts are entirely repeatable without any religious interactions at all.

Your 2 most important questions are also not only answerable with scientific inquiry, but also not really the 2 most important questions. There are no "most important questions", only questions a specific person find important. I personally obsess over knowing "Truth", others just care to know how things work mechanically, others still to be a good father or wife or husband, others still how to cure global poverty...all of these quests are good, and all have answers that can be found outside biblical answers. Not to mention that most of the Christian world has vastly different ideas even though they read the same bible. So while you think your are quoting universal truth at me, Christians are as dis-unified in their believes as to make me question your main thesis of the "2 questions"; I doubt any significantly large group of christian's actually shares that those 2 questions alone are the most important 2 questions in a christian's life.

The only salvation the bible offers is from the own hell that it proclaims, it is saving you from the hell that isn't visible with a cure that isn't testable in a sea of other religious that claim similar and dissimilar truths. There is no reasonable argument (an argument that is undeniable from a logical standpoint) that can lead you to faith in any religion, it has to come from some other place that isn't your brain (and by this I mean reason and thought, not the brain technically)...and to me, this isn't worth investigating any further than when I did when I was a christian. Faith is ultimately irrational, and I have given up on indulging irrational behavior inasmuch as it is in my power.

Perhaps I am mistaken, perhaps there is some undeniable bit of logical truth that leads to Christendom and if I were ever exposed to such knowledge I would gladly embrace truth of any kind. I highly doubt such incorruptible knowledge exists, however, so Agnosticism for the duration of my life is the only reasonable thing to do. Do you know of some undeniable claim that can't be logically refuted that leads to Christianity as the answer?

Matthew 16:26 What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul?

It is written that in the last days, knowledge will increase, but it doesn't mention anything about wisdom. You can see that very clearly in the world system, that for all of mans hubris regarding his accomplishments, the character of man has not changed one iota. The evil that is done in this world is symptomatic of a disease that has no modern cure, which is called sin, and all who sin are slaves to sin. This is why Jesus came into the world, to free men from slavery to sin and death. Investigating 4 alpha decay sets and why the neptunium set doesn't appear in nature is never going to reveal that to you. There is no knowledge that you can gain from studying the natural world which is going to solve the problem of sin; it is only Jesus Christ who has solved this problem.

Yes, you're correct, the bible is not a science book; it is a salvation book. God inspires men to do great things in science; just ask Newton. Yet there are two questions science cannot answer; why am I here, and what happens after I die? No experiment will give you any revelation on these matters. They are the most important questions, and Jesus did answer them. He said we are here because God created us to be in fellowship with Him, and there will be a judgment after we die that determines where we end up. That is why, if Satan came to your door and gave you a deed to all of the nations of the world and all of their wealth (hundreds of trillions at the least), in exchange for your soul, you would have made an unprofitable deal. Everything in this world is perishing and will pass away, but those who do the will of God will abide forever.



>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^shinyblurry:
1 Corinthians 1:18-21
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."
Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know God, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

What does the bible have to say about the 4 alpha decay sets and why the neptunium set doesn't appear in nature? Problem is, the bible doesn't really answer any scientific questions, nor does it give any useful tools into discovering how the world works. So while I still hold that Corinthians has the best definition of love, it can't give you an understanding of the bio-chemical-neurological goings on of love, and has to deal with deformities of the working order of the body with the deus ex machina of demons. No one prayed the printing press into existence so you could even have a bible in written form, or a keyboard and the internet, or medicine, or refrigeration. Anyone who can't agree that science and technology vastly improve the quality of life on the planet more than any one other thing, including religion, has a large burden of evidence to overcome, imo. While I don't go as far as Bill Maher kind of people and say that religion is bad (I think it does do a lot of good), I will say that I think STEM has done most of the heavy lifting in our modern world in terms of doing good.

>> ^shinyblurry:

1 Corinthians 1:18-21
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."
Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know God, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.


What does the bible have to say about the 4 alpha decay sets and why the neptunium set doesn't appear in nature? Problem is, the bible doesn't really answer any scientific questions, nor does it give any useful tools into discovering how the world works. So while I still hold that Corinthians has the best definition of love, it can't give you an understanding of the bio-chemical-neurological goings on of love, and has to deal with deformities of the working order of the body with the deus ex machina of demons. No one prayed the printing press into existence so you could even have a bible in written form, or a keyboard and the internet, or medicine, or refrigeration. Anyone who can't agree that science and technology vastly improve the quality of life on the planet more than any one other thing, including religion, has a large burden of evidence to overcome, imo. While I don't go as far as Bill Maher kind of people and say that religion is bad (I think it does do a lot of good), I will say that I think STEM has done most of the heavy lifting in our modern world in terms of doing good.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^criticalthud:
also, the Electoral College is a power check against the people. The electoral college is not required to vote with the peoples choice. Should the people choose a 3rd party candidate, the electoral college, as part of the establishment, would side with the establishment.
while we enjoy many things here in the states, democracy is not one of them.

You're 100% right. Now what are you doing about it?
>> ^renatojj:
>> ^gorillaman:
"I refuse to opt-in to mob rule. I do not give you permission to run my life."
Voting is apathy. If you want to be politically active get a weapon and use it.
Best answer ever.

No, it's a retarded answer. It's the answer of someone with the mentality of a 13 year old boy. But at least it's got the right motivation, if entirely the wrong methodology.
Personally, I think this is something Australia got right. You want to be a citizen? Fucking vote.
Once again, if you're not voting, what are you doing to fix the issues that cause you to not vote.


i guess that depends on what you call "participation"
i spent 2 yrs as an attorney with the fed gov, afterwhich i worked public interest law with disability, domestic violence victims, and then incarcerated juveniles (prison reform). Then I switched out of law to study the spine and neurology and have spent the last 12 yrs getting better at getting people out of pain, and teaching it.
now the question isn't what am i doing about things, the question is whether punching a button on a ballot machine is actual participation or just a way to make people feel like they are participating, when in fact, they couldn't be more apathetic or out of touch with reality.

Looks like neurological but I'd wager epilepsy, actually.

My guess is she either had a TIA or stroke. It could have been cardiac, but she doesn't appear to be in any discomfort up until the moment it happened. This definitely looked more neurological. Could be the vagus nerve too, that'll cause you to take a header into the ground. Hope she's ok.

Edit: Guess this has happened to her before on QVC. I hope she finds a good neurologist cause she's certainly having issues.

Good luck to you! Hope that does good things for you =).

>> ^criticalthud:

>> ^draak13:
Apologies for the fiery comment earlier; I do prefer an actual discussion as you're marching on with. No beef against physicists, either...I'm an electical/biomedical engineer turned analytical chemist/physicist =).
Sorry to hear about your scoliosis. Apart from a shoulder issue, I don't really have too much that separates me from ideal at this point. Nonetheless, as humans, the good many of us fall within the portion of the distribution that this stuff matters. This is clearly indicated by her results, which are supported by the foundations of countless other experiments many learn about even in introductory psychology courses.
Your comment about us choosing to act differently from our body language is extremely valid on all levels of neurophysiology. For example, a person can lift their arm, or a person can imagine lifting their arm while keeping it still. In both cases, the primary motor cortex lights up the same way, though in the case where the person keep their arm still, the signal is inhibited further down the pathway. That's an example rooted in the old brain, and there are certainly examples within the higher level cognitive portions of the brain. Smiling makes us feel happy, and we often feel happier simply by smiling, but we can choose to be happy while not smiling, or choose to be sad while smiling.
In this case, what was described was a method in which we can bring out dominant behaviors in ourselves through our body language feedback. For those who are do not have a naturally dominant personality, this is an excellent way to step into the shoes of a slightly more dominant self. Continuing with your comment, her 'make it until you become it' conclusion is very much a person choosing to act in a more dominant way, without the need for the postures to make it so. Once those neural pathways are better understood within ourselves, it's much easier to call upon them and make that conscious decision as necessary. Until then, many less dominant people have an easily accessible means to explore themselves with a slightly more dominant attitude.
>> ^criticalthud:
i grew up with a pretty gnarly scoliosis. Body language that wasn't strained or uncomfortable was nearly impossible.
Most of us have distortion in our spines that effects who we are, how we move, and how we present. Perhaps you do not, but ignoring the physical realities of the species to pretend that how we are perceived is mostly a conscious choice, is understating the matter.

and sorry if i came off as a snot.
as to the vid, honestly i find a presentation of "ease" in a person to be the most attractive, rather than dominance.
as for the scoliosis, been working hard at it for 12 yrs and we're over some big practical hurdles. By understanding neurology this way (in terms of pressure and compression), we're quickly gaining on being able to dynamically change the spine.
to explain, in short:
i imagine you are familiar with thoracic outlet syndrome? - basically a compression of the brachial plexus at the clavicle and rib 1, which results in an interruption and weakening of the nervous signal, weakness in the hand, pain etc. To solve it, doctors cut a hole for it. From that, we can take an understanding that compression of neurology is a fairly bad thing.
But if you look at the main branches of neurology, what you'll note is that the nervous system at some point in the body always runs through a bone space (interosseous space). Between vertebrae, between ribs, etc. Over time and trauma these spaces compress, resulting in variances in compression all throughout the body, thus varying neurological feed all throughout the body. The neurological system is a fluid system. As you vary compression, you vary the pressure within the fluid system. These variances in pressure and fluid transfer start dictating our tendencies. How we move, how we look, who we are.
anyway, here's some of it
www.ncrtheory.org
so far, the practical end (manual therapy) is proving the theoretical. I'm just balancing neurological space. pretty unbelievable. today is a big day. wish me luck.