Recent posts by vikaTae on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Parallel Universes

Originally posted by jcw777jcw:

Those scientists had to be social scientists, which is mostly theories.

If you check back, we’ve established it was a theoretical physics theory that the OP either didn’t fully understand, or it was a third-party (likely pop-sci) version of that theory dumbed down for mass consumption. We’ve established that the Many Worlds Theory is likely the source of the OP’s claim, although the OP has been reticent to say where their claim precisely came from.

Problem is, Many worlds has only superficial supporting data. Conjecture that the universe might be splitting to explain that superficial data, with no evidence it is actually splitting, is the mainstay of the theory. So nobody’s proven the evidence of alternate universes. Not even close.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Should we give children guns to protect them from school violence?

Originally posted by ImplosionOfDoom:

“Isn’t NCLB a wonderful initiative we can thank the previous administraton for? (sarcasm, in case you’re unaware)”

Actually the reason public school is obligated to educate mentally ill / mentally disabled kids probably falls under the Americans with Disabilities Act or something similar, NCLB is relatively recent and public schools have been obligated to teach the mentally ill / disabled since long before NCLB was enacted.

Again, depends on the nature of the disability. A person with spina bifida cannot walk (or walks with extreme difficulty) but there’s nothing wrong with their mind, so why not teach them? A person with cerebral palsey has a badly malformed cerebellum, but it doesn’t affect their conscious mind at all, so why not teach them? I’m curious as to where your aversion to teaching the physically disabled is coming from.

As to mental issues, again it depends on the nature of the mental disability. A child with depression is no less able than a child without. A child with dyslexia is going to struggle with words, but their intellect is usually above average because of the nature of the disability. Tourette’s syndrome isn’t going to affect the child’s mental capabilities. I could go on for a while here…

In regards to the NRA throwing a fit over having a registry of those qualified to own fire arms, we could simply make a "no fly list’ of people who aren’t allowed to own fire arms so dealers know who they shouldn’t sell to. (Come to think of it that might actually be easier, since violent mental illnesses are fairly uncommon)

That would probably be a good way to handle it, yes. They do something similar in the country where I currently work (UK). If medical problem crops up which is liable to affect the individual’s ability to concentrate or stay focussed, then we are legally obliged to notify the DVLA immediately (national driver registrar), and have their driving lisence revoked. It stays revoked until or unless the condition improves with treatment to the point they are deemed safe again. The patient has no say in this at all. As cars are lethal weapons comprable to guns in some ways, it serves as a good example that such can be done.

However, in order for it to work, a socialised healthcare system is essential, so that there is no good reason a person wouldn’t seek a diagnosis if something appears to be wrong with them. Most of the time, the ban is less than a year in length, and if they had not sought treatment, had an accident, and the compulsory healthcheck demanded by the insurance company found evidence of an underlying condition they hadn’t bothered to have checked upon… Well, “up shit creek without a paddle” fits very well in describing their situation.

Besides a list doesn’t need to be completely public, it just needs to be available to any establishment with a permit to sell firearms. (We may have to make some new regulation in regards to gun shows to make sure they are able to check this database as well, but I suppose the issue of regulating gun show sales might be a topic for another thread)

Yea, I was going to point out that a lot of trading doesn’t go through established businesses. An unknown amount is through one mate selling another, their gun. Currently there is no way to track this. A national ballistics database would be a good start, so a gun can always be identified with an owner, and if they didn’t notify the authorities they’d sold the gun, why hello shit creek, how nice to see you again. :)

But of course, the NRA would adamantly block any such database for the same reason they’d block any other listing of guns or owners.

So our options are fairly limited, and a complete solution will not be possible.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Should we give children guns to protect them from school violence?

Originally posted by ImplosionOfDoom:

Fair enough, but I’m willing to bet those British programs weed out all the problem kids before they give them any firearms, and they probably give them more supervision than the typical American public school.

Full military training program, so yes. Very heavy on the discipline, and continues out of school as well as in.

That and they probably limit access to fire arms to certain times of day (they probably keep them under lock and key when not in use). The problem with American public school is we are obligated to teach everyone, including the mentally ill kids and criminals of the future.

Isn’t NCLB a wonderful initiative we can thank the previous administraton for? (sarcasm, in case you’re unaware)

You could give the teachers and other faculty members fire arms and train them how to use them in a crisis situation (The training could be provided via the police department)

you would lose a lot of good teachers that way. When the subject was last discussed, there were many stating they’d refuse to teach if they were expected to carry a gun in class. I can fully understand that, since you’re destroying the teacher-student bond with an implied threat of deadly force. Plus of course a lot of teachers are crap, and will use the firearms to augment their teaching style if the kid isn’t behaving.

Granted we may have to plant cameras in the class rooms to make sure none of the teachers are tempted to threaten the kids at gunpoint, and we’ll need to make that sort of misuse of power grounds for immediate termination of employment.)

Cameras in classrooms are standard anyway these days. But you still have problems. What happens with cover teachers? They’re only in the school for one day, maybe two, then they’re gone again. Immediate termination of employment doesn’t work too well if you are no-longer employing them.

We can also institute other security measures, such as adding new alarms, locks, etc to prevent people from breaking in during the day or other off hours.

That’s increasingly being done, anyhow. The problem is cost there as well. Classrooms are typically large, well-lit rooms with (as a consequence) lots of large windows. Replacing them with security glass would cost millions. Likely millions per school.

We could also institute some air-port style security to prevent kids from bringing guns, drugs and other contraband into the school (If you’re late to school, too bad, we won’t let you in)

Some schools already do initiate lockdown procedures, and metal detectors are present at some US schools already. I’m interested in the development of the gunpowder sniffer, an electronic nose that can detect even a few parts per million in the air and track it back to source, but I’ve written to the developers before, and the thing’s still in lab development, not ready for deployment yet.

- We could do something more to address the problem of mental illness in the country (I know we closed down all the asylums in a knee jerk response to the abuses going on there, but doing nothing to help the mentally ill and letting them run free in the streets is not a good alternative. Besides a lot of them end up in prison or homeless anyway.)

Falls under socialised healthcare, and I’m certain you are well aware of the flak the Affordible Care Act has already received. Socialised healthcare is an extremely controvercial subject in the US (The only first world nation without it), as there is still a strong tendency to wish not to pay for the healthcare of others.

In addition we could require a mental health assessment as a requirement for getting a gun license. Perhaps even go as far as require a mental health assessment every 5 years to renew the gun license.

We could, but the NRA would likely block it. It would mean creating a registrar of who owns firearms in the country, and that is something they are dead set against, because of the imagined boogeyman of a government armed takeover. Unfortunately they have enough money and influence to make that idea a non-starter.

We could also make a law banning the storage of guns on a property where a mentally ill person resides (If you’ve got a mentally ill relative but still like to hunt, sport shoot or whatever you’ll just have to rent out a secure off-site storage unit for your firearms and ammo.)

That one might work, and is worth pursuing. However, you would have to narrow your focus to what types of mental illness you are barring, as many mental illnesses will not make the person a greater threat than anyone else. Some will even reduce the threat.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / A Way To End All Crime

Perhaps, but any argument that behavior is purely a choice and not influenced by pre-existing structure in the brain, perhaps should be countered by pointing out the extent to which our genes determine who we are. We already know free will doesn’t exist, so any solution that claims crime is a ‘choice’ we need to stamp out, is doomed to failure unless you take into account how little control over one’s own thoughts and personality a given individual really has.

Yes, there is a choice there, but it’s not an immediate effect. If you see petty change within easy reach and nobody looking, your brain has already decided what it will do, just as you are becoming aware of it. Your only real freedom is in choosing to tell the rest of your brain it is inadvisable to do that again in the future. This is the same reason therapy takes years. A person’s choice ability is sorely limited and is only applicable after the fact.

It’s also why we have to punish – because the brain will repeat that behavior unless it is removed from that situation. You’re not punishing the person; you’re punishing the brain, and there is a difference.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Bad times versus bad memories

(since I can’t say that 99% of the world is animals)

True you can’t. A hefty portion are plants :P

I wouldn’t even really say one type of mind is ‘better’ than the other. I’m eligable for Mensa membership, but I’ve chosen not to join. There is a really uncomfortable thick air of arrogance when you get too many high-intellect individuals in the same room together, when the only real commonality between them is that intellect itself. I find it becomes very bad for your thought process, as you tend towards internalising that attitude yourself.

We’re all still animals, regardless of our intellects. It’s only if we can cut that mind free of our animal natures that we’ll be able to say we’re not animals. Doing that will change those minds quite considerably in the process.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Should we give children guns to protect them from school violence?

Originally posted by ImplosionOfDoom:

Remember that the human brain technically isn’t ‘fully developed’ until the age of 25 and the last parts to mature are those involved with tasks such as rational decision making, forethought, etc (this is why kids and teens are inherently more reckless than adults)

I’m not disagreeing, just pointing out something you may well find interesting. Turns out we were wrong about the age 25 completion of genetic development. The prefrontal cortex continues to undergo genetic-driven changes well into the late 30s, and early 40s.

This is why personality continues to shift after the mid 20s. Development is still ongoing, part of the brain is literally still maturing. The part where you live, and controls every part of your personality not environmental stimulii based.

if the schools can’t even trust kids with unsupervised usage of an exacto knife, what makes you think they’ll ever trust them firearms?

Interestingly, a small subset of British children, usually from private schools do train with firearms as part of a holistic armed-forces-backed training regimen to install a strong sense of discipline and teamwork in the children. However, as noted, the scheme is driven by professional career military instructors, and gun training is only a tiny portion of what is taught.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / A Way To End All Crime

Originally posted by jim_vierling:

Would not your memories and thoughts be who you are? Alzheimer’s can cause you to not be able to ‘remember’ who you are.

Alzheimers causes a breakout of plaques across the brain, disrupting the circuitry. This is how it damages your memories, breaks down your thoughts; by disrupting the circuitry.

The way your brain works is part of what you are, genetics/nature. What is put into it and how you think about what is put into it is who you are environment/nurture.

What is put into it, is heavily influenced by how it works. The way you record information is part determined by the language you learnt as a child, and part by the sensory capablilities the brain has to record that information. Pathways do not form from nothing; they always build upon what came before.

When a new brain pathway is established due to environment it was not predetermined where that pathway would be established within your brain. I am talking about the exact pathway and not about the area of your brain associated with the particular environmental stimuli.

When a rockslide occurs, it was not predetermined exactly where each rock would fall. However, by performing a mathematical model on the cliffface, it is possible to reconstruct the breakdown, and simulate more-or-less exactly how it fell. What you need is information on how it was structured, and how the area around it was structured; then you can predict the movement pattern.

Without the environmental stimuli, the pathways would not form. No pathways formed from the environmental stimuli, no who you are.

Without the existing circuitry acting as a foundation, no new pathways would form. That initial basic network must be present, in order for anything to build on top of it. The structure of the initial network will heavily influence the structure of what comes next.

What I wrote is that alive or dead it is still a human body which either is or was what someone is or was and not who they are or were.

Yet you stated there was no difference between a living human and a dead human; they’re still just human. Therefore if you witnessed a horriffic accident, you would just walk right on by; not bother calling the emergency services because whether they live or die, they’ll still be human, so it really doesn’t matter one way or the other. Right?

Yes, an injury to the what can affect the who. Mostly because it causes the what to not be able to process the memories/thoughts that made up part or all of the who.

Not ‘not be able to process’ exactly. More ‘radically alter the circuitry’. This means some pathways may become inaccessible as in amnesia. (Usually because the associations are broken, and the brain doesn’t know how to access them. Like losing a file name on a computer. The info’s still there.) More usually the information is still perfectly accessible but the way it is processed has completely changed.

A good example would be how deep brain stimulation neuroprosthetics and/or psychoactive drugs can radically change both mood and personality. The former alters the electrical pathways directly whilst the latter alters chemical processes directly. As the brain is an electrochemical machine, each is altering half the circuitry pattern, and we usually see wild shifts in behavior contrasted to who they were before the procedure started.

The circuitry regarding personality was not there at conception and did not start being formed until there were outside influences, environment, causing them to start developing.

Incorrect. The circuitry was not there at conception no, but everything grew out of the neural tube which was the initial, completely-closed-system of both the central and peripheral nervous systems. A single multi-cellular unit. By ten weeks old, the fetus’ brain is exanding at optimum rate. Several million new cells per hour. That’s laying the foundation structure for everything including the prefrontal cortex. Much of your personality is there, whilst the rest (emotions, language syntax, memories) is in the midbrain.

As I said before, the midbrain is the only part we have any evidence for changes due to environment taking place in. The cortex changes yes, but it follows a genetic profile not an environmental one, with new structures being laid down as the individual matures. There is absolutely zero evidence it changes in response to environmental stimulii, and a hefty amout of psychological evidence that the basis personality stays the same throughout life.

Plenty of studies, fMRI, EEG and ECoG, have been able to track changes in brain structure as new memories form in the midbrain. Experimentally we’ve even been able to force them to lay down in the patterns we wish, and observe the memory transferrence results. However, nobody has been able to observe similar environment-triggered changes in the cortex, except after damage to the cortex itself. There is absolutely no evidence of pathway changes in the cortex itself, other than those genetically triggered. So half the personality (the active mind, all higher or abstract thought functions, problem solving et al) are genetic. They are supplemented by the other half (emotions, memories, language-syntax) which are heavily influenced by experience, but they too are built on a genetically provided base structure.

The persons that you refer to have already been influenced by their environment that caused the circuitry to form the way it did. Disrupting that circuitry or destroying it would then result in the environment starting to cause new circuitry to develop.


If the new circuitry developed in a different way, then it would not be a result of pre-programmed genetics producing who you are.

It can only develop in the ways the surviving more immutable circuitry will allow. If there is extensive damage to broca’s area for example, the new personality will struggle with the concept of language, and be unable to express itself properly, and likely struggle to grasp complex concepts. If there is damage to the hippocampus, long term memory formation may well be impossible. If the amygdala is damaged, the new personality may well shift to be dominant in the emotions whose circuitry is the least damaged.

For example, an angry introverted mind may well be the new form, whereas a well-adjusted outgoing mind was the old form, if the circuitry governing positive emotions in the amygdala was damaged, forcing a heavier reliance on neutral or negative circuitry. In addition let’s say the hippocampus was damaged, fueling the anger because older memories are hit and miss. There are gaps where the mind knows there should be memories. It feels like something is missing and that’ll promote frustration if frustration still exists in the circuitry.

Any new memories will be laid down via environmental stimulus and association with old memories still accessible. Yes, however the emotional state of the personality will be determined by the circuitry that survived. There is currently absolutely no evidence that can return once damaged, short of shoving a neuroprosthetic in there to correct the damage artificially.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun issues updates

Originally posted by jhco50:

You are so naive Karma.

…To believe that you would actually consider his arguments, take the information on board and integrate the more common-sense parts into your worldview, rather than just ignoring the whole thing and making a snarky, one-liner comeback.

Yes, very naïve.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / A Way To End All Crime

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

Those life experiences are typically a function of complex firings of the synapses in the brain (don’t judge me too harshly here, vika…lol).

Why would I judge you harshly? You’re correct. :)

However, from the very moment that egg plants itself to the uterine wall and begins FEEDING from it food/nutrients/poisons the mother’s nutritional system is providing, that new organism is now being influenced by issues that are more “chemical” in nature essence than life experiences.

This is something I thought about bringing up last night, then dismissed as too complex to broach here, especially when I’m liable to be half asleep and highly likely to be sub-par at explaining.

Genetics isn’t as cut-and-dry as pop-sci makes it out to be. It’s not just a case of “half the genes from the mother’s egg, and half the genes from the father’s sperm”. It’s not that simple. (Is it ever?) Genetics are affected by the same chemicals you’re talking about, in the womb itself, once the fetus has started growing. Something called horizontal gene transfer is involved.

This is where it gets FUN.

Your nature is directly altered by your nurture. Yup, you heard that right. The thing that came first, is altered by the thing that came second. Genes are activated and deactivated based on what chemicals the fetus is exposed to in the womb. A relatively recent discovery was particularly fun. They think they’ve found why autism exists. Hormonal levels in the womb are possibly (peer review has yet to be done) directly responsible for changing the nature of the instructions that are building a brain in the particular manner that leads to the pattern of pathways characteristic of autism.

Think of it like a massive group of dll libraries in coding. Each one contains dozens of function calls, and are referenced in turn by the program that is slowly building the new lifeform. However, the function names aren’t words. They are proteins. Precise chemical signals that only one function matches. A foreign chemical comes in, and it happens to be one that binds with the protein signal being sent out. The result is the protein is altered chemically, and no-longer matches the function name, so the function no-longer gets called. That part of the brain isn’t built, or worse the protein now matches a completely different function name, and that function gets called a second time instead.

Another fun horizontal transfer can occur when the mother say gets a cold, or the flu. A virus or bacteriological infection invades her body, and if it crosses the placenta, which can happen, the fetus may get infected with the condition. Fair enough, all common sense you might say. But it gets more interesting.

If the virus invades whilst the fetus is still being assembled at a rapid rate, and the fundamental bits are all in their initial stages, well, the virus is basically a dll itself, and its function calls are also chemical in nature. Some of you likely see where this is going, and are hoping you’re wrong. You’re not.

Virus DNA can and does get accidentally used just like any other available DNA source if it is present and the right chemical trigger is called. The fetus is changed directly by the inclusion of DNA from a completely different species, and it’s likely this has been going on right the way back through prehistory.

The result is our fundamental nature is altered, and once the fetus is built, it’s far too late to change it. The DNA’s already been integrated in whatever order, mix of orders, or mix of species it was called from. Compilation errors and run-time glitches result in perhaps a very different genome than it would have been if it was just the mother and father combined. Then that gets passed to the next generation, and the next, and the next… once those changes are in there, that’s the code your eggs or sperm are going to carry, and that’s the code that’ll get passed down.

So, Karma, you thought you were depressing yourself before. It’s even worse than you were picturing. There’s no clear boundary between nature and nurture. The two blur together, and when the new life is being constructed, they directly alter one another in a cycle that only slows to near-nonexistence when the body is actually built.

(It doesn’t actually stop completely so long as the being still lives. Another happy thought)

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Bad times versus bad memories

Originally posted by Cocklecarrot:

I hadn’t heard of that film.

I would still recommend it. Not a good film from a storytelling POV, but it’s one of those that examines the wider issues surrounding neuroprosthetics, even if the limited use of them in the film is highly unrealistic. (Only one neuroprosthetic exists; the neural reader that is the centerpoint of the film.) Social reactions, individual reactions, ‘defenses’ against them, et al. The main defense is even theoretically possible.

I imagine the bucket listers would reject the possibility because it would be fake.

I’m not so sure. It depends really on how bad your life was. If the connection to the hippocampus is itself severed, the person’s original memories would be completely unavailable whilst the prosthetic was plugged in, and all associations the individual had access to would be those from the implant. In other words, like your OPs scenario, there would be no subjective way to tell the memories were fake once the originals were disconnected via the hippocampus.

Certainly many would reject the idea of losing their own memories in their final hours, but going with my intuition from some more erm, unlucky individuals I’ve met, I strongly suspect there would still be enough willing parties to make it viable.

For everyone else, there is still subjective replacement. Implantation of memories the original Total Recall style in order to complete bucket lists they could not do, or were too scared to do. More could not do than were scared to do I would suspect. In this local country, Health and Safety laws are rampant, and frequently prevent individuals from even attempting potentially dangerous tasks, especially if their body is malfunctioning at the time. Implanting the memory of having done it would be a poor substitute for actually doing it, but for many it might at least be a substitute.

And yes, living for the moment can burn you out and leave you in tatters by your deathbed.

Perhaps ironically, so can always planning ahead. If you don’t leave enough time for the here and now, it puts serious strain on relationships, and can also lead to a lot of regrets. I’m familiar with that problem perhaps too well.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / A Way To End All Crime

Originally posted by Kasic:

Yes, I am. If we fully understood exactly how our brains worked and were able to analyze them you could predict people’s responses. Nurture (environmental influence) affects us by both causing physical changes developmentally and by providing us with experiences to refer back to.

I have to wholeheartedly agree with this statement.

All nurture does, is provide experience which the brain uses to lay new pathways, making associations with old pathways to ascribe new meaning, then letting the prefrontal cortex use imagination and abstract thought on the new concepts, laying down even more new pathways, whilst others fade.

This process doesn’t even affect the whole brain; it seems to be a midbrain-only process. The hindbrain (medula, pons, brainstem, cerebellum), doesn’t change in this manner, and there is as yet no evidence the cortex does either (The cortex includes the bit where you reside. Your active mind). New pathways are only being laid down in the memory-centers of the brain, and in the linguistic-oirientated and memory centers – the midbrain.

The only exception to this I can think of, is when the embodiment changes – you lose an arm or an eye – and the hindbrain remaps neurons to compensate.

Basically, nurture doesn’t change the circuitry of the whole brain; it only affects memories, and thought structure. Even they are heavily, heavily affected by the capabilities the genetic construction left that brain with.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Bad times versus bad memories

Originally posted by Cocklecarrot:

It’s an appealing answer. A lot of people seem to think that deathbed satisfaction is paramount (cf. bucket lists) when on the contrary, one’s status on one’s deathbed is perhaps irrelevant.

That makes me wonder if there is not a market there, when the tech has matured. Giving those with poor lifelong memories an alternative. Disconnect and re-route their entire long-term memory to an artificial source so on their deathbed, they don’t remember their own life, but one manufactured to make them feel satisfied about their life.

Have you ever seen the serious Robin Williams film, The Final Cut? That uses a neuroprosthetic implanted in the patient’s brain to record their sensory information over their entire life, used to make a video record autobiography of their life’s highlights once it is cut down by a specialist, into a 90 minute film to play at their funeral.

This would use the same idea, but instead of playing their own life at the funeral, it would play someone else’s life into their own head in the days before they die, simply so they can die satisfied, if their own life left them with nothing but regrets.

It would be very interesting to see how many people out of the ‘bucket list’ crowd would be willing to try that.

But is “living for the moment” animistic and sub-intellectual? And if so, is that shameful for Homo sapiens?

I don’t think so. Remember whilst we are all one species, we are not all the same. Not everyone values intellectualism, and a good majority don’t. If anything, we are the outliers; the ones with significant intellect well above the norm.

On top of that, and less elitist-sounding, for many, the moment is all they have. They haven’t the resources to build empires, and direct long-term efforts. They’re living hand-to-mouth, on the lower end of financial means and the brain is plastic; it adapts to adopt the mindset necessary for survival if it can. Grand dreams are forgotten or pushed aside, and living in the moment is what dominates. Just enjoying life as it comes.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / A Way To End All Crime

Originally posted by jim_vierling:

@ vikaTae

“All the above were created through our genetics. They could be prevented from forming yes, but the consequences for the lives of anyone who never developed them then trying to lead what most consider a ‘normal’ life would be extremely severe and debilitating.”

All of those things are part of what you are not who you are. They are a part of making you a human being. They may or may not be part of other animals as well. If you do not or could not use any of those parts you would still be human.

A body in a persistent vegetative state is still a human. That is what it is. There is no who it is left. A person dies and the body is still there. It is a human, albeit a dead one, that is what it is. There is no who it is anymore.

To be able to form who you are through nurture, nature would have to provide what you are from genetics in that it needs to function. Without the genetics that make you a human you would not be a human. That does not mean that those genetics make you who you are.

Then you are happy to conclude that there is no functional difference between a living human and a dead human? It’s what you’ve basically said up there.

I’m assuming then, that you do not feel murder or manslaughter should be crimes, since they do no harm whatsoever?

There is no ‘innate’ behavior.

Plenty of innate behavior, at least if you look at living humans, whose brains are still functioning.

A very, VERY good case to study is the one that forms the name of this book:

The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat.

There are two dozen recorded tales in that book, all of them actual patients, with full study of the nature-based or nature combined with damage based structures in the brain which radically altered or shaped unusual deficiencies, capabilities or complete changes in one or more aspects of personality and/or basic cognition as a result of structural differences in the brain.

Then there are the cases with implanted neuroprosthetics where if the implanted rig slips, the patient’s whole personality and outlook changes because new connections are made in the circuitry. (sorry about the link, Nature uses a paywall, I have the original paper in dead tree, but that’s no use to you, and the paywall is $90)

I have plenty of other examples if needed, showing how a person’s personality, who they are at the most fundamental level, is defined, defined by their brain’s circuitry. Any changes to that circuitry, literally change the person, permanently, regardless of their will otherwise.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / A Way To End All Crime

If it is genetic then it would/could be considered a defect and there would/could be a cure developed.

The development of the hippocampus is genetic. As it is genetic, the hippocampus could/would be considered a defect and there could/would be a cure developed. No more long-term memory.

The development of the sensorimotor cortex is genetic. As it is genetic, the sensorimotor cortex could/would be considered a defect and there could/would be a cure developed. Severe damage and large-scale loss to voluntary muscle control.

The development of Ruffini’s corpuscles is genetic. As it is genetic, Ruffini’s corpuscles could/would be considered a defect and there could/would be a cure developed. We don’t need a major component of our ability to touch and feel, after all.

All the above were created through our genetics. They could be prevented from forming yes, but the consequences for the lives of anyone who never developed them then trying to lead what most consider a ‘normal’ life would be extremely severe and debilitating.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun issues updates

Originally posted by Kasic:

Sources other than conservative pundits would be nice. Actual statistics, research, and bills would be nice. Without supporting evidence you simply sound paranoid.

Kasic sums it up best. Almost every single time you have given sources down the years Jhco, they have turned out to be a heavily biased CNN news video, a heavily biased Fox News story, or a far-right blog.

On those occasions when you have given sources that tried to eliminate all bias – no left bias, no right bias – and report on what happened impartially, giving the facts, they have always, without a single exception I can honestly think of, heavily disagreed with you.

Your most common source has always been “I heard on the radio, I forget which station”, or “I heard the guys talking, several of whom are qualified X”.

So why should anyone here take any of your rants seriously when they have not one shred of checkable factual evidence backing them up?


Topic: Serious Discussion / Gun issues updates

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Religion - subproblem.

Fortunately if I follow his philosophy I can type however much I like, then if he says it is more than eight lines, I can counterclaim it is no more than five lines, and he has to provide evidence that is is not less than five lines, and then has to show evidence why that evidence is right, and then provide more than evidence in evidence of his claim that it’s the wrong length.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Religion - subproblem.

Originally posted by Kasic:

that we can’t know anything past, present, or future because of philosophical ideals.

I think he’s an anti-realist who also claims there is no objective reality. My best guess is he’s halfway to being a solopsist, and holds the view that scientific truth is always invalid as science is founded on the axiom that observable reality is a construct that exists. In other words, no physical laws truly exist and science is thus a bunch of meaningless mumbo-jumbo that can never prove or demonstrate anything.

It reads like he’s taken half the principles of anti-realism and none of the foundation concepts that make it work, then run with it as a new philosophical system, cobbling in half-understood or incomplete ideas along the way.

Normal, sane anti-realism holds that empirical data is valid. His version doesn’t count empirical data as valid, as seen in the other thread when he dismissed fMRI readings of brain activity in defined, measurable areas when the subjects were exercising their belief (in pretty much anything). Normal anti-realism accepts that empirical data exists. Yeasy quite specifically did not, stating that the raw data was only ‘opinion’ and it was equally possible that the brain was not involved in belief in any way, and instead belief was wholly a construct of the soul.

This is a good example of what I mean by his half-understood use of the philosophy train of thought he seems to be using. He’s taken some tenets but not all; disregarded the foundations the philosophy is built upon, and I think, applied the partially understood philosophy to the tenets of the philosophy itself to try and complete his understanding, not realising he’s fundamentally broken the resultant philosophy. Since no universal laws exist, the only constant could ever be his own reference point. Hence halfway to solopsism – everything exists independent of him, but nothing has a defined form.

Kinda unnerving that I can even visualise what he’s seeing, to be honest.

(That might have been more than five lines, sorry Yeasy)

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Religion - subproblem.

Originally posted by Labayka:
Am I the only one who appreciates the humor of this situation?

Nope. I think it be hilarious how given that logic, reason, and both solid scientific and solid historical evidence repeatedly trounced his position, he felt there was no choice but to start again, with a set of logic-contorting and discussion-denying axioms (in a non-AX thread no less!) to try and force out all views he cannot challenge.

It’s like a really, really acid-laiden bad trip whilst attempting to use Occam’s Razor (or Occam’s Scizzors as he’ll probably call it).

At some point he’ll realise (doubtfully) that his ‘rule’ that he gets to insult you if you make an argument he disagrees with, violates Kong’s terms and conditions, and is likely going to end in his posts being removed and his account silenced. All because of a fanatical, borderline religious belief that religion can be permanently removed damn what the evidence says to the contrary.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Religion - subproblem.

He did, but all the answers given with evidence were too detailed with attention to nuance and interaction. By forcing the posts to be shorter he forces much of the explanation, reason, and science out. By constraining the logic styles to a single limited type, he eliminates the logical arguments which were defeating him. Basically, this thread is to ensure he is right, and no arguments based in reality can be used against his argument.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is Religion Outdated?

You know what? Tell me which behaviour is most justified, I’m curious:

None of the above, since that train of thought leads to solipsism.

I tend to follow the philosophy of science, philosophical realism and empirical science when making judgement claims of what is and is not possible in this world we are sensorilly surrounded by. It tends to produce, yanno, actual results. Reality-independent thinking has no place in scientific discourse.

Sure there are some things science cannot touch and will never be able to touch, but a discussion of something which has emerged as a cross polination of the neurology of the human brain and the social nature of the human animal, is not one of them.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Bad times versus bad memories

Cockle, one thing comes to mind that would be very interesting in such a study.

You’re implanting memories artificially, en-masse. I was assuming you were simply co-opting the brain’s own memory recording methods. But if you’re doing a mass recording like that, I’m not so sure you are. It’s a little like the optogenetic method I linked to with the mice. Rather than chemically signalling that a memory is to be written, and directing the pattern to be laid down, you are actually creating the engram circuits in-situ.

The optogenetic neuroprosthetic in that paper did that; implanted in the brain of the first generation of mice, it recorded the engram circuits in a brain made responsive to light as a light pattern. In the brains of the second generation after being removed from the first, it played that patttern back also in a brain made responsive to light, setting up new memories without engaging the brain’s own memory management systems.

Bearing all that in mind, is there not a good chance that you’ve also bypassed the brain’s memory association system? Creating in other words a set of memories that cannot be accessed in any way other than directly? Or at least by no method other than association by memories you recall after the implantation procedure? They don’t map logically by the right associations, because they’re not truly integrated into the relationship database.

It’s something that’ll have to be done experimentally, but it’s a really interesting thought. Disassociative memories by implantation could if the data supports the concept, be a way to test objectively whether a memory was implanted or not.

Not meaning to derail your thread; the idea came to me whilst rereading your posts. Just thinking out loud.

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is Religion Outdated?

My money’s on both, Kasic. He doesn’t understand the topic, doesn’t really understand English, and has already admitted he finds basic science hard (having to redo physics, having to redo math) so he’s trolling based on a partial understanding of philosophical skepticism he’s picked up in a basic philosophy class but doesn’t really understand the concepts he’s trying to use.

Trying to use a branch of philosophy you don’t fully understand via a language you have a doubtful grasp of, with a superiority complex the size of a small planet. Sounds fun.

(I’m assuming it’s philosophical skepticism, as it’s the only one I can think of that loosely matches his ‘argument’ style, when I go back over his previous posts. It could well be anti realism, but if so, the level of understanding is even sketchier. It could be something else entirely, as my own understanding of philosophical modes of thought beyond the mainstream is sketchy at best.

Difference is I won’t use something I’m sketchy on, in an argument or in physical creation. Neither turns out well if you don’t know what you’re doing. Yeasy seems to thrive on doing exactly that.)

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is Religion Outdated?

Originally posted by yeasy:

My claim? I don’t claim anything special.

Your claim, since you’ve apparently forgotten it despite it having been pointed out to you five times already:

Originally posted by yeasy:
Let’s kill the rest of people. What is left? Group who doesn’t believe in anything supernatural.
Religion removed permamently.
I just say there’s such alternative.

You claim we’re all wrong despite the evidence because your claim invalidates ours. Yet you point-blank refuse to provide any evidence, and even started insulting Karma when he started pressing you for evidence to back up your counterclaim. Not even insulting his argument, insulting him personally.

Simple as that, If you can’t understand ’Russel’s Kettle’ thing.

’Russel’s Kettle’ doesn’t exist, even as a philosophical argument. It never has. ’Russell’s Teapot’ exists as a philosophical argument, and is the one you should be using, but you were first told this three pages ago, and still you claim the kettle as your argument. You are quite probably literally the first person ever to use “Russel’s Kettle” as a philosophy as opposed to a brand of physical kettle (you can buy Russell’s Kettles in most home appliance stores) and it is literally just a catchphrase at this point with no meaning behind it.

Originally posted by yeasy:

Mathapors, hard things.

Oh, and just to add to the hilarity, Mathapor is apparently vampire knight fanfiction. So, how exactly is vampire fanfic ‘hard’? Writer’s block? Why are you discussing your fanfic here?

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is Religion Outdated?

Originally posted by yeasy:
Well, see you next year, in the same class.

I doubt it. I haven’t yet failed a class I’ve taken. Scraped through one by the skin of my teeth admittedly, but never failed.

Good luck with the module retake yeasy!