Is this a good book for learning about consciousness scientifically?

File: 61 KB, 471x700, dennett-consciousness-explained-1e1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Dec 28 18:40:04 2013 No.6254059 [Reply] [Original]

Is this a good book for learning about consciousness scientifically?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 18:43:33 2013 No.6254069 >>6254059 >Report submitted! This window will close in 3 seconds...

Anonymous Sat Dec 28 18:48:04 2013 No.6254086

>>6254069
Submitting false or misclassified reports, or otherwise abusing the report system will result in a ban. Replying to a thread stating that you've reported or saged it, or another post, is also disallowed—please do not announce your reports or sages.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 18:49:33 2013 No.6254094 >>6254086 OP is getting very upset, it seems.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 18:50:03 2013 No.6254096 >>6254094 How so?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 18:54:33 2013 No.6254106 File: 81 KB, 500x329, 1388274887528.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] lel

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 19:03:03 2013 No.6254128 >>6254059 Dear OP, fuck off and die. Take your pseudoscience with you. Thanks.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 19:05:33 2013 No.6254139 >>6254128 Daniel Dennett is a neuroscientist.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 19:05:33 2013 No.6254140 >>6254086 >All science and math related topics welcome. >OP posts pop-social science book meant for NYT readers. gtfo

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 19:09:33 2013 No.6254151 >>6254139 No, he's a philosopher and he doesn't know shit about neuroscience. His anti-scientific attitude makes him to neuroscience what creationists are to biology.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 19:10:03 2013 No.6254153 >>6254140 Popular science is still science. Not everyone has the opportunity to obtain a PhD in consciousness.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 19:13:34 2013 No.6254165 >>6254153 Pop-science in not science Social science is not science Pop-social-science is NOT FUCKING SCIENCE IN ANY FUCKING WAY.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 19:17:03 2013 No.6254177 >>6254165 denial

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 20:05:03 2013 No.6254312 >>6254165 >being this ignorant

Anonymous Sat Dec 28 20:09:03 2013 No.6254316
File: 46 KB, 501x780, 1388279353441.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6254165
pop-sci means popular science, which doesn't exclude it from being a legitimate science in any way shape or form. I suggest you do a little research next time you spill your autism to save embarrassment.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 20:12:04 2013 No.6254320 File: 62 KB, 300x300, Downs-syndrome-symptoms-prevention.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6254165 > popular music is not music > popular books are not books > popular opinions are not opinions

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 20:17:03 2013 No.6254333 Nope, it's poor sophistry aimed at naive simpletons. No science is to be found in that book.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 20:24:03 2013 No.6254342 >>6254151 >>6254333 samefag

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 20:31:04 2013 No.6254349 >>6254333 How's it sophistry?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 20:33:33 2013 No.6254353 I liked it. He really dissolves the hard problem.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 20:40:03 2013 No.6254359 >>6254165 hipster detected

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 20:45:03 2013 No.6254366 >>6254342 >>6254349 >>6254353 samefag

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 20:46:03 2013 No.6254369 >>6254342 Your samefag detector must be broken. >>6254349 Overuse of fallacies and immature rhetorics, no real arguments. >>6254353 Denial doesn't dissolve anything.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 20:48:03 2013 No.6254371 >>6254151 he has published papers in neuroscience dumbass

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 20:50:33 2013 No.6254373 >>6254371 No, he hasn't. Metaphysics isn't neuroscience, you uneducated dumbfuck.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 20:51:03 2013 No.6254374 File: 14 KB, 320x214, 1388281875730.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6254106 not an iq or major ranking thread = shitposting lel

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 20:52:33 2013 No.6254378 >>6254369 The book explains why there isn't an explanatory gap. It's not titled "Consciousness Denied"

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 20:54:03 2013 No.6254384 >>6254378 The book doesn't do that. It doesn't explain anything. The author makes baseless claims and defends them by use of rhetorical fallacies. Typic philosotard who is too stupid for science and math.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 20:56:03 2013 No.6254386 >>6254384 >baseless claims Like what?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 20:57:03 2013 No.6254387 >>6254386 Like the claim that subjective experience doesn't exist.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 20:58:33 2013 No.6254389 I'm not biased in any particular direction, but if someone claims the statements in the book are fallacious, then a quote and a reason why it doesn't work would help.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 20:59:34 2013 No.6254390 >>6254387 It's an illusion by the brain, sort of like magic tricks.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 21:00:33 2013 No.6254393 >>6254390 If you want to talk about magic, go to >>>/x/

Anonymous Sat Dec 28 21:01:03 2013 No.6254395
File: 49 KB, 740x419, 1388282485596.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6254373
you dense motherfucker. he has papers published in respectable neuroscience journals that are about neuroscience
his metaphysical views are widely shared by neuroscientists

Anonymous Sat Dec 28 21:01:33 2013 No.6254396
File: 35 KB, 720x466, 1388282516185.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

The book is about consciousness as an emerging non-localized process as a side-effect of computation, right?

I watched this recent discussion "The Limits Of Science - Daniel Dennett, Lawrence Krauss and Massimo Pigliucci"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tH3AnYyAI8
and it was entertaining.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 21:02:03 2013 No.6254397 >>6254390 >vacuous and meaningless statement >intentionally kept vague >not scientifically testable Opinion dismissed. Go be uneducated somewhere else, underageb&.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 21:02:34 2013 No.6254398 >>6254395 Why are you responding to him? You informed him the mans published papers in neuroscience and his response was "Nuh uh! No he hasnt!"

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 21:03:33 2013 No.6254401 >>6254393 I don't. >>6254397 It's expanded and explained how it can be tested in the book. Why don't you try reading it?

Anonymous Sat Dec 28 21:04:03 2013 No.6254404

>>6254395
>respectable neuroscience journals
No such thing exists. Neuroscience is still a very young science and its journals do not have the rigor you would expect in other sciences. For example they allow publication of metaphysical musings. If they want to become respectable, they should introduce quality control.

>his metaphysical views are widely shared by neuroscientists
No, they are not.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 21:05:33 2013 No.6254406 >>6254398 Please learn the difference between neuroscience and philosobabble. >>6254401 Metaphysical claims are anti-scientific. He does not provide any testable mechanism.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 21:08:33 2013 No.6254416 >>6254406 Yes he does. When we solve all of the simple problems, the hard problem will be dissolved.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 21:11:33 2013 No.6254424 >>6254416 This is a baseless claim backed up neither by scientific evidence nor by rational arguments. It is an expression of belief and therefore unscientific.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 21:12:34 2013 No.6254427 >>6254424 It's a testable hypothesis backed up by rational arguments that you can find in the book.

Anonymous Sat Dec 28 21:14:03 2013 No.6254433
File: 8 KB, 241x209, 1388283246069.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6254398
wow, you're a legitimate moron. journals are considered respectable by their impact factor but you wouldnt know that as youve never fucking published a thing! there aint no metaphysics in any good neuroscience journals lying cunt

and nope. neuroscientists dont believe in immaterial souls

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 21:14:33 2013 No.6254436 >>6254427 No, it isn't. It is not testable and it is not justified. It is vacuous philosobabble. He might as well have written "nabopfhbpfshbfodnpnbfabfpb napfb" and it would be just as legitimate of an argument, i.e. not at all.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 21:15:04 2013 No.6254437 meant to quote >>6254404

Anonymous Sat Dec 28 21:17:33 2013 No.6254443

>>6254433
>there aint no metaphysics in any good neuroscience journals
You already told us that Dennett was published in a neuroscience journal. Thanks for invalidating your own point.

>neuroscientists dont believe in immaterial souls
Subjective experience does not imply immaterial souls. It is a phenomenon that requires SCIENTIFIC explanation. Denial is not an explanation. Dennett is acting like a creationist retard.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 21:19:33 2013 No.6254448 >>6254436 Yes, it is. Just read the book. The hard problem won't make any sense when we finish solving the easy problems in the same way it makes no sense to ask how fast the sun rotates around the Earth, now that physicists know geocentrism is wrong.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 21:21:57 2013 No.6254453 >>6254448 This is bullshit. The hard problem is still there. None of the easy problems addresses it. Are you too retarded to understand the difference? Don't answer, dumbfuck, this was a rhetorical question.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 21:23:26 2013 No.6254461 File: 42 KB, 500x415, 1388283832326.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6254448 Wow, just wow. So much ignorance in one post. How old are you? Isn't it past bed time for you?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 21:24:57 2013 No.6254462 >>6254453 How do you know? We haven't solved the easy problems yet and we don't know what kind of knowledge the answers will provide.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 21:25:26 2013 No.6254466 >>6254462 Burden of proof is on you, my little simpleton. You have to make a convincing argument for why solving the soft problems would yield a solution to the hard problem. There is no reason to believe the bullshit you're spouting.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 21:28:56 2013 No.6254472 >>6254466 That's why it's just speculation, you idiot. But it isn't completely 'baseless'. If you read Dennett's book he gives some reasons and compelling analogies on why it might be true.

Anonymous Sat Dec 28 21:30:26 2013 No.6254479

>>6254472
>That's why it's just speculation
Fantasies are not science. Without a testable mechanism your bullshit belongs on /x/.

>But it isn't completely 'baseless'
It has no basis in science.

>he gives some reasons and compelling analogies on why it might be true.
Analogies don't mean shit and he does not provide any convincing reasoning.

Anonymous Sat Dec 28 21:32:26 2013 No.6254480
File: 82 KB, 750x600, 1388284356153.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6254472
So now you went from absolute scientific truth to "might be true"? Why are you so full of shit? Why are you even posting pseudoscience quackery in the first place? You're embarrassing yourself, kid.

Anonymous Sat Dec 28 21:37:26 2013 No.6254489

>>6254479
>Fantasies are not science. Without a testable mechanism your bullshit belongs on /x/.
It's testable. When the easy problems are solved we will know what happens to the hard problem. I am looking forward to seeing Dennet be proven correct.

>It has no basis in science.
Scientific hypotheses have basis in science.

>Analogies don't mean shit and he does not provide any convincing reasoning.
If you can only deny all of his arguments and analogies like an upset child instead of explaining why he is wrong I see no reason to continue this discussion.

>>6254480
>absolute scientific truth
I never said that. I said the complete opposite actually.

Anonymous Sat Dec 28 21:43:56 2013 No.6254501

>>6254489
>It's testable. When the easy problems are solved we will know what happens to the hard problem.
How fucking uneducated are you? "Testable" in the context of science means we can design an experiment which might hypothetically falsify the hypothesis. "Let's wait and hope for magic to happen" is not an experiment, you brain damaged moron.

>Scientific hypotheses have basis in science.
Baseless claims are not a scientific hypothesis.

>instead of explaining why he is wrong
It is his burden of proof to explain why he thinks he's right. He fails to do so. Repetition and insults are not convincing arguments. Both - you and him - should learn how to debate properly.

Anonymous Sat Dec 28 21:44:26 2013 No.6254503
File: 26 KB, 400x447, 1388285088008.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6254489
>I never said that. I said the complete opposite actually.

You said he solved the hard problem. This is demonstrably wrong. Is short-term memory another cognitive function affected by your developmental deficit?

Anonymous Sat Dec 28 21:46:26 2013 No.6254509

>>6254501
>"Testable" in the context of science means we can design an experiment which might hypothetically falsify the hypothesis
Such a definition is in agreement with his testable hypothesis.

>Baseless claims are not a scientific hypothesis.
A scientific hypothesis is an educated guess. That's what was presented.

> He fails to do so.
You're not explaining why. You're just insulting him and myself repeatedly.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 21:46:56 2013 No.6254508 >philosophy >science Choose one.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 21:48:26 2013 No.6254512 >>6254503 Where did I say that?

Anonymous Sat Dec 28 21:49:56 2013 No.6254514

>>6254509
>Such a definition is in agreement with his testable hypothesis.
Did you even read the definition? Obviously not.

>A scientific hypothesis is an educated guess. That's what was presented.
What he presented is verbal diarrhea and an anti-scientific attitude at creationist level.

>You're not explaining why.
I am stating an observation. He fails to provide any argument at all.

Anonymous Sat Dec 28 21:52:56 2013 No.6254516

1. I have subjective experience.
2. My subjective experience requires scientitic explanation.
3. "It doesn't exist" is not an adequate scientific explanation.

Thanks for trying, Dennett. you failed. Better luck next time. Maybe you can come back when you finished kindergarten.

Anonymous Sat Dec 28 21:53:57 2013 No.6254518

>>6254514
>Did you even read the definition? Obviously not.
I have.

>What he presented is verbal diarrhea and an anti-scientific attitude at creationist level.
You're just childishly insulting him.

>I am stating an observation. He fails to provide any argument at all.
So you can't explain why he fails to do so?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 21:55:26 2013 No.6254521 >>6254503 >This is demonstrably wrong. Please demonstrate it?

Anonymous Sat Dec 28 21:55:56 2013 No.6254520

>>6254518
>I have.
No, you haven't.

>You're just childishly insulting him.
I am stating observations regarding his failure to back up his claims. If these observations offend him, he should try to work on his debating skills. His embarrassment is none of my problems.

>So you can't explain why he fails to do so?
What's there to explain? Name one argument he proposes that isn't an obvious fallacy not even a toddler would take serious. Spoiler: you can't.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 21:59:26 2013 No.6254523 Let's apply the Dennett method to other unsolved problems. >Science: Mr Dennett, how can we unify QM and GR? >Dennett: Gravity does not exist and if you disagree your a religious nutjob! Wow, such smart. Very science. Noble prize 4 u.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 21:59:26 2013 No.6254524 >>6254520 So you're just insulting him and myself repeatedly and expecting me to copy his book on here for you. Got it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 22:00:26 2013 No.6254525 >>6254516 You can you claim something isn't explained, then give it a defining label like "subjective experience"? You are basically saying "you need to explain why I'm right".

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 22:01:27 2013 No.6254530 >>6254524 Hypothesis: His book does not contain a single argument. Test: I'm asking you to post one. Result: You fail to do so. Thanks for confirming my hypothesis. I fucking love to apply the scientific method.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 22:03:26 2013 No.6254533 >>6254525 I am asking for an explanation of why I have subjective experience. If we assme that it is caused by the brain, then there has to be a mechanism how it arises from neuronal activity. Please post the mechanism.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 22:04:57 2013 No.6254535 >>6254533 What makes you think you have subjective experience?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 22:05:56 2013 No.6254537 >>6254535 I am experiencing it. What a stupid question.

Anonymous Sat Dec 28 22:05:56 2013 No.6254538
File: 33 KB, 251x242, 1388286322251.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6254395
>>6254433
>>6254461
>>6254480
>>6254503
>people that can't argue with people without using random images that say the person they're arguing with is stupid
I'm drunk as shit so I haven't even read this thread, but for some reason I'm 100% sure that every post I quoted is by the same retard that cant argue for shit and uses reaction pics to make up for that. kill yourself, nigger

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 22:06:56 2013 No.6254539 >>6254530 How do you know that you're conscious?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 22:08:27 2013 No.6254545 >>6254538 You're wrong. Your statement applies to the first two posts you quoted. Those are an actual retard. The other posts are just making fun of his retardation.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 22:11:26 2013 No.6254551 File: 15 KB, 410x304, 1388286691210.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6254538 >complains about reaction images >uses a reaction image oh the irony

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 22:11:57 2013 No.6254549 >>6254545 ait, but note that I have not read a single word in this thread since I can barely see due to my incarceration. I'll read this thread in the morning

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 22:11:57 2013 No.6254550 >>6254537 What an absolutely meaningless and unconvincing statement. Do you experience the presence of Jesus in your body as well?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 22:12:56 2013 No.6254552 >>6254551 ok, you happy now

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 22:13:56 2013 No.6254557 >>6254550 No, I don't. Please stop pretending to be brain damaged.

Anonymous Sat Dec 28 22:14:26 2013 No.6254561

>>6254552
I am never happy. I don't know what happiness means. Sure, from a theoretical point of view I can read how happy people behave and what neurochemical correlates of happiness have been found. But the subjective experience of happiness is something I never had.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 22:17:26 2013 No.6254570 Subjective experience is such a silly idea that telepathy must necessarily exist in order to disprove it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 22:19:56 2013 No.6254577 I hope consciousness threads become the new IQ threads Such quality bait

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 22:19:56 2013 No.6254578 >>6254561 >the subjective experience of happiness What the fuck are you talking about?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 22:20:26 2013 No.6254584 File: 999 KB, 410x307, 1388287245052.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >this thread /sci/ is truly the worst board on 4chan

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 22:21:56 2013 No.6254586 >>6254561 I also know this feel, that is why I'm too shitfaced now to even read comments

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 22:22:27 2013 No.6254594 >>6254584 agreed. this could have been a decent thread

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 22:22:56 2013 No.6254591 >>6254570 Yet it happens. I have subjective experience and probably most other people do too. Still waiting for a scientific explanation.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 22:24:27 2013 No.6254601 >>6254594 No, it couldn't. It was started as an obvious bait thread. It has been explained ITT why the book is not only unscientific but even anti-scientific.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 22:25:56 2013 No.6254604 >>6254591 I've experienced telepathy and other people have too. Your claim can never have evidence, but my claim can. Therefore, mine is more viable.

Anonymous Sat Dec 28 22:28:26 2013 No.6254612

>>6254591
I bet you think that you have consciously initiated control over your actions, too.

Your claim of subjective experience is just as silly as claiming that you experience Jesus' presence. Plenty of people would claim that as well. You'd be wrong on both counts.

You're also making a positive claim, so the burden is on you.
>inb4 he says something about me having brain damage

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 22:28:26 2013 No.6254615 >>6254604 Interesting. Tell me more about your telepathy. What can you do with it?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 22:31:56 2013 No.6254619 >>6254612 Did you seriously type that long of a post just to make such low quality bait?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 22:33:56 2013 No.6254622 >>6254619 Point out the bait.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 22:34:56 2013 No.6254626 >>6254615 Copy part of the senses and actions of somebody at least 1000 miles away.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 22:34:56 2013 No.6254628 >>6254622 No, I'm just gonna ridicule you for wasting your time.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 22:34:56 2013 No.6254629 File: 70 KB, 249x274, 1388288059019.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >consciousness threads on /sci/

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 22:37:56 2013 No.6254639 >>6254626 What did you copy?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 22:38:26 2013 No.6254642 >>6254628 Exactly. You have no argument or insight other than: >"I must be smart. This guy disagrees with me, so he must be stupid and wrong." How scientific of you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 22:38:26 2013 No.6254643 File: 44 KB, 591x394, 1388288322575.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] There is nothing that needs to be explained. Keep anti-scientific dualism trolling where it belongs: >>>/x/.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 22:39:56 2013 No.6254645 >>6254642 My intellectual superiority is an empirical fact, easily verified by IQ tests.

Anonymous Sat Dec 28 22:40:26 2013 No.6254650

>>6254639
First time I saw them holding a chainsaw from their perspective and moving to start it, then my arm twitched as they moved theirs and I stopped seeing.

Second time I saw some dried bushes in an arid environment.

I later confirmed that this person lived in Texas and was indeed using a chainsaw to cut up bushes.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 22:40:26 2013 No.6254651 Stop spamming our board with spiritual garbage. Your delusional thinking can be explained by a psychiatrist and corrected with psychiatric medication.

Anonymous Sat Dec 28 22:41:26 2013 No.6254656

Guys, consciousness is a thing. Between a person in a coma and a person who is fully conscious there is an obvious and measurable difference, hence consciousness is a physical phenomenon coinciding with high levels of brain activity.

What is very interesting is the possible aspect of an unconscious state with high-level functions. How many of us have had the experience of moving through a certain task and later realizing that we were not entirely conscious of our actions? Such phenomenon is a strong indicator that consciousness is a gradated level of awareness that a physical system has of its own functions.

These things are vastly interesting, and require scientific explanation.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 22:41:26 2013 No.6254657 This thread is not about science and not about math. Can you please delete it and fuck off?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 22:42:57 2013 No.6254659 >>6254651 Psychiatry is a pseudoscience.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 22:43:56 2013 No.6254662 >>6254650 Prove it. Where's you're evidence?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 22:43:56 2013 No.6254664 >Daniel Dennett What's next? A book that /pol/ wrote?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 22:44:27 2013 No.6254672 >>6254650 Did you get to know the person's IQ?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 22:45:56 2013 No.6254673 >>6254659 You have no idea what you are talking about. Psychiatry is applied neuropsychology. Neuropsychology is founded on testable scientific theories and objective observations. Please go to school and learn how science works.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 22:46:26 2013 No.6254677 >>6254673 >psychology What's next? Astrology? Homeopathy?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 22:47:56 2013 No.6254678 >>6254659 No, it fucking isn't. Psychiatry makes use of rigorous scientific methodology unlike your untestable /x/ garbage. Are you gonna deny evolution next?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 22:48:26 2013 No.6254685 >>6254678 >psychiatry >rigorous methodology My lels are in orbit. Did you ever read the DSM? Completely arbitrary definitions, mostly forced by the pharma industry. The polar opposite of rigorous methodology.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 22:48:56 2013 No.6254682 >>6254677 Troll harder, /x/tard.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 22:49:56 2013 No.6254686 >>6254677 How hard did you fail your mandatory freshman psychology class? Is that why you had to drop out instead of obtaining a degree?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 22:50:56 2013 No.6254688 >>6254686 What mandatory class? Unlike you I attend a real university and not a community college. Stay jellymad, amerifat.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 22:51:56 2013 No.6254693 >>6254682 >psychology major >calls others "/x/tards" the irony is killing my sides

Anonymous Sat Dec 28 22:51:56 2013 No.6254695

>>6254685
>Did you ever read the DSM?
I did. I'm sorry reading the referenced scientific publications was too hard for you.

>Completely arbitrary definitions
They are based on well-described objective anomalies in brain function. Please stop promoting ignorance.

>The polar opposite of rigorous methodology.
Cool story.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 22:54:57 2013 No.6254702 >>6254688 >real university Top lel. Do you live in a third world country? It's unfortunate you're too unprivileged to obtain a well-rounded scientific education.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 22:54:57 2013 No.6254703 >>6254662 I'm working on it. If it exists, then the military already did as much research on it as they could and found it to be unpractical for some reason.

Anonymous Sat Dec 28 22:54:57 2013 No.6254706

>>6254695
>I did.
Obviously you didn't, you dimwitted dunce.

>They are based on well-described objective anomalies in brain function.
Toppest lel. Now we know you haven't even read one page of it. The diagnosic criteria are almost exclusively based on subjective report and witness report.

>Cool story.
True stories are always cool.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 22:55:56 2013 No.6254709 >>6254693 I've never studied psychology beyond introductory courses. I guess your comment is just a complement to my amazingly high intelligence.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 22:56:26 2013 No.6254712 >>6254702 >americlap >education Choose one. Have fun with your graduate degree class on calculus which the civilized countries teach in high school.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 22:57:26 2013 No.6254716 >>6254709 Dunning Kruger effect!

Anonymous Sat Dec 28 23:03:27 2013 No.6254729

>>6254706
>The diagnosic criteria are almost exclusively based on subjective report and witness report.
How is it possible for someone to talk out of their ass this hard? Do you have any idea have efficient and cheap these methods are? A 7th grader with ADHD doesn't need a 7T MRI that shows frontostriatal atrophy to prove he has ADHD. It's a massive waste of economic and medical resources.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 23:15:56 2013 No.6254744 >>6254729 ADHD is found using a genetic test.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 28 23:33:26 2013 No.6254765 >>6254744 No, it's not that simple. There are endless combinations of genetic deficits and epigenetic influences that can conspire to produce ADHD, and new ones are being found weekly.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 00:25:26 2013 No.6254843 Why does /sci/ hate and dismiss philosophy? It's one thing to read and critique subjects that pertain to both philosophy and science but anytime a philosophy or a philosopher is mentioned on here there immediately dismissed as retarded.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 00:32:26 2013 No.6254853 >>6254516 Subjective experience is unscientific and therefore useless.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 01:03:26 2013 No.6254880 >>6254059 >qualia >>>/lit/

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 08:01:03 2013 No.6256979 >>6254320 >implying that's wrong

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 09:15:35 2013 No.6257467 >>6254729 ADHD doesn't exist. The only reason why slightly retarded behaviour is mislabeled as "ADHD" is because the pharma industry wants to make profit. And you're not even contradicting my post, you humungous cretin.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 09:19:05 2013 No.6257472 File: 27 KB, 775x387, 1388326756706.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6254843 Philosophy is anti-intellectual and anti-scientific. With their denial of basic facts and logic philosophers are the new creationists.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 09:21:05 2013 No.6257475 >>6254853 Yet it exists and requires an explanation. Deal with it

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 09:21:35 2013 No.6257477 >>6257472 /sci/ is more a philosophy board than a science board though. :p

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 09:25:05 2013 No.6257482 >>6254853 That's the most retarded thing that I have ever read. AN EXPERIENCE IS ALWAYS SUBJECTIVE, YOU IDIOT. Facts, however, are objective.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 09:28:05 2013 No.6257488 >>6257467 Then explain me why people who were diagnosed with ADHD tend to not get the same high out of speed and cocaine? Many can even sleep on speed.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 09:28:05 2013 No.6257489 >>6257475 how do you know it exists?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 09:29:06 2013 No.6257495 >>6257477 It shouldn't be. >>6257489 How can we know anything if our brains aren't real?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 09:30:35 2013 No.6257500 >>6257495 are you saying that knowledge and subjective experience are the same thing?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 09:32:05 2013 No.6257506 >>6257488 That only proves that they are even too stupid to respond to drugs.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 09:35:05 2013 No.6257512 >>6257500 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_comprehension Ask your mom to summarize this for you.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 09:38:05 2013 No.6257522 >>6257512 how do you know that subjective experience exists? what experiment proves it?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 09:40:35 2013 No.6257528 >>6257522 Schrodinger's cat proves it. Qualia collapse the wave function.

Anonymous Sun Dec 29 09:41:06 2013 No.6257532

>>6257522
Well, you are entering the domain of philosophy. To scientifically prove that subjective experience exist, you should look at neuroscience for that. The problem is that neuroscience is still in its baby phase. More money should go towards neuroscience research.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 09:43:35 2013 No.6257535 >>6257472 Did you take a class on plato and descartes? It sounds like you took intro to ethics and left butt hurt because you suck at writing papers

Anonymous Sun Dec 29 09:44:35 2013 No.6257540

>>6257532
yeah i agree that we need to do more neuroscience if we are to find out what it is

but it does strike me as strange that we are so confident in our subjective recognition and subsequent labelling of a phenomenon that we would then assume that it was a real thing which we will eventually find physical proof for

it's not like there's an experiment that shows that it is even a thing

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 09:45:36 2013 No.6257542 >>6257528 no, it doesn't as far as i can tell it just shows that some things cannot be known for certain

Anonymous Sun Dec 29 09:46:05 2013 No.6257543

>>6257535
I excel at writing papers. All my papers are literary masterpieces. And no, I didn't take any philosophy class because I prefer to take science and math classes. Ethics is not an issue, it has been solved by common sense and without needing any pseudo-intellectual philosotards.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 09:47:35 2013 No.6257546 >>6257542 >cannot know nuffin Philosotards belong on >>>/lit/ >>>/x/ >>>/pol/

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 09:48:36 2013 No.6257548 >>6257540 >denying his own subjective experience so edgy

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 09:48:36 2013 No.6257549 >>6257543 That's a shame. You'd probably like philosophy. I'm interested in how ethics have been explained. Can you elaborate?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 09:49:35 2013 No.6257552 >>6257548 not at all if i was talking about having been abducted by aliens you would probably not believe that it actually happened

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 09:49:35 2013 No.6257553 >>6257543 Common sense is a philosophical concept...

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 09:50:05 2013 No.6257554 >>6257549 Ethics is solved by common sense. Why do I have to repeat myself?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 09:52:35 2013 No.6257557 >>6257554 Common sense is mostly evoked by blue-collar people. Common sense is irrational.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 09:53:05 2013 No.6257559 >>6257553 Nope. It's a skill philosotards are lacking.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 09:55:05 2013 No.6257560 >>6257559 It's a "skill" many scientists seem to lack according to Fresno-living blue-collar conservatives. You cannot even properly define common sense; common sense is meaningless.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 09:55:05 2013 No.6257562 >>6257546 http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_argument I don't think he's saying we can't know anything. But there is a difference between objective measurement and experience. You can know both of these; they are just different

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 09:55:05 2013 No.6257563 >>6257552 >ignoratio elenchi

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 09:56:36 2013 No.6257564 >>6257560 Einstein said all of science follows from common sense.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 09:56:36 2013 No.6257566 >>6257563 >whoosh

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 09:58:35 2013 No.6257567 >>6257562 >qualia >>>/x/

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 09:58:35 2013 No.6257568 >>6257564 Einstein was a socialist and therefore an idiot.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 09:58:35 2013 No.6257569 >>6257554 So define common sense. Were you the one who said "burden of proof?" I'm giving you the burden of explanation

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 09:59:05 2013 No.6257570 >>6257568 Einstein was the third smartest scientist of all times.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 09:59:36 2013 No.6257571 >>6257570 He lacked common sense as he believed in socialism.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 10:00:05 2013 No.6257573 >>6257569 You don't know what common sense means? How low is your verbal IQ? Get a dictionary, moron.

Anonymous Sun Dec 29 10:01:05 2013 No.6257575

>The everyday understanding of what common sense is derives from philosophical discussion, involving several western European languages. Related words in other languages include Latin sensus communis, Greek κοινὴ αἲσθησις, (koinē aísthēsis), and French bon sens but these are not straightforward translations in all contexts. Similarly in English, there are different shades of meaning, implying more or less education and wisdom: "good sense" is sometimes seen as equivalent to "common sense", and sometimes not.[2]

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 10:01:05 2013 No.6257576 >>6257571 >implying there is anything wrong with socialism You're just upset because it sounds like "social" and you're an autism who can't into social.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 10:03:05 2013 No.6257579 >>6257575 Wow, you found wikipedia. Great job!

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 10:03:35 2013 No.6257578 >>6257573 I'm asking what your definition is. A dictionary won't explain it as comprehensively as you seem to be able to. Why are you afraid?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 10:03:35 2013 No.6257581 >>6257576 Taxation is theft, that's common sense. Go to /lit/ mister philosopher.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 10:03:35 2013 No.6257582 >>6257564 Einstein was wrong.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 10:04:05 2013 No.6257584 >>6257579 anything is better than nothing, right?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 10:05:05 2013 No.6257586 >>6257578 It isn't my fault that you fail to comprehend language. What other every day life skills are too hard for you?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 10:06:05 2013 No.6257588 >>6257581 >uneducated platitudes You must be a riot in your middle school's facebook group.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 10:06:05 2013 No.6257589 someone should devise an experiment to see whether scientists can understand epistemology

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 10:07:05 2013 No.6257592 >>6257582 This is true. Jacob Barnett found and corrected errors in Einstein's theory.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 10:08:05 2013 No.6257593 >>6257589 Epistemology has been solved by logic and the scientific method.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 10:09:05 2013 No.6257597 >>6257581 >Taxation is theft >common sense This is why /sci/ should never talk about things they don't understand like politics or philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 10:09:35 2013 No.6257595 >>6257593 solved?

Anonymous Sun Dec 29 10:09:35 2013 No.6257596

>>6257589
They cannot yet. That's why every single resource should go towards neuroscience. We must unravel the mysteries of happiness and time perception. Then make a drug that gives us everlasting happiness and distort our time perception to make it feel like 10 sec is 1 day.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 10:11:35 2013 No.6257600 >>6257596 Neuroscience =/= philosophy

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 10:11:36 2013 No.6257601 >>6257600 not yet you still have some time

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 10:12:35 2013 No.6257604 >>6257603 j-jeremy clarkson? is it really you?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 10:12:36 2013 No.6257603 >>6257597 I'm a /pol/tard. I have a business degree. I love explosions and fast cars and race-IQ theories, that's why I go on /sci/

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 10:13:35 2013 No.6257606 File: 19 KB, 350x272, 1388330021927.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6257603 >my sides when "business degreee"

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 10:15:05 2013 No.6257607 File: 52 KB, 420x294, 1388330115338.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6257603 >has a business degree >understands neither economics nor politics How hard can you fail at life?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 10:17:06 2013 No.6257610 >>6257603 I find it hilariously ironic that you're interested in "race-IQ theories". If race was classified by IQ, you surely wouldn't be white anymore.

Anonymous Sun Dec 29 10:18:35 2013 No.6257613
File: 1.99 MB, 250x158, 1388330332317.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Idk but "neuroscience on Buddhas brain" states that the mind is what the Brain does according to Buddhism thought.

The mind is not a thing but an action brought out by the brain.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 10:19:05 2013 No.6257615 >>6257603 That's no excuse for posting delusional teenager escapism fantasies. If you are suffering from a developmental disorder, then please refrain from posting.

Anonymous Sun Dec 29 10:20:35 2013 No.6257618

>>6257613
Buddhism is kinda bullshit. A fatman sat under a tree for a bunch of years without getting up to take a dump. He just continued to shit and piss himself for years without getting up. Fat, lazy and gross, he has the audacity to teach other people about discipline.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 10:22:35 2013 No.6257622 >>6257613 Take your religion shit to >>>/x/ where it belongs. All you did is proving once again how science and religion are incompatible.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 10:23:05 2013 No.6257628 >>6257618 but he had no internet access

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 10:24:35 2013 No.6257632 >>6257613 >no testable mechanism Not science. GTFO

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 10:25:35 2013 No.6257636 >>6257632 there's no testable mechanism for consciousness either

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 10:26:35 2013 No.6257638 >>6257636 >hurr durr look at me I just disovered the "hard problem" How old are you? 12? GTFO

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 10:30:36 2013 No.6257644 >>6257638 what are you? some kind of ageist manchild? it's certainly a problem. you don't even know what you're looking for, or if it even exists. some science

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 10:35:35 2013 No.6257650 File: 7 KB, 307x362, 1388331344100.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6254685 >>6254685 >>6257467 and whose behind Big Pharma? Who are all these psychologist? Who are all these psychiatrists? Who are all these neuroscientists?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 10:36:35 2013 No.6257652 >>6257644 We know what the hard problem is. Now go away, please. Go play with the other children. You're not adding any new information with your pseudo-intellectual drivel.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 10:36:35 2013 No.6257654 >>6257652 and you are?

Anonymous Sun Dec 29 10:41:35 2013 No.6257666
File: 1.51 MB, 230x172, 1388331712935.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6257632
>>6257632
>>6257618
>>6257622
What I meant was there is no soul or mystery to the mind.

It is simply made up by the brain.
That's what Buddhism is all about.
"Take nothing on faith."-Buddha

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 10:42:06 2013 No.6257667 >>6257654 What are you asking? What part of my post did you fail to comprehend?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 10:43:05 2013 No.6257670 >>6257667 i'm asking whether or not you're adding any new information with your pseudo-intellectual drivel.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 10:47:05 2013 No.6257688 >>6257666 Where is your testable mechanism for how subjective experience arises? Post it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 10:52:35 2013 No.6257701 >>6257670 Of course I do. All my posts are highly informative.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 10:55:05 2013 No.6257718 >>6257701 i mean apart from informing me that you're a bit of a twat

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 10:59:05 2013 No.6257733 >>6257688 >>6257688 What the fuck are you talking about goy.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 11:01:06 2013 No.6257737 >>6257733 I'm talking about things you don't understand.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 20:02:46 2013 No.6258809 >Is this a good book for learning about [non science topic] scientifically? facepalm

Anonymous Sun Dec 29 20:13:46 2013 No.6258837

>>6257467
It only figures that someone ignorantly promoting the uneducated opinion that psychiatry is a pseudoscience is another ADHD denialist! There's always more than one delusion for some reason.

>ADHD doesn't exist.
ADHD exists as a neurodevelopmental disorder with pathophysiology and most pathogenesis empirically well-known and theoretically described. Please explain to me why you insist on trying to talk about subjects you clearly do not and are physically unable to understand.

>The only reason why slightly retarded behaviour is mislabeled as "ADHD" is because the pharma industry wants to make profit.
Is this what the psychotic idiots from /pol/ actually believe? You must be a perfect fit for their intellectually disabled audience. Stop hiding under a rock and realize this “slightly retarded behavior” is corrected with pharmacological intervention and its effectiveness has been successfully confirmed with endless clinical trials, double blinded studies, neuroanatomically-based computational and animal models described in hundreds of thousands of quality peer-reviewed papers dating back decades.

>And you're not even contradicting my post
You really are a crass moron. It’s easy to see, unless of course it happens to be you, that quantifying and evaluating certain behavioral clinical presentations of a mental disorder automatically imply objective dysfunctions of very specific structures in the brain, something else that has been empirically established as having enormous predictive power.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 20:21:46 2013 No.6258851 >>6258809 you can learn about non-science topics scientifically margarine for example

Anonymous Sun Dec 29 20:22:47 2013 No.6258854

>>6258837
Uneducated dumbfuck detected. Stop spreading ignorant falsehoods. I know more about psychiatry than you and what you said is plain wrong. I can understand your emotional attachment to the ADHD lie - after all you're a drug addict - but please don't flood this board with insane garbage. ADHD was invented solely for an advertising campaign. It has no physiological basis and all its "symptoms" can be attributed to mild cognitive deficits and delayed social development. There is literally no difference between an "ADHD" kid and an undisciplined brat who doesn't want to do homework. Not being interested in school is not a mysterious new disorder.

Anonymous Sun Dec 29 20:28:46 2013 No.6258863

>>6258837
>bawwwww muh elementary school homework is 2hard4me

Yep, that sure sounds like a disorder. Go visit a doctor who prescribes you expensive drugs. And don't listen to the /pol/tards who try to tell you it might be a lack of cognitive skills. Intelligence is a racist concept without scientific support. If you take your drugs you can be Einstein or Hawking, whatever you want.

Anonymous Sun Dec 29 20:35:17 2013 No.6258891

>>6258837
>ADHD exists as a neurodevelopmental disorder with pathophysiology
The pathophysiology of mental retardation accounts for ADHD. No new label needed - unless there's profit to be made.

>this “slightly retarded behavior” is corrected with pharmacological intervention
Everyone performs better after taking performance enhancing drugs.

>It’s easy to see, unless of course it happens to be you, that quantifying and evaluating certain behavioral clinical presentations of a mental disorder automatically imply objective dysfunctions of very specific structures in the brain
Listen, you mentally retarded piece of shit. If you can't even read, that's not my fault. I never said that behavioural abnormities don't imply neurophysiological anomalies. The latter however are factually NOT listed in the DSM's diagnostic criteria for mental disorders. If you ever read the DSM, you'd know this. Your ignorance and your illiteracy disgust me.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 20:38:16 2013 No.6258897 File: 7 KB, 251x201, 1388367521761.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6258837 The only thing worse than ignorance is ignorance combined with arrogance. Your post is truly an insult to this board.

Anonymous Sun Dec 29 21:10:18 2013 No.6258972

>>6258854
>Stop spreading ignorant falsehoods.
You are quite the entertaining character. Take your own advice.

>I know more about psychiatry than you
Oh really? Please explain to me what kind of A2A D2 heterodimer activation on mesolimbic dopamine correlators influences the flushing of recurrent working memory fields in DLPFC via a chandelier cell-dependent mechanism and how this relates to schizophrenia. I've been wanting to know for a while now.

> and what you said is plain wrong.
Because you don't like it?

>I can understand your emotional attachment to the ADHD lie - after all you're a drug addict - but please don't flood this board with insane garbage.
I don't take any drugs but understandably so you definitely need to. Once again please take your own advice.

>ADHD was invented solely for an advertising campaign.
I'm sure Crichton was really interested in establishing an elaborate conspiracy theory to sell ADHD medication in the 21st century. Please stop posting. Your conspiracy theories are not appropriate content for /sci/.

>It has no physiological basis
Do you have a brain behind that thick skull? Must not be much left of it, based on these ramblings. How many times did you fail psychology in high school before they threw you into a special education program? Have you tried reading a single review article on ADHD at all? You would have to, if you claim knowledge of ADHD. Link it here. I want to see how badly you misunderstood it.

>and all its "symptoms" can be attributed to mild cognitive deficits and delayed social development.
And if you could read my last post, these symptoms are collectively a mental disorder and treated with pharmacological manipulation. The deficits emerge from a unique type of etiology and produce a very specific type of brain abnormality not shared by "mental retardation" or other neurological disorders.

Anonymous Sun Dec 29 21:11:16 2013 No.6258975

>There is literally no difference between an "ADHD" kid and an undisciplined brat who doesn't want to do homework.
There is quite a large difference, evident by simply looking at the symptoms of ADHD and comparing them to your wrong analogy. You can't do that either it seems, hm?

>Not being interested in school is not a mysterious new disorder.
"Not being interested in school" is not ADHD. You just keep demonstrating that you don't actually know what ADHD is at all.

Anonymous Sun Dec 29 21:17:46 2013 No.6258980

>>6258891
>The pathophysiology of mental retardation accounts for ADHD.
Please explain how so and what kind of mental retardation. This is going to be so rich.

>Everyone performs better after taking performance enhancing drugs.
I see you are lacking the knowledge of basically every well known paper in this field. Higher performing individuals do not. See e.g. Randall et. al 2005. The mild cognitive enhancing effects of these drugs in healthy volunteers in other cognitive traits is merely an unintended consequence of the drug's mechanism of action and unspecific binding for only the relevant dysfunctional circuits in ADHD. Not all ADHD medications are "performance enhancing drugs" for the general population by the way. Strattera, i.e. a norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor with specific high affinity for prefrontal cortex does not offer cognitive enhancement in those not on the ADHD spectrum. These drugs also do not enhance performance on areas of cognition in healthy individuals that are specifically impaired in ADHD, which can be seen on neuropsychological testing. The improvement of verbal fluency in the healthy has nothing to do with specific kinds of attention improved ONLY in ADHD.

>Listen, you mentally retarded piece of shit. If you can't even read, that's not my fault. I never said that behavioural abnormities don't imply neurophysiological anomalies.
This is hilarious. All of these insults apply to you, not me. You told me that the diagnosis is not objective, which is wrong.

>The latter however are factually NOT listed in the DSM's diagnostic criteria for mental disorders. If you ever read the DSM, you'd know this. Your ignorance and your illiteracy disgust me.
Why do you think neurophysiological anomalies should be included in a text intended to DIAGNOSE mental disorders in the clinical environment?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 21:18:16 2013 No.6258983 >>6258897 My post? Really?

Anonymous Sun Dec 29 21:20:17 2013 No.6258984

>>6258972
>You are quite the entertaining character.
Thank you, simpleton. I wish I could say the same about you.

>Oh really? Please explain to me what kind of A2A D2 heterodimer activation
The fact that you don't know the difference between psychiatry and neurochemistry tells us that you have no idea what you're talking about. If you picked any psychiatrist at random, almost surely he wouldn't even understand the question. Have you even ever talked to a psychiatrist? Have you ever seen a psychiatric hospital from the inside?

>I'm sure Crichton
Seriously? You are quoting baseless non-science from a time where psychiatry didn't even exist? Way to confirm your ignorance.

>Have you tried reading a single review article on ADHD at all?
I did and they debunked your propaganda bullshit.

>these symptoms are collectively a mental disorder
A disorder known as mental retardation.

>The deficits emerge from a unique type of etiology and produce a very specific type of brain abnormality not shared by "mental retardation" or other neurological disorders.
Nope. This is bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 21:21:16 2013 No.6258987 >>6258975 >There is quite a large difference, evident by simply looking at the symptoms What symptoms? The lack of motivation to do homework? D'awww, how cute. >"Not being interested in school" is not ADHD. That's how ADHD is defined.

Anonymous Sun Dec 29 21:29:46 2013 No.6258998

>>6258980
>Please explain how so
I'm not gonna spoonfeed you. Do your homework alone.

>Higher performing individuals do not.
Kids with mental retardation ("ADHD") are not higher performing individuals.

>You told me that the diagnosis is not objective
I said it was arbitrary. That's a huge difference, but it doesn't surprise me that someone of your intellectual disability can't into reading comprehension. For whatever emotional reason you read into my post whatever you want to see and you don't care what has actually been posted. Keep humiliating yourself a little more. I might have some fun ITT.

>Why do you think neurophysiological anomalies should be included in a text intended to DIAGNOSE mental disorders in the clinical environment?
I do not think so. I was merely correcting another poster by making a factual statement. Thanks for once again demonstrating your lack of intelligence. I almost feel I should apologize for wrongly assuming you possessed at least the literacy of a 6 year old.

Anonymous Sun Dec 29 21:40:47 2013 No.6259016

>>6258984
>The fact that you don't know the difference between psychiatry and neurochemistry tells us that you have no idea what you're talking about.
The fact that you think psychiatry is only clinical tells us that YOU have no idea what YOU'RE talking about. This isn't a question of neurochemistry at all, you uneducated peasant. Or "neurochemistry" just a buzzword you found on Wikipedia?

>If you picked any psychiatrist at random, almost surely he wouldn't even understand the question.
Are you serious? Basic theory is required reading in almost every school, and every psychiatrist I know stays up to date with the literature.

>Have you even ever talked to a psychiatrist?
I work with research psychiatrists everyday.

>Have you ever seen a psychiatric hospital from the inside?
As an intern yes. I'm guessing you saw it from the perspective of a patient?

>Seriously? You are quoting baseless non-science from a time where psychiatry didn't even exist? Way to confirm your ignorance.
Way to confirm that you don't know shit about history.

>I did and they debunked your propaganda bullshit.
Link it.

>A disorder known as mental retardation.
What kind of mental retardation?

>Nope. This is bullshit.
An empty claim isn't sufficient. Please disprove all of the references in Stahl 4e on ADHD. That should be easy to start.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 21:42:16 2013 No.6259022 >>6258987 >What symptoms? Would you like me to upload the relevant pages of the DSM V? >That's how ADHD is defined. Not according to any of my references, which are all very mainstream. Can you please post yours?

Anonymous Sun Dec 29 21:45:16 2013 No.6259027

>>6258998
>I'm not gonna spoonfeed you. Do your homework alone.
Great excuse to avoid supporting an empty claim.

>Kids with mental retardation ("ADHD") are not higher performing individuals.
That's not what I posted. Your reading comprehension is horrible.

>I said it was arbitrary.
No, you implied in >>6254706 that is was subjective and that is exactly what I was addressing.
>They are based on well-described objective anomalies in brain function.
>Toppest lel. Now we know you haven't even read one page of it. The diagnosic criteria are almost exclusively based on subjective report and witness report.

But I will argue with you on that as well. The neural substrates demonstrate that it is not arbitrary at all.

>I do not think so.
I'm sorry. I must've misunderstood your post. Can you please tell me what you meant to reference by using the word "latter"?

Anonymous Sun Dec 29 21:46:47 2013 No.6259032

>>6259016
>This isn't a question of neurochemistry at all
Oh wow. There's no way you're being serious.

>Basic theory is required reading in almost every school, and every psychiatrist I know stays up to date with the literature.
Which has nothing to do with what you posted.

>I work with research psychiatrists everyday.
As a patient? Do you participate in studies on mental retardation?

>I'm guessing you saw it from the perspective of a patient?
Unsurprisingly your guessing skills are just as impaired as your other reading skills.

>Way to confirm that you don't know shit about history.
Nice projection, dumbfuck. I know more about history than you ever will. How about you read a book? I mean, of course AFTER you learned how to read.

>Link it.
implying I read it online

>What kind of mental retardation?
Well, what kind do YOU have?

>Please disprove all of the references in Stahl 4e
Are you seriously going "prove me wrong!!!"? This isn't a religion thread. The burden of proof is on you, not on me.

Anonymous Sun Dec 29 21:49:47 2013 No.6259039

>>6259022
>Would you like me to upload the relevant pages of the DSM V?
You want to violate the copyright? Such unethical behaviour proves once again that you're certainly no scientist.

>Not according to any of my references
ADHD is defined by a child's lazy excuse for not doing his homework. This is what every diagnostic criterium boils down to.

Anonymous Sun Dec 29 21:53:16 2013 No.6259044

>>6259027
>Great excuse to avoid supporting an empty claim.
Are you upset because I didn't fall for your red herring? Perhaps you should learn how to argue.

>That's not what I posted.
Of course not. You claimed the opposite, which was wrong. I had to correct you.

>that is was subjective
Do you not know what "subjective report" means? And you seriously believe you could talk about psychiatry and psychology? My lels are in orbit.

>The neural substrates demonstrate that it is not arbitrary at all.
The classification in the DSM largely stems from a historical tradition which originated long before the neural correlates were discovered. Your ignorance of history never fails to amuse me.

>Can you please tell me what you meant to reference by using the word "latter"?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/latter

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 21:59:16 2013 No.6259054 >thread about consciousness >ctrl f "quantum" >0 results you plebs fucking serious?

>>	Near Sun Dec 29 22:01:17 2013 No.6259060 >>6254578 If you can't google what something even means, stay out of this board. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 22:02:46 2013 No.6259062 >>6259054 We had this in the other consciousness thread. Look there for the moron posting quantum mysticism. Lulz are guaranteed.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 22:04:17 2013 No.6259067 Cogito ergo cum.

>>	Near Sun Dec 29 22:04:17 2013 No.6259068 >>6254645 >My intellectual superiority is an empirical fact, easily verified by IQ tests. Which tests aptitude at math. You can have a high IQ, but still be not suited for scientific debate because you can't comprehend the validity of other's opinions

Anonymous Sun Dec 29 22:06:47 2013 No.6259070

>>6259032
>Oh wow. There's no way you're being serious.
Entertain me and explain how my question was about neurochemistry.

>Which has nothing to do with what you posted.
It answers your question that yes, an average psychiatrist will know the answer to my question.

>As a patient? Do you participate in studies on mental retardation?
No and no.

>Unsurprisingly your guessing skills are just as impaired as your other reading skills.
Why are my reading skills impaired?

>I know more about history than you ever will.
I doubt that, considering you can't even get the history of a simple mental disorder right.

>implying I read it online
So tell me the title and author, idiot.

>Well, what kind do YOU have?
I don't have any kind of mental retardation. Can you please stop the semantic shitmongering and answer my question?

>Are you seriously going "prove me wrong!!!"? This isn't a religion thread. The burden of proof is on you, not on me.
Okay, here

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 22:07:46 2013 No.6259075 >>6259068 >opinions >valid The motion of my sides has become a non-trivial solution of the diff eq <span class="math">\ddot{x}-\omega^2x=0[/spoiler]. You are on a fucking science board. Opinions don't mean shit. Post facts or GTFO.

Anonymous Sun Dec 29 22:07:47 2013 No.6259072

Chapter 12 (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder)
Arnsten AFT (2006) Fundamentals of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder: circuits and pathways. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 67 (Suppl 8): 7–12.
Arnsten AFT (2006) Stimulants: therapeutic actions in ADHD. Neuropsychopharmacology 31: 2376–2383.
Arnsten AFT (2009) Stress signaling pathways that impair prefrontal cortex structure and function. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 10: 410–422.
Arnsten AFT, Li BM (2005) Neurobiology of executive functions: catecholamine influences on prefrontal cortical functions. Biological Psychiatry 57: 1377–1384.
Avery RA, Franowicz JS, Phil M, et al. (2000) The alpha 2A adrenoceptor agonist, guanfacine, increases regional cerebral blood flow in dorsolateral prefrontal cortex of monkeys performing a spatial working memory task. Neuropsychopharmacology 23: 240–249.
Berridge CW, Devilbiss DM, Andrzejewski ME, et al. (2006) Methylphenidate preferentially increases catecholamine neurotransmission within the prefrontal cortex at low doses that enhance cognitive function. Biological Psychiatry 60; 1111–1120.
Berridge CW, Shumsky JS, Andrzejewski ME, et al. (2012) Differential sensitivity to psychostimulants across prefrontal cognitive tasks: differential involvement of noradrenergic α1- and α2-receptors. Biological Psychiatry 71: 467–473.
Biederman J (2004) Impact of comorbidity in adults with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 65 (Suppl 3): 3–7.
Biederman J, Petty CR, Fried R, et al. (2007) Stability of executive function deficits into young adult years: a prospective longitudinal follow-up study of grown up males with ADHD. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 116: 129–136.
Clerkin SM, Schulz KP, Halperin JM, et al. (2009) Guanfacine potentiates the activation of prefrontal cortex evoked by warning signals. Biological Psychiatry 66: 307–312.

Near Sun Dec 29 22:08:17 2013 No.6259080

>>6254729
>How is it possible for someone to talk out of their ass this hard? Do you have any idea have efficient and cheap these methods are? A 7th grader with ADHD doesn't need a 7T MRI that shows frontostriatal atrophy to prove he has ADHD. It's a massive waste of economic and medical resources.
Well, admittedly there are a lot of erroneous diagnoses and people lying to get disability benefits.So the economic cost is not as massive as you think.

Anonymous Sun Dec 29 22:08:46 2013 No.6259078

Easton N, Shah YB, Marshall FH, Fone KC, Marsden CA (2006) Guanfacine produces differential effects in frontal cortex compared with striatum: assessed by phMRI BOLD contrast. Psychopharmacology 189: 369–385.
Faraone SV, Biederman J, Spencer T, et al. (2006) Diagnosing adult attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: are late onset and subthreshold diagnoses valid? American Journal of Psychiatry 163: 1720–1729.
Fusar-Poli P, Rubia K, Rossi G, Sartori G, Balottin U (2012) Striatal dopamine transporter alterations in ADHD: pathophysiology or adaptation to psychostimulants? A meta-analysis. American Journal of Psychiatry 169: 264–272.
Grady M, Stahl SM (2012) A horse of a different color: how formulation influences medication effects. CNS Spectrums 17: 63–69
Hannestad J, Gallezot JD, Planeta-Wilson B, et al. (2010) Clinically relevant doses of methylphenidate significantly occupy norepinephrine transporters in humans in vivo. Biological Psychiatry 68: 854–860.
Jakala P, Riekkinen M, Sirvio J, et al. (1999) Guanfacine, but not clonidine, improves planning and working memory performance in humans. Neuropsychopharmacology 20: 460–470.
Kessler RC, Adler L, Barkley R, et al. (2006) The prevalence and correlates of adult ADHD in the United States: results from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. American Journal of Psychiatry 163: 716–723.
Kessler RC, Green JG, Adler LA, et al. (2010) Structure and diagnosis of adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Archives of General Psychiatry 67: 1168–1178.
Kollins SH, McClernon JM, Fuemmeler BF (2005) Association between smoking and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms in a population-based sample of young adults. Archives of General Psychiatry 62: 1142–1147.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 22:09:46 2013 No.6259082 >Conciousness >233 posts and 22 image replies omitted >Science >Conciousness >Pick one

Anonymous Sun Dec 29 22:09:46 2013 No.6259083

Madras BK, Miller GM, Fischman AJ (2005) The dopamine transporter and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Biological Psychiatry 57: 1397–1409.
Pingault JB, Tremblay RE, Vitaro F, et al. (2011) Childhood trajectories of inattention and hyperactivity and prediction of educational attainment in early adulthood: a 16-year longitudinal population-based study. American Journal of Psychiatry 168: 1164–1170.
Seidman LJ, Valera EM, Makris N, et al. (2006) Dorsolateral prefrontal and anterior cingulate cortex volumetric abnormalities in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder identified by magnetic resonance imaging. Biological Psychiatry 60: 1071–1080.
Spencer TJ, Biederman J, Madras BK, et al. (2005) In vivo neuroreceptor imaging in attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a focus on the dopamine transporter. Biological Psychiatry 57: 1293–1300.
Spencer TJ, Bonab AA, Dougherty DD, et al. (2012) Understanding the central pharmacokinetics of spheroidal oral drug absorption system (SODAS) dexmethylphenidate: a positron emission tomography study of dopamine transporter receptor occupancy measured with C-11 altropane. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 73: 346–352.
Stahl SM (2009) Norepinephrine and dopamine regulate signals and noise in the prefrontal cortex. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 70: 617–618.
Stahl SM (2009) The prefrontal cortex is out of tune in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 70: 950–951.
Stahl SM (2010) Mechanism of action of stimulants in attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 71: 12–13.
Stahl SM (2010) Mechanism of action of α2A-adrenergic agonists in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder with or without oppositional symptoms. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 71: 223–224.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 22:10:46 2013 No.6259085 >>6259082 How do you explain consciousness scientifically then if it is not science?

Anonymous Sun Dec 29 22:10:47 2013 No.6259086

Steere JC, Arnsten AFT (1997) The alpha 2A noradrenergic receptor agonist guanfacine improves visual object discrimination reversal performance in aged rhesus monkeys. Behavioral Neuroscience 111: 883–891.
Surman CBH, Biederman J, Spencer T, et al. (2011) Deficient emotional self regulation and adult attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a family risk analysis. American Journal of Psychiatry 168: 617–623.
Swanson J, Baler RD, Volkow ND (2011) Understanding the effects of stimulant medications on cognition in individuals with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: a decade of progress. Neuropsychopharmacology 36: 207–226. Neuropsychopharmacology 36: 207–226.
Turgay A, Goodman DW, Asherson P, et al.; for the ADHD Transition Phase Model Working Group (2012) Lifespan persistence of ADHD: the life transition model and its application. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 73: 192–201.
Turner DC, Clark L, Dowson J, Robbins TW, Sahakian BJ (2004) Modafinil improves cognition and response inhibition in adult attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Biological Psychiatry 55: 1031–1040.
Turner DC, Robbins TW, Clark L, et al. (2003) Cognitive enhancing effects of modafinil in healthy volunteers. Psychopharmacology 165: 260–269.
Vaughan BS, March JS, Kratochvil CJ (2012) The evidence-based pharmacological treatment of pediatric ADHD. International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology 15: 27–39.
Wang M, Ramos BP, Paspalas CD, et al. (2007) α2A-Adrenoceptors strengthen working memory networks by inhibiting cAMP-HCN channel signaling in prefrontal cortex. Cell 129: 397–410.
Wigal T, Brams M, Gasior M, et al.; 316 Study Group (2010) Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study of the efficacy and safety of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: novel findings using a simulated adult workplace environment design. Behavioral and Brain Functions 6: 34–48.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 22:11:16 2013 No.6259087 >>6259085 You don't

Anonymous Sun Dec 29 22:11:46 2013 No.6259088

Wilens TE (2007) Lisdexamfetamine for ADHD. Current Psychiatry 6: 96–98, 105.
Yang L, Cao Q, Shuai L, et al. (2012) Comparative study of OROS-MPH and atomoxetine on executive function improvement in adhd: a randomized controlled trial. International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology 15: 15–16.
Zang YF, Jin Z, Weng XC, et al. (2005) Functional MRI in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: evidence for hypofrontality. Brain and Development 27: 544–550.
Zuvekas SH, Vitiello B (2012) Stimulant medication use in children: a 12-year perspective. American Journal of Psychiatry 169: 160–166.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 22:12:46 2013 No.6259090 >>6259087 Why? Who explains it then?

Near Sun Dec 29 22:12:47 2013 No.6259092

>>6259082
>>Conciousness
>>233 posts and 22 image replies omitted
>>Science
>>Conciousness
>>Pick one

You are shitposting
You are shitposting

0/10, pick one. you aren't fooling anyone.
Science can study to what stimuli somebody responds, and such is used in hospitals to identify shock, brain damage etc

Anonymous Sun Dec 29 22:13:17 2013 No.6259095

>>6259070
>Entertain me and explain how my question was about neurochemistry.
Why don't you fucking google what "neurochemistry" means?

>It answers your question that yes, an average psychiatrist will know the answer to my question.
He certainly won't. Go test it. Call a random psychiatrist and ask him.

>Why are my reading skills impaired?
Ask your mom. I don't know what development disorder you're suffering from.

>I doubt that, considering you can't even get the history of a simple mental disorder right.
What mental disorder? ADHD is not a mental disorder. ADHD is an advertising campaign.

>So tell me the title and author, idiot.
I read it several years ago. Why should I care?

>I don't have any kind of mental retardation.
Thanks for demonstrating your inability to reflect your own behaviour. That's another symptom of retardation btw.

>>6259072
>>6259078
>>6259083
>>6259086
>spamming/flooding

Anonymous Sun Dec 29 22:13:47 2013 No.6259094

>>6259039
>You want to violate the copyright? Such unethical behaviour proves once again that you're certainly no scientist.
Quoting the text is allowed under the copyright.

>ADHD is defined by a child's lazy excuse for not doing his homework. This is what every diagnostic criterium boils down to.
How so? It captures exactly 0% of ADHD's clinical presentation.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 22:14:16 2013 No.6259099 >>6259092 Science can't study qualia. I'm surprised I have to explain this to you, seeing as it was you who linked the wiki entry about qualia.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 22:14:46 2013 No.6259096 >>6259090 Philosophers or pseudoscientists might claim to explain it.

>>	Near Sun Dec 29 22:14:46 2013 No.6259097 >>6259094 Worthy /sci/entist, please ignore the troll.

Anonymous Sun Dec 29 22:15:46 2013 No.6259100

>>6259044
>Are you upset because I didn't fall for your red herring? Perhaps you should learn how to argue.
I asked you to substantiate and provide evidence for a claim and you refused to. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence!

>You claimed the opposite
I did not.

>Do you not know what "subjective report" means?
I do and it's not relevant. Psychiatrists collect objective reports of objective symptoms.

>The classification in the DSM largely stems from a historical tradition which originated long before the neural correlates were discovered. Your ignorance of history never fails to amuse me.
We're talking about the latest revision of the DSM with a diagnostic criteria based on the datum of evidence for ADHD. Appeal to history is a fallacy, and even if you wanted to go down this route, the symptoms are still based on manifestly clinical data. Also, they are not "neural correlates", they are "neural substrates". Learn the difference.

>http://www.thefreedictionary.com/latter
"Being the second of two persons or things mentioned", is that the definition you're using?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 22:16:16 2013 No.6259103 >>6259096 >claim Well, who will uncover it for real then?

Anonymous Sun Dec 29 22:16:16 2013 No.6259104

>>6259094
>Quoting the text is allowed under the copyright.
You said "upload". That's more than quoting.

>How so? It captures exactly 0% of ADHD's clinical presentation.
Your ability to comprehend text is once again too impaired for this conversation.

>>6259097
You are quoting the wrong post. He is the troll.

>>	Near Sun Dec 29 22:16:47 2013 No.6259101 >>6259097 Actually, the same polite request goes for all /sci/ anons in the thread

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 22:18:47 2013 No.6259107 >>6259092 >Science can study to what stimuli somebody responds, and such is used in hospitals to identify shock, brain damage etc And I wish science the best of luck in doing so. It wont explain conciousness though

Anonymous Sun Dec 29 22:19:16 2013 No.6259108

>>6259100
>I asked you to substantiate and provide evidence for a claim
I didn't make any claims. I only disproved yours.

>I did not.
Denial is futile. Everyone can read the thread and see your ignorance.

>Psychiatrists collect objective reports of objective symptoms.
My sides. There have been studies on how easy it is to fake a mental disorder. Psychiatrists will believe anything you tell them. After all that's their only source of information.

>based on the datum of evidence for ADHD
You misspelled "shilling by the pharma industry".

>Appeal to history is a fallacy
Then why do you do it?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 22:24:46 2013 No.6259116 >>6259103 Maybe someone will uncover that there's no uncovering conciousness.

Anonymous Sun Dec 29 22:26:47 2013 No.6259123

>>6259095
>Why don't you fucking google what "neurochemistry" means?
Because I don't need to and I already know that what I asked doesn't involve any neurochemistry. It's a question dealing with systems neuroscience applied to mental disorders, which is under the field of research psychiatry.

>He certainly won't.
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence!

>Ask your mom. I don't know what development disorder you're suffering from.
Why would my mom know? What makes you think my reading skills are impaired?

>What mental disorder? ADHD is not a mental disorder.
ADHD. ADHD is defined as a mental disorder.

>ADHD is an advertising campaign.
ADHD is only a mental disorder. Mental disorders aren't advertising campaigns.

>I read it several years ago. Why should I care?
To provide support to your baseless statements?

>Thanks for demonstrating your inability to reflect your own behaviour. That's another symptom of retardation btw.
How did I demonstrate that?

>spamming/flooding
How?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 22:28:16 2013 No.6259129 >>6259062 >yfw hes right

Anonymous Sun Dec 29 22:32:48 2013 No.6259135

>>6259123
>Because I don't need to and I already know that what I asked doesn't involve any neurochemistry
In other words: "I want to stay ignorant and there's nothing you can do about it". We got it. Can you please go back to /pol/ and stop parading around your anti-intellectualism on /sci/?

>What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence!
It can be tested easily.

>Why would my mom know?
Good point. Since retardation is often genetic, we can assume that your mom is a retard as well.

>What makes you think my reading skills are impaired?
your hilariously stupid posts

>ADHD. ADHD is defined as a mental disorder.
And that definition is anti-scientific and solely arose from the pharma industry's intention to make profit.

>ADHD is only a mental disorder. Mental disorders aren't advertising campaigns.
ADHD does not exist. It's a made up term for symptoms of mental retardation and the only reason it was invented was to sell more drugs.

>How did I demonstrate that?
You just did it again.

>How?
Look it up in a dictionary.

Anonymous Sun Dec 29 22:33:17 2013 No.6259138

>>6259104
>You said "upload". That's more than quoting.
I would be quoting the diagnostic criteria for ADHD and uploading it in the format of an image.

>Your ability to comprehend text is once again too impaired for this conversation.
What did I fail to comprehend?

>>6259108
>I didn't make any claims
Yes you did. For example you claimed without evidence that ADHD is not a mental disorder, which is not supported by the science.

>I only disproved yours.
You haven't disproved a single thing I've written. Instead you resort to insult me and stating that I'm ignorant.

>Denial is futile. Everyone can read the thread and see your ignorance.
Show me.

>My sides. There have been studies on how easy it is to fake a mental disorder. Psychiatrists will believe anything you tell them. After all that's their only source of information.
Your point? It's also very easy to pass a drug test by inserting another person's urine into your bladder. It would probably also be easy to befriend the radiologist doing 7T MRI of your brain, or the guy doing an SNP array on your blood sample. If you want to lie and fake illnesses, go ahead. Psychiatrists are only trying to help the people with actual problems.

>You misspelled "shilling by the pharma industry".
No.

>Then why do you do it?
I don't?

Anonymous Sun Dec 29 22:38:46 2013 No.6259149

>>6259138
>uploading it in the format of an image.
You talked about uploading pages, not images.

>What did I fail to comprehend?
Everything.

>For example you claimed without evidence that ADHD is not a mental disorder
I provided loads of evidence.

>which is not supported by the science.
Science supports what I said. Your shilling is anti-scientific.

>You haven't disproved a single thing I've written. I
Denial is futile.

>Show me.
Red herring.

>Psychiatrists are only trying to help the people with actual problems.
Science isn't about helping people. Science is about objective truth.

>No.
Yes.

>I don't?
That's not even a question.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 22:39:47 2013 No.6259150 File: 141 KB, 369x341, 1388374796495.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6259149 >>6259138 >>6259135 >>6259129 >>6259123 >too much green text, plz stop

Anonymous Sun Dec 29 22:40:47 2013 No.6259151

>>6259135
>In other words: "I want to stay ignorant and there's nothing you can do about it". We got it. Can you please go back to /pol/ and stop parading around your anti-intellectualism on /sci/?
I wanted you to explain to me earlier why you believe the question involves neurochemistry, but you refused to. I see you only want to twist the argument now.

>It can be tested easily.
Your claim, your job.

>Good point. Since retardation is often genetic, we can assume that your mom is a retard as well.
You still haven't explained to me why you believe I am mentally retarded.

>your hilariously stupid posts
How?

>And that definition is anti-scientific
No, it's supported by science. That makes it scientific.

>and solely arose from the pharma industry's intention to make profit.
No, it arose from decades of scientific research.

>ADHD does not exist.
You're just repeating yourself.

>It's a made up term for symptoms of mental retardation
You have yet to tell me what kind of mental retardation.

>and the only reason it was invented was to sell more drugs.
Have any evidence to support that?

>You just did it again.
How?

>Look it up in a dictionary.
Not my job. Support your own claims.

Anonymous Sun Dec 29 22:45:17 2013 No.6259171

>>6259151
>I wanted you to explain to me
If you knew what that word means, you wouldn't need any explanation.

>Your claim, your job.
I just called two psychiatrists. Both of them told me they didn't know shit about neurochemistry (and they were angry because I woke them up at 4 AM).

>You still haven't explained to me why you believe I am mentally retarded.
I did. You just fail to understand it. Unsurprisingly. ;)

>No, it's supported by science. That makes it scientific.
It is not supported by science. That makes it unscientific.

>No, it arose from decades of scientific research.
*pseudoscientific

>You're just repeating yourself.
If you werent' retarded, I wouldn't need to repeat myself.

>You have yet to tell me what kind of mental retardation.
First I need to know your kind, so I can dumb it down for you.

>Have any evidence to support that?
Yes.

>Not my job. Support your own claims.
I'm not here to teach you basic literacy.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 22:45:46 2013 No.6259170 >>6254059 >consciousness >science >>>/x/

Anonymous Sun Dec 29 22:46:47 2013 No.6259176

>>6259149
>You talked about uploading pages, not images.
I talked about uploading the pages with the diagnostic criteria for ADHD.

>Everything.
Give me an example.

>I provided loads of evidence.
No, you didn't. You refused to give me a single reference.

>Science supports what I said.
I gave you several posts worth of references which demonstrate the opposite.

>Your shilling is anti-scientific.
I'm not shilling anything.

>Denial is futile.
It's only rational to deny a claim without supporting evidence.

>Red herring.
I am asking you for evidence. Why are you unable to give me anything?

>Science isn't about helping people. Science is about objective truth.
Clinical psychiatry uses science to help people.

>Yes
Why do you think so?

>That's not even a question.
Can you show me where I made an appeal to history?

Anonymous Sun Dec 29 22:50:16 2013 No.6259185

>>6259176
>I talked about uploading the pages with the diagnostic criteria for ADHD.
That's a violation of copyright laws.

>Give me an example.
We are not in elementary school anymore. Examples are trivial and you should be able to find them on your own.

>No, you didn't. You refused to give me a single reference.
Appeal to authority is a fallacy.

>I gave you several posts worth of references which demonstrate the opposite.
You didn't.

>I'm not shilling anything.
That's exactly what a shill would say.

>It's only rational to deny a claim without supporting evidence.
That's why I dismiss your bullshit.

>I am asking you for evidence. Why are you unable to give me anything?
I did.

>Why do you think so?
I do not think.

>Can you show me where I made an appeal to history?
In your post.

Anonymous Sun Dec 29 22:51:17 2013 No.6259186

>>6259171
>If you knew what that word means, you wouldn't need any explanation.
I do know what it means and yet I still need an explanation.

>I just called two psychiatrists.
No, you didn't.

>I did.
In what post?

>It is not supported by science. That makes it unscientific.
See the papers I've referenced.

>*pseudoscientific
What makes you think that?

>If you werent' retarded, I wouldn't need to repeat myself.
cool

>First I need to know your kind, so I can dumb it down for you.
How do you know I'm retarded without knowing my kind?

>Yes
Can you post it?

>I'm not here to teach you basic literacy.
It doesn't fit the definition of spam or flooding.

Anonymous Sun Dec 29 22:54:17 2013 No.6259197

>>6259185
>That's a violation of copyright laws.
A quotation isn't violating any copyright.

>We are not in elementary school anymore. Examples are trivial and you should be able to find them on your own.
So in other words the claim you've made is completely baseless?

>Appeal to authority is a fallacy.
So give me some evidence.

>You didn't.
I did in
>>6259078
>>6259083
>>6259086
>>6259088

>That's why I dismiss your bullshit.
I posted evidence.

>I did.
Where?

>I do not think.
interesting

>In your post.
Which post?

Anonymous Sun Dec 29 22:54:47 2013 No.6259195

>>6259186
>I do know what it means and yet I still need an explanation.
Stop lying. If you know what it meant, you wouldn't need an explanation.

>No, you didn't.
I did.

>In what post?
Read the thread.

>See the papers I've referenced.
You didn't even read them.

>What makes you think that?
My brain.

>cool
Thanks.

>How do you know I'm retarded without knowing my kind?
By applying diagnostic definitions.

>Can you post it?
Yes.

>It doesn't fit the definition of spam or flooding.
It does. Get a dictionary.

Anonymous Sun Dec 29 22:59:46 2013 No.6259212

>>6259197
>A quotation isn't violating any copyright.
But uploading pages does.

>So in other words the claim you've made is completely baseless?
Nope.

>So give me some evidence.
I did.

>I did in
Spam is not an argument.

>I posted evidence.
You didn't.

>Where?
Here.

>Which post?
Read the thread.

Anonymous Sun Dec 29 23:00:46 2013 No.6259214

>>6259195
>Stop lying.
I'm not.

>If you know what it meant, you wouldn't need an explanation.
non-sequitur

>Read the thread.
I did.

>You didn't even read them.
I've read all of them, actually. Do you have any questions?

>My brain.
that helps a lot

>By applying diagnostic definitions.
Which ones?

>Yes.
So do it.

>Get a dictionary.
Which one?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 23:01:16 2013 No.6259217 >>6259214 >I'm not. You are. >non-sequitur lrn2logic >I did. Do it again. >Do you have any questions? No. >Which ones? The one that applies. >Which one? A good one.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 29 23:01:16 2013 No.6259218 >>6259212 >But uploading pages does. No. >Nope. Yes. >I did. Nope. >Spam is not an argument. It's not spam. >You didn't. I did. >Here. Where is that? >Read the thread. Why?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 30 20:50:20 2013 No.6260974 This is a very good book to learn about how to fail at addressing the hard problem.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 31 11:29:54 2013 No.6261921 Dennett is trule a great philosopher. His contributions to science can be compared to the contributions the Amazing Atheist made to society.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 31 11:47:25 2013 No.6261941 >>6254659 This so fucking much

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 31 11:51:54 2013 No.6261944 If ADHD is real then why didn't it exist hundreds of years ago? Checkmate Psychiatrists

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 1 18:33:48 2014 No.6264550 >>6261944 Because a hundred years ago nobody thought of making profit from the fact that some children don't want to do their homework.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 2 18:07:27 2014 No.6266307 >>6261921 A more fitting comparison would be >Daniel Dennett's contributions to neuroscience are like Wendy Wright's conributions to evolutionary biology.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 3 17:47:09 2014 No.6268610 The author is lying. His book doesn't explain consciousness.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 3 17:48:39 2014 No.6268611 >>6261944 Who said it didn't exist?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 3 17:50:09 2014 No.6268618 >>6268611 Everyone who isn't retarded.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 3 18:00:09 2014 No.6268641 >>6257586 >this obvious trolling

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 3 18:02:39 2014 No.6268643 >>6261944 Do you also believe atoms didn't exist until we observed them?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 3 18:06:39 2014 No.6268652 >>6268643 >straw man

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 3 18:07:09 2014 No.6268659 >>6268643 Nah. He is just a postmodernist, they see social constructs everywhere.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 3 18:07:39 2014 No.6268658 >>6268652 Nope. Learn what terms mean before using them, please.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 3 18:09:39 2014 No.6268664 >>6268658 I used it correctly.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 3 18:12:39 2014 No.6268675 >>6268664 No, you didn't. How sad, that you can't recognize this.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 3 18:15:39 2014 No.6268684 >>6268675 Go look it up in a dictionary.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 3 18:18:40 2014 No.6268689 >>6268684 That's what you should do.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 3 18:23:10 2014 No.6268710 >>6268689 >projecting

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 3 18:24:39 2014 No.6268711 >>6268710 Oh look, another word you don't understand.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 3 18:26:39 2014 No.6268715 >>6268711 >projecting again

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 3 19:04:39 2014 No.6268810 >>6268715 >childish synonym of "nou" Is that really the most intelligent and contributory riposte you can come up with?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 3 19:06:39 2014 No.6268817 >>6268810 I accommodate the intellectual content of my posts to the educational level of my conversational opponent. In your case that's a pretty low level. Go figure.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 3 19:08:58 2014 No.6268818 >>6268817 >generic expected response boring

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 3 19:10:39 2014 No.6268832 >>6268825 Then why aren't you posting any?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 3 19:10:40 2014 No.6268825 >>6268818 Science isn't about shallow entertainment, science is about objective truth.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math