Sure lucky760, I'll do Splenda, since some varieties of Coke Zero have Splenda in them.

First off it is important to note that the majority of the anti-sweetener "science" has been done by one man: Dr. Joseph Mercola. Now, watch out here, because his name is deceptive. You see, Mercola is an osteopathic physician. Osteopathy is a form of pseudoscience that believes that all pathology can be solved by manipulation of the bones and muscles. There is little science to back up these claims because they are clearly insane and worthy of ridicule. So, much like his doctorate, the claims he makes against sweeteners are pseudoscientific. A number of his beliefs are: that AIDS is not cause by HIV but by psychological stress; that immunizations and prescription drugs shouldn't be prescribed but people should instead buy his dietary supplements; that vaccinations are bad for you and your children (a belief which is the cause of recent outbreaks of whooping cough, measles and mumps); and that microwaves are dangerous machines that irradiate their products (they do, but not with the kind of radiation he is thinking of). Since he made a movie called Sweet Mistery: A Poisoned World, he has been at the forefront of anti-sweetener rhetoric. If you watch the movie, note how hilariously bad it is at actual science; the majority of the "evidence" is people claiming side effects after having ingested something with a sweetener in it (anecdotes are worth nothing in science except perhaps as a reason for researching further). So, you have a movement against something seen as "artificial" by a man who is not a doctor, not a scientist and is clearly lacking in the basics of logic.

Now, Splenda. Created by Johnson and Johnson and a British company in the seventies, it's primary sweetener ingredient is sucralose. The rest of it is dextrose, which as I have said above, is really just d-glucose and is safe for consumption in even very large quantities. So really, we are asking about sucralose. Sucralose is vastly sweeter than sucrose (usually around ~650 times) and thus only a very small amount is needed in whatever it is you are trying to sweeten. The current amount that is considered unsafe for intake (the starting point where adverse effects are felt) is around 1.5g/kg of body weight. So for the average male of 180lbs, they would need to ingest 130g of sucralose to feel any adverse effects. This is compared to the mg of sucralose that you will actually be getting every day. The estimated daily intake of someone who actually consumes sucralose is around 1.1mg/kg, which leaves a massive gap. Similarly to aspartame, if you tried to ingest that much sucralose, you would be incapable due to the overwhelming sweetness of the stuff.

There is some evidence that sucralose may affect people in high doses, but once again, this is similar to the issues with aspartame, where the likelihood of you getting those doses is extremely unlikely.

The chemistry of sucralose is actually way too complicated to go into, but suffice it to say that unlike aspartame, sucralose is not broken down in the body at all and is simply excreted through the kidney just like any other non-reactive agent. The reason that it tastes sweet is because it has the same shape as sucrose except that some of the hydroxy groups are replaced with chlorine atoms. This allows it to fit in the neurotransmitters in the tongue and mouth that send you the sensation of sweetness without also giving you all of those calories. Once it passes into the bloodstream it is dumped out by the kidneys without passing through the liver at all.

In sum, if sweeteners were bad for you, they wouldn't be allowed in your food. Science is not against you, it is the only thing working for everyone at the same time. The reason sugar has gotten around this is because we have always had it. If you want to be healthier, don't drink pop, drink water or milk (unless you are lactose intolerant, then just drink water). Don't drink coconut milk, or gatorade, or vitamin water. Assume that when a company comes out with something like "fat free" it really reads "now loaded with sugar so it doesn't taste like fucking cardboard." Assume that when a company says something is "natural" it is no more natural than the oils you put in your car. IF you want to live and eat healthy, stay on the outside of the supermarket, avoiding the aisles. All of the processed food is in the aisles, not on the outsides and the companies know that you don't want to miss anything. Make your food, don't let someone else do it. And never, ever buy popped popcorn, anywhere, the mark-up on that shit is insane.

Depression is chemical. You can't WILL your neurotransmitters to do anything. Depression doesnt mean you're sad. To me, it means you're realistic. Reality is depressing. Everyone is wasting time until they die and causing suffering through ignorance.

The medication makes it manageable so you can lift the veil a bit and see that your perception, like the happy person, is just that - your own. Taking medication doesnt make the world less depressing, but it gives you the strength to get enough time in to have some hope... even if its just the hope that maybe you're wrong... thats enough for me.

also exercise diet and environment. i find cities incredibly depressing.

Alright,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fred Rogers was an incredible piece of work-My own disgust/boredom with broadcast media would subside some what while tuning-in to his show-He had boldness and confidence to accompany his disengaging calm that stimulated neurotransmitters like uncut drugs or pheromones-

Oh, had a major kid-crush on Lady Aberlin....

I'd argue that there's no absolute anything AAAAAnd...Porn feeds neurotransmitters what they want, causing your body to produce drugs that were not coursing through your system prior to indulging-Too much of a good thing can cause problems, as evidenced in some of the porn-on-the-brain operators you encounter more and more and more and more everyday. I would argue that an over-indulgence in porn creates in many cases, socially inept, emotional cripples with hardly a chance of a healthy holistic relationship with another human being.
Of the estimated 3-6% of people in the United States deemed, "Hypersexual", I'd guess that less than 1 percent are biologically nympho-maniacal-The rest watch too much fucking porn!

Nobody has brought up doping yet. I have absolutely no idea how vast it's influence is or how little it may be sought after due to the literal pride of the athletes themselves may be influencing these decisions among their own community (and I do think that the athletes and how they handle those that have done it, might do it, and haven't yet but are just hearing about the possibilities of doping; how they talk and act to stop it when they can amongst themselves and their community is what fights it the best).

I know some of the athletes have been suspended up to four years, but are still allowed to play again. I don't know if it matters what they were doing (as anabolic steroids and its effects will be lifelong if you keep up your routine) as some doping schemes are quick fixes like someone trying to use adrenaline. I mean do they check for that type of thing, a neurotransmitter carrier drug stuck in something like a false tooth; you bite down and in 5-10 seconds your adrenaline shoots forward for 30 seconds... I guess I should look and see how far they've taken this process; I know they are very vigilant, as much as possible. But, I really don't know were the holes are and how big they possibly are.

Training has most defiantly given athletes a superb edge. Not only do they run and work out, but they WATCH themselves run and can see what they are doing run. They just compare it to the best and modify themselves in that fashion gaining seconds, upon seconds. Eventually they learn to add a new twist and soon people are watching HIM or HER for inspiration to win a medal.

I know many athletes get their medals the old-fashioned hard way, proudly and resolute, for their country. It just makes me wonder how far doping has truly influenced the athletes and what areas of their training and structure actually test them correctly with the possibility that there may always be an area, with many athletes all doping (they are tested at the Pre-Olympic qualifiers, The Olympics, but then a shady organization "passes" them all at their home training camp). I hope that it never reaches that scale, but I always have problems when there are some Olympic coaches that have had about six athletes under them, three of them have been caught doping and three are OK--kind of disconcerting...

-edit

I forgot one point I was going to make. You can obviously see from the info-graphic that even training and in absolutely NO WAY can doping account for the 8 year old to the rest of the teenage field of sprinters. It shows to me that perhaps a very long change in diet stopping any malnutrition, FAR better medical care (also limiting disease to a LARGE extent) has lead to a BETTER populace, even genetically which just due to this little clip you could make the case, to some degree. Then you have some of the intangibles like better shoes, better surfaces to run on, and other like changes in our lives that were mentioned and the ones you can think about that weren't. Then you find the cream of the crop athletes, give them superb training, and I truly do think you can see why we have increased those three seconds.

I just merely hope doping isn't behind many victories. I actually wouldn't care if it was someone genetically modified--not grotesquely (to go out of your way to destroy the human form is up to you, but as scientists I don't think we should aim for that--we should aim within that, I also have a feeling that someone grotesque may not be exactly happily received at The Olympics...), just suited to run faster with muscles that are far more dense than usual. As long as genetic changes like this eventually come to almost all of us, changes that enrich and make our lives better (not The Hulk™).

A short course in neurobiology teaches us all of what Deepak is saying is rubbish. We experience emotion due to various combinations of neurotransmitter release and physiological changes in the body.

What he seems to be trying to do is use the theory of quantum fluctuation and the wave/particle duality of electrons to justify his own theory that if it can't be measured or explained properly/precisely then it must lie outside the realm of our physical entity. Where is argument falls short is that what we perceive as physical matter IS made up of all this weirdness that physics is only just beginning to explain.

So I guess my point is that he's indicating that some weird stuff is going on, perhaps even outside what would currently be defined as our physical bodies. I don't disagree with this, but my point is that it is the definition of a physical body that needs to be altered, and this will improve as our understanding of physics improves. So we should be looking to physics for answers, not for mind/body dualism.

http://bit.ly/gNSnlb
says fluoride can act as an neurotransmitter in general, triggering neurotransmitter receptors, apparently all kinds of them.

in presence of aluminum fluoride (alf4-), a receptor-independent activator of g-protiens in cells.

Ummm...I was referring to this: http://encyclopediadramatica.com/TL;DR
>> ^kceaton1:

Terse/Deal.
Submit->OK.
>> ^doogle:
Teal Dear.
I meant: tl:dr.
>> ^kceaton1:
This is why you DON'T cut your education funding and allow parents to pull children out of school or allow kids to decide not to go. It's also a reason why we might want to continue education past your formative years, as you're a literal "crazy idiot" as a teenager due to the chemicals pumping in your veins. Yet, we're fairly good at memorization during this time and procedural types of learning (like apprenticeship for basically anything). Education is the greatest gift you can give your children no matter what you believe and, truly, if you listen to me let them form their own opinions and try to keep them NEUTRAL in stances on any subject (including even your own religion) as taking a side can injure development. If they do become sidetracked into an academic arena (math, science, English, or even sports) give them full support in these areas and let them know of possible opportunities for the present (if they excel, possibly a low level "advanced" book to help their thirst or a class if it can be found) and the future (such as jobs: fireman, astronaut, college, which college, classes to take, books to read).
Pre-adolescence is also a great time to be taught anything. It's also the time that you're the most susceptible to people forcing ANY opinion as "fact" and ANY "fact" as knowledge; experience, perhaps being a better way to teach at this age--along with below, finding a direction or what you excel at (yes, I know you may not now this till you're much older, due to how the brain sets itself up). Whether it be good or bad: religion, politics, abuse, swimming, dancing, sports, science, computers, etc... Pre-adolescence is perhaps the most important time in your life to get an idea for direction, as this helps you mitigate problems that you face during adolescence (stay on course). This is of course a luxury for some as self-discovery is not a perfect process and can as always be entirely, never found.
If you wait to learn in your twenties or after adolescence you begin to form extremely superior ideas and opinions that as a adolescent, due entirely to having a brain that isn't shit-canning itself at a lot of turns. Things that need to be memorized are better in these "primitive" years; but, like religion and learning to form an opinion that makes sense, this requires someone usually to be above normal intelligence at that age or for you to be in your twenties when the fog of hormones and neurotransmitters has cleared up and allowed you to maake FAR more rational decisions.
Unfortunately, we have a lot of people that formed their opinions early, to the point that they are nearly unchangeable. I don't necessarily blame them either, to some degree, as these issues that "stop" learning are ingrained into your neural-net and chemical-memory. To make these people understand something is a huge undertaking (which is why I usually provide the information, as the only person that can convince them at that point is themselves--BUT, STILL make sure to give them the information or they'll have no chance).
This is why you can tell Rush Limbaugh the truth till you're blue in the face, yet it won't help as he can't understand it, will actively deny himself of it, and he physically can't. The only way to get through to them is to literally know how their neurons have decided to arrange themselves. If you knew it might be a matter of approaching the matter via religion or it could be politics, science, etc... This is why sciences premise of allowing yourself to let go of previous, erronious, information is FUNDAMENTAL. If you can't do that as aperson, you'll be locked in a world you can't or hope, to understand.
BTW, if you're reading this and you have a thousand questions that need answering, yet you've tried and they do not make sense. Remember, that it's the physical layout of your brain that disrupts this ability to understand in some cases. Your brain physically changes when you can figure out something for the first time; sometimes called an epiphany. Try something easy and move from there. DON'T try the hard stuff first (which is why that works incredibly well for teaching people; only people with I.Q.s of 150+ are able to see something complex and know, fairly intrinsically, what needs to be done--or what opinion should be held...).
Some of this will sound preachy, and I guess it should. Some of this will sound simple and obvious, I hope it does. If it sounds particularly TOO preachy or TOO opinionated, "...don't tell me what to do with my kid...". Your kid is a human being like yourself and demands as much respect at age 3 as at 33. If you can't give them the breadth of width to leave them to learn untouched or with a balanced or neutral approach you will hurt them. They will also hurt you. You can disagree, but deep inside I think you understand what I mean by everything I've said here. AND if you don't try to figure out why you don't.
What you see in this video is seen by a VERY small minority of people as being "good" or "informed"; it's seen as the opposite. However, if you can approach this same situation knowing all of this, knowing the ways the mind can fool you into making you a fool, yet you can still find a unwaivering "faith" or truth. That is when you're free to share responsibly, but please tell this to adults or people that understand at your level. Otherwise, you're Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Michelle Backmann, Pat Robertson, etc...
/Kind of a long point, but I think I made it. Hopefully, not too much on the cheesy side and not to "anti-religious".

Terse/Deal.

Submit->OK.

>> ^doogle:

Teal Dear.
I meant: tl:dr.
>> ^kceaton1:
This is why you DON'T cut your education funding and allow parents to pull children out of school or allow kids to decide not to go. It's also a reason why we might want to continue education past your formative years, as you're a literal "crazy idiot" as a teenager due to the chemicals pumping in your veins. Yet, we're fairly good at memorization during this time and procedural types of learning (like apprenticeship for basically anything). Education is the greatest gift you can give your children no matter what you believe and, truly, if you listen to me let them form their own opinions and try to keep them NEUTRAL in stances on any subject (including even your own religion) as taking a side can injure development. If they do become sidetracked into an academic arena (math, science, English, or even sports) give them full support in these areas and let them know of possible opportunities for the present (if they excel, possibly a low level "advanced" book to help their thirst or a class if it can be found) and the future (such as jobs: fireman, astronaut, college, which college, classes to take, books to read).
Pre-adolescence is also a great time to be taught anything. It's also the time that you're the most susceptible to people forcing ANY opinion as "fact" and ANY "fact" as knowledge; experience, perhaps being a better way to teach at this age--along with below, finding a direction or what you excel at (yes, I know you may not now this till you're much older, due to how the brain sets itself up). Whether it be good or bad: religion, politics, abuse, swimming, dancing, sports, science, computers, etc... Pre-adolescence is perhaps the most important time in your life to get an idea for direction, as this helps you mitigate problems that you face during adolescence (stay on course). This is of course a luxury for some as self-discovery is not a perfect process and can as always be entirely, never found.
If you wait to learn in your twenties or after adolescence you begin to form extremely superior ideas and opinions that as a adolescent, due entirely to having a brain that isn't shit-canning itself at a lot of turns. Things that need to be memorized are better in these "primitive" years; but, like religion and learning to form an opinion that makes sense, this requires someone usually to be above normal intelligence at that age or for you to be in your twenties when the fog of hormones and neurotransmitters has cleared up and allowed you to maake FAR more rational decisions.
Unfortunately, we have a lot of people that formed their opinions early, to the point that they are nearly unchangeable. I don't necessarily blame them either, to some degree, as these issues that "stop" learning are ingrained into your neural-net and chemical-memory. To make these people understand something is a huge undertaking (which is why I usually provide the information, as the only person that can convince them at that point is themselves--BUT, STILL make sure to give them the information or they'll have no chance).
This is why you can tell Rush Limbaugh the truth till you're blue in the face, yet it won't help as he can't understand it, will actively deny himself of it, and he physically can't. The only way to get through to them is to literally know how their neurons have decided to arrange themselves. If you knew it might be a matter of approaching the matter via religion or it could be politics, science, etc... This is why sciences premise of allowing yourself to let go of previous, erronious, information is FUNDAMENTAL. If you can't do that as aperson, you'll be locked in a world you can't or hope, to understand.
BTW, if you're reading this and you have a thousand questions that need answering, yet you've tried and they do not make sense. Remember, that it's the physical layout of your brain that disrupts this ability to understand in some cases. Your brain physically changes when you can figure out something for the first time; sometimes called an epiphany. Try something easy and move from there. DON'T try the hard stuff first (which is why that works incredibly well for teaching people; only people with I.Q.s of 150+ are able to see something complex and know, fairly intrinsically, what needs to be done--or what opinion should be held...).
Some of this will sound preachy, and I guess it should. Some of this will sound simple and obvious, I hope it does. If it sounds particularly TOO preachy or TOO opinionated, "...don't tell me what to do with my kid...". Your kid is a human being like yourself and demands as much respect at age 3 as at 33. If you can't give them the breadth of width to leave them to learn untouched or with a balanced or neutral approach you will hurt them. They will also hurt you. You can disagree, but deep inside I think you understand what I mean by everything I've said here. AND if you don't try to figure out why you don't.
What you see in this video is seen by a VERY small minority of people as being "good" or "informed"; it's seen as the opposite. However, if you can approach this same situation knowing all of this, knowing the ways the mind can fool you into making you a fool, yet you can still find a unwaivering "faith" or truth. That is when you're free to share responsibly, but please tell this to adults or people that understand at your level. Otherwise, you're Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Michelle Backmann, Pat Robertson, etc...
/Kind of a long point, but I think I made it. Hopefully, not too much on the cheesy side and not to "anti-religious".

Teal Dear.
I meant: tl:dr.

>> ^kceaton1:

This is why you DON'T cut your education funding and allow parents to pull children out of school or allow kids to decide not to go. It's also a reason why we might want to continue education past your formative years, as you're a literal "crazy idiot" as a teenager due to the chemicals pumping in your veins. Yet, we're fairly good at memorization during this time and procedural types of learning (like apprenticeship for basically anything). Education is the greatest gift you can give your children no matter what you believe and, truly, if you listen to me let them form their own opinions and try to keep them NEUTRAL in stances on any subject (including even your own religion) as taking a side can injure development. If they do become sidetracked into an academic arena (math, science, English, or even sports) give them full support in these areas and let them know of possible opportunities for the present (if they excel, possibly a low level "advanced" book to help their thirst or a class if it can be found) and the future (such as jobs: fireman, astronaut, college, which college, classes to take, books to read).
Pre-adolescence is also a great time to be taught anything. It's also the time that you're the most susceptible to people forcing ANY opinion as "fact" and ANY "fact" as knowledge; experience, perhaps being a better way to teach at this age--along with below, finding a direction or what you excel at (yes, I know you may not now this till you're much older, due to how the brain sets itself up). Whether it be good or bad: religion, politics, abuse, swimming, dancing, sports, science, computers, etc... Pre-adolescence is perhaps the most important time in your life to get an idea for direction, as this helps you mitigate problems that you face during adolescence (stay on course). This is of course a luxury for some as self-discovery is not a perfect process and can as always be entirely, never found.
If you wait to learn in your twenties or after adolescence you begin to form extremely superior ideas and opinions that as a adolescent, due entirely to having a brain that isn't shit-canning itself at a lot of turns. Things that need to be memorized are better in these "primitive" years; but, like religion and learning to form an opinion that makes sense, this requires someone usually to be above normal intelligence at that age or for you to be in your twenties when the fog of hormones and neurotransmitters has cleared up and allowed you to maake FAR more rational decisions.
Unfortunately, we have a lot of people that formed their opinions early, to the point that they are nearly unchangeable. I don't necessarily blame them either, to some degree, as these issues that "stop" learning are ingrained into your neural-net and chemical-memory. To make these people understand something is a huge undertaking (which is why I usually provide the information, as the only person that can convince them at that point is themselves--BUT, STILL make sure to give them the information or they'll have no chance).
This is why you can tell Rush Limbaugh the truth till you're blue in the face, yet it won't help as he can't understand it, will actively deny himself of it, and he physically can't. The only way to get through to them is to literally know how their neurons have decided to arrange themselves. If you knew it might be a matter of approaching the matter via religion or it could be politics, science, etc... This is why sciences premise of allowing yourself to let go of previous, erronious, information is FUNDAMENTAL. If you can't do that as aperson, you'll be locked in a world you can't or hope, to understand.
BTW, if you're reading this and you have a thousand questions that need answering, yet you've tried and they do not make sense. Remember, that it's the physical layout of your brain that disrupts this ability to understand in some cases. Your brain physically changes when you can figure out something for the first time; sometimes called an epiphany. Try something easy and move from there. DON'T try the hard stuff first (which is why that works incredibly well for teaching people; only people with I.Q.s of 150+ are able to see something complex and know, fairly intrinsically, what needs to be done--or what opinion should be held...).
Some of this will sound preachy, and I guess it should. Some of this will sound simple and obvious, I hope it does. If it sounds particularly TOO preachy or TOO opinionated, "...don't tell me what to do with my kid...". Your kid is a human being like yourself and demands as much respect at age 3 as at 33. If you can't give them the breadth of width to leave them to learn untouched or with a balanced or neutral approach you will hurt them. They will also hurt you. You can disagree, but deep inside I think you understand what I mean by everything I've said here. AND if you don't try to figure out why you don't.
What you see in this video is seen by a VERY small minority of people as being "good" or "informed"; it's seen as the opposite. However, if you can approach this same situation knowing all of this, knowing the ways the mind can fool you into making you a fool, yet you can still find a unwaivering "faith" or truth. That is when you're free to share responsibly, but please tell this to adults or people that understand at your level. Otherwise, you're Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Michelle Backmann, Pat Robertson, etc...
/Kind of a long point, but I think I made it. Hopefully, not too much on the cheesy side and not to "anti-religious".

This is why you DON'T cut your education funding and allow parents to pull children out of school or allow kids to decide not to go. It's also a reason why we might want to continue education past your formative years, as you're a literal "crazy idiot" as a teenager due to the chemicals pumping in your veins. Yet, we're fairly good at memorization during this time and procedural types of learning (like apprenticeship for basically anything). Education is the greatest gift you can give your children no matter what you believe and, truly, if you listen to me let them form their own opinions and try to keep them NEUTRAL in stances on any subject (including even your own religion) as taking a side can injure development. If they do become sidetracked into an academic arena (math, science, English, or even sports) give them full support in these areas and let them know of possible opportunities for the present (if they excel, possibly a low level "advanced" book to help their thirst or a class if it can be found) and the future (such as jobs: fireman, astronaut, college, which college, classes to take, books to read).

Pre-adolescence is also a great time to be taught anything. It's also the time that you're the most susceptible to people forcing ANY opinion as "fact" and ANY "fact" as knowledge; experience, perhaps being a better way to teach at this age--along with below, finding a direction or what you excel at (yes, I know you may not now this till you're much older, due to how the brain sets itself up). Whether it be good or bad: religion, politics, abuse, swimming, dancing, sports, science, computers, etc... Pre-adolescence is perhaps the most important time in your life to get an idea for direction, as this helps you mitigate problems that you face during adolescence (stay on course). This is of course a luxury for some as self-discovery is not a perfect process and can as always be entirely, never found.

If you wait to learn in your twenties or after adolescence you begin to form extremely superior ideas and opinions that as a adolescent, due entirely to having a brain that isn't shit-canning itself at a lot of turns. Things that need to be memorized are better in these "primitive" years; but, like religion and learning to form an opinion that makes sense, this requires someone usually to be above normal intelligence at that age or for you to be in your twenties when the fog of hormones and neurotransmitters has cleared up and allowed you to maake FAR more rational decisions.

Unfortunately, we have a lot of people that formed their opinions early, to the point that they are nearly unchangeable. I don't necessarily blame them either, to some degree, as these issues that "stop" learning are ingrained into your neural-net and chemical-memory. To make these people understand something is a huge undertaking (which is why I usually provide the information, as the only person that can convince them at that point is themselves--BUT, STILL make sure to give them the information or they'll have no chance).

This is why you can tell Rush Limbaugh the truth till you're blue in the face, yet it won't help as he can't understand it, will actively deny himself of it, and he physically can't. The only way to get through to them is to literally know how their neurons have decided to arrange themselves. If you knew it might be a matter of approaching the matter via religion or it could be politics, science, etc... This is why sciences premise of allowing yourself to let go of previous, erronious, information is FUNDAMENTAL. If you can't do that as aperson, you'll be locked in a world you can't or hope, to understand.

BTW, if you're reading this and you have a thousand questions that need answering, yet you've tried and they do not make sense. Remember, that it's the physical layout of your brain that disrupts this ability to understand in some cases. Your brain physically changes when you can figure out something for the first time; sometimes called an epiphany. Try something easy and move from there. DON'T try the hard stuff first (which is why that works incredibly well for teaching people; only people with I.Q.s of 150+ are able to see something complex and know, fairly intrinsically, what needs to be done--or what opinion should be held...).

Some of this will sound preachy, and I guess it should. Some of this will sound simple and obvious, I hope it does. If it sounds particularly TOO preachy or TOO opinionated, "...don't tell me what to do with my kid...". Your kid is a human being like yourself and demands as much respect at age 3 as at 33. If you can't give them the breadth of width to leave them to learn untouched or with a balanced or neutral approach you will hurt them. They will also hurt you. You can disagree, but deep inside I think you understand what I mean by everything I've said here. AND if you don't try to figure out why you don't.

What you see in this video is seen by a VERY small minority of people as being "good" or "informed"; it's seen as the opposite. However, if you can approach this same situation knowing all of this, knowing the ways the mind can fool you into making you a fool, yet you can still find a unwaivering "faith" or truth. That is when you're free to share responsibly, but please tell this to adults or people that understand at your level. Otherwise, you're Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Michelle Backmann, Pat Robertson, etc...

/Kind of a long point, but I think I made it. Hopefully, not too much on the cheesy side and not to "anti-religious".

Batshiat! There is a reason that word exists.

It sounds to me that he has literally caused a type of psychosis. The drugs have facilitated the change via memory and neuron construction. This doesn't sound like bi-polar (all though it seems like it's cyclical, I think it's the drugs--since he views them as a joke with no negatives), this sounds like a drug induced semi-delusion, schizophrenia, or literally a psychotic break.

This is what happens to you when you take too much--your brain finds a way to sustain itself in every fashion. The drugs were in the way so it cut around the useless area and reconnected. Simple stuff.

It made Charlie believe he's more than mortal, "in touch" with something "else", rampant rambling that's almost incoherent. This is ALL textbook; hell you don't need to be a doctor (one second he asks her if she's a doctor as though that brings qualification; the next he thinks the doctors have got it all wrong; rambling, psychotic...). Charlie needs to take a Human Anatomy 101, Psychology 101, and then either a Psychology +102, Neuroscience 101+, and then a Philosophy 101.

He might find out that his experience is: A-Not unique or special. B-VERY common to people to OD or take heavy doses of psychoactive drugs (or really any neurotransmitter/neurochemical based drug such as Xanax, Phenegran, or the common choice of an Opioid) C-Surprisingly he'll most likely end up like a statistic. Especially, because he thinks he's doing the right thing (psychosis).

I highly doubt Charlie will stop himself, it's up to the people around him that are close enough to affect a change (good luck with that; I know how hard that is to pull off).

Charlie Sheen is only human.

@NetRunner

Lefties aren't supposed to form opinions with little supporting evidence. =)

I'd say that activities between two consenting adults shouldn't concern others, though you can get into the issue of what should be allowed in public, around children, etc.

The formation of desires is still an area of research. Gambling addiction, for instance, is heavily affected by neurotransmitter levels, which are themselves affected by both genetics and environmental factors. Risk aversion and reward response both have a strong genetic correlation, but it wouldn't be correct to say "gambling addiction is genetic". At the same time, it wouldn't be correct to say that it's purely a choice either.

Perhaps we need programmable brains.

Why bother animating the synaptic vesicles when the neurotransmitter is apparently made of magic. Also, in my head, diffusion is a lot less springy. Epic *fail