>> ^shuac:
Hey, I'm straight and I never really bonded very well with my father. Is there a program I can enroll in to make me gay?


I'm lesbian and I'm a man. What the fuck do I do?!?!

/also dumbstruck by people like this guy..."Hey it's just how you think!", what about these physical non-choice factors: penis, vagina, testicles, ovaries, symmetry cognition (beauty, telling faces apart - men/women), hormones, involved neurotransmitters, reproduction "instinct" (again as said above, this is everywhere). Instinct<---!!!!! //

“ your 37 years of experience, I'm sorry to say, do not exhaust all of the possibilities religion has to offer.” I in no way implied that I had exhausted all of the possibilities of religion, but I am no going to limit my understanding of morality to Jesus, The Bible or a Christian church like many Christians do. Many Christians believe that Jesus and the Bible hold the ultimate truth for morality, similar to what other believers do with their holy books. It is the truth and there is no need to go anywhere else.

Also, many religious people dismiss scientific findings. They don’t see that humans are like other animals and have instincts. That is why 13 or 14 year olds are having sex. It is normal. It may not be a good idea but it is normal. Religious people hold these ideals of sex and marriage that don’t take into account human instinct. They can’t understand why men are so easily distracted by beautiful women or cleavage. They can’t understand why porn is a $12 billion a year business. They can’t understand why people cheat on their spouse. They can’t understand why a 40 something year old man want to divorce a wife of similar age and go off with a 20 something year old woman. “It just isn’t part of God’s plan.” Religion doesn’t talk about pheromones, hormones and neurotransmitters which are an integral part of the decision making process for humans. Religious people think that people just make good or bad choices, but they can’t understand why they make those good or bad choices, especially when it comes to sex. Religion is overly simplistic.

If I need to get into more detail about sex and religion, I can if you ask. The oppressive culture regarding sex, created by Judaism, Christianity and Islam, is very harmful to society and individuals. It creates women who don’t understand the sexual fantasies of men, which causes fear and anger in women, which causes men to feel guilty and to hide their fantasies.

Jesus promised torture, killing and weeping and gnashing of teeth. Along with some good wisdom, he used fear to control people. I have gotten the good about Jesus my whole life. That is what believers like to focus on and it helps the ministers keep their jobs. But, the whole picture of Jesus is generally not given and explained. That is why most people believe in Jesus and the Bible. It is because they don’t understand them. Being a Christian means that someone has wrapped all of their morality and understanding into a word which is created and interpreted by the individual.

“they obviously don't understand Jesus Christ AT ALL” Do you think I understand Jesus Christ at all? Please reference the Gospels scripture references in your answer.


In reply to this comment by thepinky:
I agree that science, logic, and respect for others are essential to good society, but the right interpretation of Christian doctrine should encourage these things, not reject them.

"Religion" is not synonymous with "Protestant Christian," and your personal bad experiences with religion do not prove that all religion is harmful. It's funny how you just sort of skipped over the second part of my sentence, "However, religion isn't harmful in and of itself, but the watering-down and misuse of doctrine is, yes, extraordinarily evil and damaging to both straight and gay people."

When I refer to the "watering down" of doctrines, I'm verifying what you said. It seems like most Christians today have no concept of the fact that faith does not have to be removed from logic, tolerance, and an open mind. "Faith," for some people, is a word to throw out when someone asks you a hard question. I do believe in faith. You and I both know that there are things that human beings don't and/or can't understand. Whereas you write faith off as belief in the supernatural, I believe that faith is belief in things that follow all of the laws of the cosmos, but that are beyond our power, knowledge, or understanding. Faith is not necessary for the purpose of dismissing science and logic. It is necessary so that we can have choice. People are always arguing with me about choice, saying that a god who threatens damnation is not truly offering choice. Well, that's a discussion for another day.

When religious people think that morality is black and white, when they are hateful, intolerant, or bigoted, they obviously don't understand Jesus Christ AT ALL. So when I say that religion is not inherently harmful, your 37 years of experience, I'm sorry to say, do not exhaust all of the possibilities religion has to offer.

Yes you SAID that, but if you MEANT something by it, it would be useful to state what. You say that consciousness ≠ thinking, but you maintain vagary on what it is, not defining your terms does not strengthen your position.

Likewise when you claim I am theist, without defining the deity, you undermine your own argument. That's why I'm an agnostic. I can't make claims about undefined terms.

From wikipedia:

The term hard problem of consciousness, coined by David Chalmers[1], refers to the difficult problem of explaining why we have qualitative phenomenal experiences. It is contrasted with the "easy problems" of explaining the ability to discriminate, integrate information, report mental states, focus attention, etc. Easy problems are easy because all that is required for their solution is to specify a mechanism that can perform the function. That is, their proposed solutions, regardless of how complex or poorly understood they may be, can be entirely consistent with the modern materialistic conception of natural phenomenon. Hard problems are distinct from this set because they "persist even when the performance of all the relevant functions is explained".

"Thinking", would fall under the easy problem of consciousness. Consciousness is a concept that is difficult to put into words, but I've found most humans share this sense. That is, we experience coherent unitary stream of multi-modal sensation. There is no physical reason for that. There are only physical correlates of aspects of these experiences. There is no unitary locus. It's the equivalent of saying that your graphics card is conscious because the registers contain an internal representation of whatever is being displayed. It's nonsensical unless you posit consciousness in the first place.

You know full well the ball is not "responding", it is effected, objects which don't have the capacity to act don't have the capacity to react. You are just avoiding the consequences of the obvious by conflating terms.


I respectfully disagree. Before I can explain further, I'd need to know what you mean by act. Am I "acting" if a series of billiard balls bounce off each other in my head leading to my hand moving? Obviously, the process is much more complicated involving semi-permeable membranes, electro-chemical gradients, allosteric processes involving ion-channel gating, sensory transduction, passive and active cable properties attenuating electrical signals, neurotransmitters, resonating macro-circuitry, etc... In the end, however, it's still billiard balls. Granted, I'm able to overcome much larger energy barriers than a single billiard ball, but I'm still running down the free-energy hill, as all physical processes are.

It's obvious you're niether a medical professional nor have ever had acupuncture. So keep trying to make sense by agreeing that it works but not to your satisfaction... how would YOU know?

This sounds pretty plausible to me, rather than the rantings of some random idiot.

It's not based on smoke and mirrors, and spirits and "humours"... but results.. and results are results. Everyone's body is different, and we dont even fully know how it all works yet. I'm not going to get acupuncture but i'm not going to rule it out because you're being a spaz.

----------------------------------


Several processes have been proposed to explain acupuncture's effects, primarily those on pain. Acupuncture points are believed to stimulate the central nervous system (the brain and spinal cord) to release chemicals into the muscles, spinal cord, and brain. These chemicals either change the experience of pain or release other chemicals, such as hormones, that influence the body's self-regulating systems. The biochemical changes may stimulate the body's natural healing abilities and promote physical and emotional well-being.13 There are three main mechanisms:




Conduction of electromagnetic signals: Western scientists have found evidence that acupuncture points an strategic conductors of electromagnetic signals. Stimulating points along these pathways through acupuncture enables electromagnetic signals to be relayed at it greater rate than under normal conditions. These signals may start the flow of pain-killing biochemicals such as endorphins and of immune system cells to specific sites that are injured or vulnerable to disease.14,15


Activation of opioid systems: research has found that several types of opioids may be released into the central nervous system during acupuncture treatment, thereby reducing pain.16


Changes in brain chemistry sensation, and Involuntary body functions: studies have shown that acupuncture may alter brain chemistry by changing the release of neurotransmitters and neurohormones in a good way. Acupuncture also has been documented to affect the parts of the central nervous system related to sensation and involuntary body functions, such as immune reactions and processes whereby a person's blood pressure, blood flow, and body temperature are regulated.3,17,18
---


It sounds to me like a very refined method of manipulating bio chemistry. I suppose you think meditation and exercise are useless as well. Stay in school.

Doc_M, there is absolutely no hard evidence that psychedelic drugs leave holes in one's brain, that's just an anti-drug propaganda myth. They work by altering the balance of neurotransmitters in the brain leading to all kinds of changes in perception and introspection.

>> ^andybesy:
OK. So the 'wires' are called axons, and when a neuron recieves an electrical impulse it transmits neurotransmitter chemicals across a synapse to receptors in another neuron?
Is the synapse the area between two neurons?
Are all neurons chemically connected, or do some have direct electrical connections via an axon?


Axons are just a part of the neuron

(simplified picture of a neuron)
http://www.morphonix.com/software/education/science/brain/game/specimens/images/neuron_parts.gif


The synapse is basically the sum of all components: The end of in the axon sending the electrical signal, the space between them ( called a synaptic cleft) and the receiving end of the other neuron.
http://anthropologynet.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/neuron-synapse.png

The neurons in the video communicate chemically via synapses. Axons are just extensions that each neuron has. Any given neuron can have numerous axons. At the end of each axon, there is an axon terminal this is the rounded ends you see in the video. The space between them is a synaptic cleft. Some neurons have electrical synapses instead. These are found in places where you need the fastest response but dont need to be able to interpret data or make decisions. Reflexes are an example. Electrical synapses are a minority though.

Sorry, I'll edit the description soon to try to make it more clear. I posted it in a rush.

OK. So the 'wires' are called axons, and when a neuron recieves an electrical impulse it transmits neurotransmitter chemicals across a synapse to receptors in another neuron?

Is the synapse the area between two neurons?

Are all neurons chemically connected, or do some have direct electrical connections via an axon?

My wife is special AND the stereotype is WAY off.

I've dated LOTS of girls and never have I ever gone out with somebody like what Chris Rock describes. I have to say, speaking broadly, that my experience, my concept, my picture of "the feminine creature" if you will is completely different from Chris Rock's.

I believe, for the most part, that aside from anatomy, I find that there is very little difference between boys and girls, at least on a deep level. I guess what I mean is that there is more difference between say two girls than there are between say a guy and a girl, and that a guy and a girl may have WAY more in common than two guys.

I've almost always dated girls that I had at least SOMETHING in common with, so I may have a skewed perspective.

Also my perspective is undoubtedly skewed because I was raised to believe in gender equality. That probably is a big part of the reason why I see any differences between boys and girls as being very vague, and slight.

Now having said all that, here's my (sexist) view on women:
- women can be moody. PMS is kind of scary. But they're also intelligent and self sufficient, and can recognize their own unreasonableness. But they are still allowed to be upset. Fuck, I get in a bad mood from time to time too.

- women aren't as strong (physically) as men. (given the same lifestyle, activity level, etc) this makes me sad, because i am not strong, but i'm stronger than unathletic girls. I would hate to be weaker than i already am.

- doubtlessly because of social conditioning, girls are more likely to understand their own feelings than guys. I am down with people who are into their own feelings. Especially when they know about the little things that make them happy. Girls know those things, and will tell you if you are nice to them. I like that.

...

wow, I can't really think of too many more things that I can say blanket statement about girls. I've dated rational ones, I've dated depressed ones, I've dated super-rational ones.... but... that was all their own personalities, not something that I would say about all girls.

...

Now my wife, on the other hand, is a completely different story. ... I think that if you take the Chris Rock routine, add in a very healthy dose of mutual respect, and then completely reverse the roles, you'd be closer to the dynamic in our relationship.

Oh, yeah, and we both make sense when we argue. But then again, we both are students of consciousness and AI and perception and neuropsychology, so we both recognize one very important thing. We know that our brains are really imperfect (wetware is so kludgy, especially with horomones and mood altering neurotransmitters just sloshing around). We trust and respect each other enough to be able to see that we both think we're right, even if only one of us could (logically) be right.

If it is not a strict logical argument, if the things at stake are moral or emotional, we have both been through enough shit with enough people that we can take a breath, and a step back, and try and figure out why we disagree.

...

But yeah, that's the sort of arguments we have. But always kind, and always respectful and caring.

...

In particular I really REALLY disagreed with Chris Rock when he was talking about looking yourself in the mirror and saying "What can I do to please her" every day. Fuck you. Jessica does so many things for me that make me so happy. Little things like putting my bowl and spoon out for me for my breakfast in the morning, or scratching my head when we're watching a movie (or videosift), just lots and lots of thoughtful nice things, it's almost like she's getting up every morning and trying to think of ways to please ME.

And what's better then that- when I DO think of something to do that makes her happy, it's like I was a saint or something. I tell you, I love my life. Oh I mean I love my WIFE.


In reply to this comment by alien_concept:
^ Yep that's the kind of thing i'm looking for! Of course along with lucky and djsunkid's posts about how they don't suffer it. Wondering, would you say your ladies are special or that the stereotype is way off?

My wife is special AND the stereotype is WAY off.

I've dated LOTS of girls and never have I ever gone out with somebody like what Chris Rock describes. I have to say, speaking broadly, that my experience, my concept, my picture of "the feminine creature" if you will is completely different from Chris Rock's.

I believe, for the most part, that aside from anatomy, I find that there is very little difference between boys and girls, at least on a deep level. I guess what I mean is that there is more difference between say two girls than there are between say a guy and a girl, and that a guy and a girl may have WAY more in common than two guys.

I've almost always dated girls that I had at least SOMETHING in common with, so I may have a skewed perspective.

Also my perspective is undoubtedly skewed because I was raised to believe in gender equality. That probably is a big part of the reason why I see any differences between boys and girls as being very vague, and slight.

Now having said all that, here's my (sexist) view on women:
- women can be moody. PMS is kind of scary. But they're also intelligent and self sufficient, and can recognize their own unreasonableness. But they are still allowed to be upset. Fuck, I get in a bad mood from time to time too.

- women aren't as strong (physically) as men. (given the same lifestyle, activity level, etc) this makes me sad, because i am not strong, but i'm stronger than unathletic girls. I would hate to be weaker than i already am.

- doubtlessly because of social conditioning, girls are more likely to understand their own feelings than guys. I am down with people who are into their own feelings. Especially when they know about the little things that make them happy. Girls know those things, and will tell you if you are nice to them. I like that.

...

wow, I can't really think of too many more things that I can say blanket statement about girls. I've dated rational ones, I've dated depressed ones, I've dated super-rational ones.... but... that was all their own personalities, not something that I would say about all girls.

...

Now my wife, on the other hand, is a completely different story. ... I think that if you take the Chris Rock routine, add in a very healthy dose of mutual respect, and then completely reverse the roles, you'd be closer to the dynamic in our relationship.

Oh, yeah, and we both make sense when we argue. But then again, we both are students of consciousness and AI and perception and neuropsychology, so we both recognize one very important thing. We know that our brains are really imperfect (wetware is so kludgy, especially with horomones and mood altering neurotransmitters just sloshing around). We trust and respect each other enough to be able to see that we both think we're right, even if only one of us could (logically) be right.

If it is not a strict logical argument, if the things at stake are moral or emotional, we have both been through enough shit with enough people that we can take a breath, and a step back, and try and figure out why we disagree.

...

But yeah, that's the sort of arguments we have. But always kind, and always respectful and caring.

...

In particular I really REALLY disagreed with Chris Rock when he was talking about looking yourself in the mirror and saying "What can I do to please her" every day. Fuck you. Jessica does so many things for me that make me so happy. Little things like putting my bowl and spoon out for me for my breakfast in the morning, or scratching my head when we're watching a movie (or videosift), just lots and lots of thoughtful nice things, it's almost like she's getting up every morning and trying to think of ways to please ME.

And what's better then that- when I DO think of something to do that makes her happy, it's like I was a saint or something. I tell you, I love my life. Oh I mean I love my WIFE.

>> ^alien_concept:
^ Yep that's the kind of thing i'm looking for! Of course along with lucky and djsunkid's posts about how they don't suffer it. Wondering, would you say your ladies are special or that the stereotype is way off?

Have a friend that was having a major manipulation done to her shoulder, sort of a pre-surgery relocation or something that entailed the doc putting his knee in her chest and tugging or whatnot. They gave her a drug, I think maybe orally administered that allowed her to be sentient and conversant and cooperative, but she didn't remember a thing. Struck me as something from a science fiction movie or spy thriller. I think it also dulled the pain, but I remember thinking "if you caused a lot of pain to the patient, but they don't remember it, were they ever in pain" I don't remember what it was called. Forgettitol^tm? [edit:] It's called Versed.

In reply to this comment by snoozedoctor:
No, general anesthesia is not like physiologic sleep, the latter being a complex and active function of neurons located in the brain stem, in and around the thalamus. If you are unlucky enough, a small stroke in this area, while not damaging a significant portion of the brain, can result in permanent coma.

For an interesting sleep disorder, look up fatal familial insomnia. It's rare, and one you don't want to get.

The mechanisms of the some of the general anesthetics are still unknown. For instance, we don't know how the most widely used ones, the halogenated hydrocarbon gases, (halothane, isoflurane, sevoflurane, etc.) have their effect. Their potency is significantly related to their lipid solubility, which suggests they get in your neural cell lipid membranes, and alter them (temporarily) such that they can't carry on communication with other neurons. They've been used for 150 years now, and we still don't know exactly how they work!
Many of the IV anesthetics inhibit specific receptors and antagonize specific neurotransmitters, such that we do know how most of them work.

Cheers,

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
No, I don't have that kind of depth of knowledge. Sleep and dreams are so mysterious and fascinating, though. Is anesthesia anything like sleep, or nothing at all? Does a patient have REM under the gas?

In reply to this comment by snoozedoctor:
Watched this last night and forgot to upvote. I was diverted by looking for video of the goats with the myotonia, undoubtedly a similar phenomena. Alas, there was already a similar sift, so I dropped it. You ARE going medical on us.

No, general anesthesia is not like physiologic sleep, the latter being a complex and active function of neurons located in the brain stem, in and around the thalamus. If you are unlucky enough, a small stroke in this area, while not damaging a significant portion of the brain, can result in permanent coma.

For an interesting sleep disorder, look up fatal familial insomnia. It's rare, and one you don't want to get.

The mechanisms of the some of the general anesthetics are still unknown. For instance, we don't know how the most widely used ones, the halogenated hydrocarbon gases, (halothane, isoflurane, sevoflurane, etc.) have their effect. Their potency is significantly related to their lipid solubility, which suggests they get in your neural cell lipid membranes, and alter them (temporarily) such that they can't carry on communication with other neurons. They've been used for 150 years now, and we still don't know exactly how they work!
Many of the IV anesthetics inhibit specific receptors and antagonize specific neurotransmitters, such that we do know how most of them work.

Cheers,

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
No, I don't have that kind of depth of knowledge. Sleep and dreams are so mysterious and fascinating, though. Is anesthesia anything like sleep, or nothing at all? Does a patient have REM under the gas?

In reply to this comment by snoozedoctor:
Watched this last night and forgot to upvote. I was diverted by looking for video of the goats with the myotonia, undoubtedly a similar phenomena. Alas, there was already a similar sift, so I dropped it. You ARE going medical on us.

Chilaxe,
It's fascinating stuff. Neurophysiology and pharmacology have advanced significantly, but perhaps not as far as some might think. PET scans and metabolic MRIs give us clues as to increased activity in certain brain structures during different types of cognitive and motor activities. That's very generalized information. Excess and deficiencies of neurotransmitters result in well described pathology. While we know cognition and abstract thought is performed in the cerebral cortex, we have very little information on the specific biochemistry and neuronal synaptic pathways that allow it to happen.

Some of the most interesting clinical cases I get to be involved with are awake craniotomies to resect brain tumors. Carrying on a conversation with a patient and witnessing real-time neuro/cognitive dysfunction with manipulation of the brain is something I can't begin to describe.

I'm also fascinated by brain development that is time limited and dependent. For instance, the areas devoted to language. If not stimulated during those crucial first few years of life, development is stunted and the full capacity for language skills is lost forever. I'm getting off topic, but it's fascinating stuff.

It's obvious that all consciousness, thought, and awareness is produced thru biochemical means. Thus, all concepts, precepts, abstracts, etc. are of anatomic and physiologic origin.

However, I'm still waiting to hear a good explanation of how a collection of inanimate atoms coalesce, begin replication, and eventually gain the capacity to look on themselves and determine their own essence.

Drug induced sleep can be of two varieties, (1) "drug assisted" (mostly benzodiazepines, like lorazepam (Ativan), or imidazopyridines, like Zolpidem (Ambien), and (2) true "general anesthesia." Benzos assist sleep but because they are potent amnestics, one is less likely to remember a dream, even if you had one. Melatonin is not a benzo. It is an endogenous hormone, produced by the pineal gland. Melatonin is involved in regulating circadian rhythms, although it is not the main determinate. High doses of melatonin seem to be associated with more REM sleep and more dreaming.

"General Anesthesia" is not normal sleep and, rather, is unconsciousness produced by specific inhibition of neuronal communication (synapsis), whether by inactivation of protein channels on cell membranes, or by inhibition of GABA receptors, (a neurotransmitter). Deep levels of general anesthesia can flat-line your EEG, meaning your brain is totally shut down and is doing no synaptic work at all.
However, people may do normal sleeping after recovery from general anesthesia and they do occasionally relate dreaming during the period of recovery. In particular, the sedative/anesthetic Propofol is associated with some "erotic" dreaming and I have had some people relate rather vivid and interesting content. I had one older gentlemen who wanted to be put "back to sleep" so he could continue his "relations" with Gina Lollibrigida.

"A prune-size bit of tissue tucked under the frontal lobes, it controls gut feelings and habits; it's what drives a recovering smoker to yearn for the feel and taste of cigarettes. The "reward circuitry," a network of neurons at the core of the brain, also plays a role. Nicotine boosts the brain's levels of dopamine, the "feel good" neurotransmitter. Another, as yet unknown, chemical in tobacco smoke acts like an antidepressant, blocking an enzyme that breaks down dopamine. So smokers get a double dose of the stuff—and about half end up addicted, essentially, to their own brain chemicals.

Remove the nicotine, though, and the body can't maintain the high dopamine levels on its own. In the brain of a smoker who's trying to quit, receptors start "screaming," says Dr. Norman Edelman of the American Lung Association, "crying out to be satisfied." Smokers often say a cigarette calms them, but by the time they're addicted, the nicotine rush simply halts the first symptoms of withdrawal. "The addiction is why you're nervous in the first place," says Edelman. Longtime smokers also have to end a behavior that's "entrenched in their daily lives," says Corinne Husten, head of the CDC's Office of Smoking and Health. Add in the stresses of, say, running for president, and it's all too easy to slip.

It may seem drastic to call a smoker an "addict" but, says Chris Cartter, who runs QuitNet, the world's largest quit-smoking program, "a lot of doctors view this as on par with overcoming a heroin addiction." The withdrawal isn't as ugly, but it's not pretty, either: shortly after quitting, the typical longtime smoker becomes cranky, has trouble sleeping and making decisions, and gains weight. Usually, the first weeks are the worst, but for some people the symptoms can drag on for a year or more.

That's assuming, however, that the smoker is taking the cold-turkey approach, which there's little reason to do these days. Nicotine gum, approved in 1984, is the oldest anti-smoking aid. (Obama chews it throughout the day.) It's about as effective as the newer patches, inhalers and nasal sprays, all of which placate those screaming receptors without being addictive themselves. Other options include Zyban, which is also marketed as an antidepressant, and Chantix, introduced last year, which eases withdrawal and blocks nicotine's effects."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17193908/site/newsweek/