/sci/ - Science & Math

I'm sorry OP

>>2246457

prepare for shitstorm.

for every serious reply there will be 100 people calling you retarded. /sci/ is closeminded as fuck.

Take 8 different drugs and become god among men?

Sign me up.

Who are you to say who is and who isn't fit for science?

wiki
>It consists of several quantum psychological systems

>>2246516

sort-of. It makes more sense if you think of consciousness as a chemical process. There are other ways to activate those circuits, though. Sex and Yoga are some of the more stressed, but even eating comfort food can activate a circuit (the first though, so it's kinda lame)

>>2246476
>closminded
>about pseudo-psychology
Are you fucking kidding me? Psychology is bad enough, and now you are bringing this PSEUDO-psychology in my /sci/?

GTFO!

>>2246533

yes, because once-widely accepted notions of psychology aren't discredited today (looking at you, Freud)

psychology is a tricky subject anyway, because we only have just been able to show physical evidence of it's neurological functions

>by Timothy Leary

don't need to read anymore,
it's obviously going to be related to drugs and lsd.
And it's obviously going to be advocating them because it's timothy leary.

>>2246545
u mad sheep

SHEEP

>>2246610

I like drugs. But you've taken far too many if you think you're discussing subjects with sheep over the internet.

>>2246538
>yes, because once-widely accepted notions of psychology aren't discredited today (looking at you, Freud)

The same can be said about any science, you imbecile.

To top it off, psychology is a pretty young subject.

>>2246533
>>2246533

Psychology is bad enough?
I am somewhat open-minded to new concepts of psychology only based on the fact that psychology has barely even scratched the surface when trying to understand the human mind, so that leads me to believe that there are other "phenomenon" out there regarding the human mind that we just haven't uncovered yet.

Remember, psychology is science too.

The biggest problem I can see is that consciousness is not always so discrete and quantized. Astral projection phenomena can be brought about straight from a circuit one state.

>theory made by Timothy "i'm going to get stoned as fuck on LSD and make my assistant draw what I see as experiments" Leary

sounds credible

I don't think so Tim,

you guys fail. Have you even consider trying to work with the aforementioned circuts?
as described in timothy leary model.

Hm let me read this wiki page. OK, seems good. Cool. Neat idea. Pretty neat shit that finally got organized into a series.

>Get to Level 8
>Concerned with quantum consciousness, non-local awareness
>NOPE

Thoughts:

consciousness is always and only a biological process.

engineers cannot create a mechanical consciousness without accepting certain biological constraints.

consciousness being biological is always and only governed by classical physics.

It's amusing when physicists try to pretend at biology without understanding the basics.

>>2246790
>I've never studied the Philosophy of Mind.

FTFY

>>2246790
>consciousness is always and only a biological process.

>>2246815
test the hypothesis... there's probably a gun and some ammo nearby.

>>2246819
>suggests bad experimental design
>thinks it supports his point

>>2246790
>he thinks organic compounds are from things that are alive

>>2246790
I hope this guy becomes a ghost.

His fault for not listening to the millions of people, and thousands of cultures that all have seen ghosts.

>>2246837
>ghost
I'm sure that ghosts actively hide themselves when researchers try to do field work and give them some validity.

since there's no scientific evidence for ghosts, why should I believe in them?

>>2246861
the same reason you should believe in God

>>2246866
so...ghosts will send me to hell if I don't believe in them?

>>2246790

>hurr durr im a dualist
>just kidding, I'm not actually a dualist, just retarded

>>2246877
>>2246866
>>2246861
Yes, because if ghosts or God don't appear in your chemistry beaker like some kind of bitch, then they don't exist. Cool willful ignorance bro.

A whole lot of theory with nothing to back it up.

Like a lot of psychology garbage. Why can't they just stick to empirically provable stuff?

>>2246885
>believe in something that has absolutely no evidence to back it up
cool logic troll

>>2246900
>only consider something evidence if it fits the narrow self-fulfilling prophecy worldview you've already chosen

>>2246885
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

>>2246900
I did not believe in flying saucers until I saw one either. Same with ghosts. Maybe you should ask some of your family members that have seen them.

>>2246910
>>2246911
Can you at least try and troll harder? Please???

Your current attempts are fucking pathetic.

>>2246921
It would be a bad troll if I was actually trying to.

But I'm being genuine.

>>2246925
>But I'm being genuine.

You claim an "argument form ignorance". This is faulty reasoning. You are either a very shitty troll, or a really stupid little kid. I really don't care which.

>>2246921
I'm sorry if you don't get it, but empiricism is flawed.

>>2246931
I don't believe I was making that argument. If you actually look at my post, I was insinuating willful ignorance; as in, "saying there is no evidence" without actually investigating themselves.

>>2246936
>doesn't know what empiricism means, thinks it is relevent to this converstaion

>doesn't understand basic logic

Why does /sci/ alwasy have such shitty trolls?

>Wikipedia: Empiricism then, in the philosophy of science, emphasizes those aspects of scientific knowledge that are closely related to evidence, especially as discovered in experiments.
>>2246946
>doesn't understand the obvious relevance of empiricism to this conversation
>shitty "scientist"

>>2246936
>implying that the only alternative to empiricism is having blind faith in any pseudoscientific bullshit people come up with

>>2246974
>implying that I was implying that at all
>implying that other people are as mentally deficient as yourself that your argument ad absurdum could be applied to anyone else

Few people actually bothered to reply to OP. I'll try to up that number:

It seems to me that this system of 8 different circuits is very unlikely to be true, simply because I don't see why the "higher" circuits, which are specifically excluded from the "survival" group, would ever have evolved into the human gene pool. The claims that they're present in everyone, rarely activated and unnecessary to survival would make sense if they were vestigial, but that would imply that our ancestors at some point all had some great mental power that was lost along the way, and current evidence points to the contrary.

>>2246990
What current evidence?

>>2246985
The only way any fault in empiricism would be relevant to your argument that blind faith in an unproven claim is if there were no other alternative. Hence, either you admit that empiricism is Not relevant to this discussion, or you admit that you were indeed implying that there's no other alternative. Either way, you'll be admitting that you're an uneducated idiot.

But obviously, since you're trolling, you'll completely disregard the contents of this post and either pretend it's not here or reply with some weak ad hominem or strawman.

>>2247000
Fossil records show that brain size has increased in our recent evolutionary history, not decreased. Also, evidence from our closest living relatives, the other great apes (especially baboons, orang outans and chimps). There's probably more, but off the top of my head I can only remember these two.

>>2247002
You got it exactly wrong. If the only alternative to strict empiricism was blind faith then of course it would be stupid to focus on the flaw in empiricism. It is simply that *you* personally think of it as an either-or situation that makes you go straight from "there's a flaw in empiricism" to "so believe in things blindly".

>>2247020
This whole argument started precisely because you said that not believing in things blindly is narrow-minded, you git.

If that's not what you meant, I'd love for you to set me straight.

>>2247013
IIRC, Neanderthals had greater cranial capacity (of course it doesn't say anything about brain folding, etc), and modern homo sapiens sapiens had the same cranial capacity and probably the same brains as we have... and if brain size has increased in recent evolutionary history, why would that suggest that the higher numbered circuits weren't there?

>>2247030
I said no such thing.

>>2247028
>modern homo sapiens sapiens had the same cranial capacity and probably the same brains as we have

Probably, since we ARE modern homo sapiens sapiens. Also, IIRC neanderthals had smaller cranial volume than us. But that part is just a detail.

The trend of increasing brain size over time doesn't mean that the higher circuits weren't there before. What it does is weigh heavily against the idea that the circuits might be vestigial, and I can't see any other reason for a rarely-used, non-vital and highly complex structure to be ubiquitous in our gene pool.

From reading the Wikipedia article linked in OP, I couldn't help but think that Leary was being very Lamarckist in his premises.

>>2247031
>no, because
Well, thank you for clarifying with what you actually meant.

>>2247041
I'm sorry that I didn't feel like volunteering a detailed explanation to someone who was presenting a false dilemma and claiming to know position when he clearly didn't. Maybe I can get a lobotomy so that I can be more subservient to you next time.

>>2247055
I doubt there's enough gray matter in your skull to perform a lobotomy without killing you, but go ahead.

>>2247061
I'm not the one who committed both the fallacy of the excluded middle and strawman fallacies within a few minutes time.

>>2247075
Actually, you are. Nice try, though, and thanks for playing.

>/x/ is a terrible place
yes
>and my discussion might have some scientific substance.
no
for "scientific substance", you are missing studies, theories and experiments that support them
What you posted is one guy guessing a lot
That's not science, that's essentially playing lottery

>>2247038
Neanderthals:
>Neanderthal cranial capacity is thought to have been as large as that of Homo sapiens, perhaps larger, indicating their brain size may have been comparable, as well. In 2008, a group of scientists created a study using three-dimensional computer-assisted reconstructions of Neanderthal infants based on fossils found in Russia and Syria, showing that they had brains as large as modern humans' at birth and larger than modern humans' as adults.
sourced from http://blogs.nationalgeographic.com/blogs/news/chiefeditor/2008/09/neanderthal.html on the neanderthal wikipedia page

But anyway...
Yes, I meant to say "early modern homo sapiens"
I agree that it is unlikely that the proposed higher circuits were vestigial, but to be honest I doubt that they were absent in non-sapiens ancestors. IIRC, "out of body experiences" and sleep paralysis experiences are related to functions in the temporal lobe, and while I've never heard a dog claim to be an astral traveler, the whole "running" thing they do while seemingly dreaming suggests some form of sleep paralysis affecting them as well. Also IIRC (b/c I don't wanna have to track down these cites) monks in meditation experiencing "oneness with the universe" are also having some kind of abnormal function in the temporal lobe, and I think I remeber hearing that it was a *lack* of function. IOW, unlike Leary and RAW, I don't think that the higher circuits actually require greater brain development.

>>2247086
>exclude the middle
>attack that position as if it is the other guy's position
>claim that the other guy is the one doing both of those things
>as if anyone reading can't click upthread and see you're full of shit

>>2247105
>exclude the middle
>attack that position as if it is the other guy's position
>claim that the other guy is the one doing both of those things
>do this as soon as possible before the other guy gets tired of your bullshit
>as if anyone reading can't click upthread and see you're full of shit

>>2247114
0/10

>>2247100
I stand corrected on the Neanderthal business.

Why does sleep paralysis in dogs and whatnot indicate the existence of a higher circuit? The way I see it, this conjecture is unnecessarily complicated. Why would so many different animals happen to have a completely useless (as far as survival and reproduction are concerned) structure in their brain?

>>2247125
-9000/10

>>2247134
Nonono, I'm saying that if mammals with smaller brains have similar functions to those that humans have which are connected to "eighth circuit" experiences, and if when monks have "eighth circuit" experiences they're having *less* function in their brains, then what it suggests to me is that the "eighth circuit" experiences *don't* need *more* brain to happen, and they might actually be more frequent with *less* brain.

And it might not be useless for survival, now that you mention it. If a limited sense of self or occasional feeling of unity with the world around them can help an organism behave in ways which support the harmonious and continued functioning of the ecosystem upon which its life depends, than that may be a very useful survival trait indeed. If.

>>2247038
>From reading the Wikipedia article linked in OP, I couldn't help but think that Leary was being very Lamarckist in his premises.

I got the same impression. It seems very similar to Spiritism, and we all know that Spiritism is just Lamarckism applied to the Bible.

OT rant: It really makes me rage how that's probably the origin of the bullshit about Spiritism being a valid science that spiritists are always on about.

>>2247155
Now I'm confused. Three considerations:

If the higher circuits require less brain to function, why are they rarely activated by humans?

Can a non-self-aware brain really experienced "oneness with the universe"? Don't you need to have a concept of self before going through ego death?

Doesn't the idea that higher circuits requere less brain contradict this passge from the wikipedia article?
>That said, it is evident that an under-utilized “lower” circuit hinders the complete expression of a “higher” circuit. It would thus become necessary to fully experience, integrate and embody the survival circuits, in order to withstand the shock that accompanies the activation of the post-survival circuits.

btw I'm rather enjoying this thread, trolls notwithstanding.

>>2247182
>Don't you need to have a concept of self before going through ego death?
I think it's fair to say that animals have enough of a sense of self to prompt them to protect their own lives. That might not reach the human standard for self-awareness, but...
>Doesn't the idea that higher circuits requere less brain contradict this passge
Prolly, but at this point I'm pretty much abandoning Leary's hierarchy. YYMV.
>If the higher circuits require less brain to function, why are they rarely activated by humans?
Dunno. I'll think on it.