akeley

So here we go again, folks. Yep, it`s time for your favourite Fish Inna Barrel show The script? Same as always. 1) a wild OP appears, the usual suspects zoom in 2) shootin` starts in the very first post (not even slightest attempt at answering the OP who`s dismissed with a lame "joke") 3) more of the similar (strawmen, fallacies, sweeping generalisations, irrelevant questions, barely hidden insults) 4) has the OP left yet? a) no - GOTO 3 b) seems so! GOTO 5 5) da fun: some anecdotes, bad poetry, personal rants, clever (ahem) musings 6) GOTO 4 7) OP either loses it (thread locked) or disappears for good (no worries, there`s always another one) An honest engagement, polite explanations, some actual links to explain stuff better? You got to be ^#*^^%^& kidding me. We`re scienceforums.net! What are you, some New Age hippy anyway? Gerroffa my lawn. The take out for a casual lurker? - everything "non natural" is great because a) it`s modern c) there`s no synthetics b) OP is a "fool" c) we say so d) Seventies sucked - there are only two positions to take: you`re either in with the in crowd or another "fool". Nice and simple, a binary world. -if you are a "fool" then sweet Jaysis, what are you still doing here? I need a drink, and a shotgun (you stay classy, DrKrettin. Just hoping you`re single IRL these days Yeah, well. Fear not, this is the last you hear from this particular "fool". For some reason I had a notion it`d be nice to try to discuss and learn something on science forums that proclaim to be The Original Ones, no less. What I see though is just another forum - never mind science - with all its usual trappings. The biggest one of which is the presence of an endless circle jerk in which the core regular clique massages their e-peens engaging in activity already described in the title of my "show". It`s the same sociopathic behaviour displayed on every single fairly old forum out there, be it cycling, videogames, books or engineering - doesn`t matter. It`s just another proof that this medium tends to bring out worst in people - or perhaps it just makes it more visible, since once posted, it`s there for all to see and does`nt disappear into thin air like spoken word. Shame, because there are surely some "normal" members here, with whom it is possible to have "normal" conversation and respectful disagreements. Personally though, I don`t have time & energy to waste on dispelling the constant background noise. Y`all keep having "fun" - and your delusion that you actually represent scientific community. Luckily, things are much less binary in the real world.

I`m not quite sure the traits described above as "uniquely" human really are such. One can argue animals also have words & languages, and as for imagination and consciousness, we have no way of knowing at present (personal opinion: don`t see why not). Since this seems to be the foundation of your post I thought I`d mention that. Please note that I have zero "academic" knowledge on this subject, only my own thoughts and observations - hence it might be completely irrelevant.

Huh? I am trying to create an argument? I simply posted a reply to OP (#16) without mentioning your contribution at all and it was you and StringJunky (y`all always post in tandem? who then replied to my post - repeating the stuff you have just said on the same page anyway. Who`s starting what then? Up to this point I wasn`t particularly interested in your take on the OP`s question because, like I said, I did not see the problem. In my humble opinion OP is simply wrong stating that there are no definitions of word "evil" in English, since there are. The word is subjective and describes a complex subject so naturally these can`t be straightforward...and so on. And since you then insisted on dragging me into your version I replied with the "rabbit hole" because that`s where I feel your angle leads to. Stating that the words in dictionary are defined by usage has no practical appliance in this case - I mean, unless you plan on this thread to last a hundred years or so, so we can see how the world "evil" is used to describe freshly picked strawberries. Anyway, you folks carry on, it`s all quite amusing - dodging my simple question (and we know why that was contradicting yourself ("Huh? You just looked it up in a dictionary. Therefore it is defined." was your first sentence in this thread) and above all, using the word "irregardless" in a thread about word meaning and dictionaries I mean - come on Is this some kind of clever meta-device to tie in with the OP or are you simply unaware that it`s not really a word and a butt of many internet jokes?

I can see you couldn`t resist going with the cheap shot, however it is also fairly unsurprising. As somebody who has spoken and thinks in English for the last 15 years I do not actually have big problems with reading and comprehension. I only offered the above in case there really was some alternative explanation to your quote. As we can see there wasn`t - and you shouldn`t really have bothered with the long-winded version since it`s just at best a truism or at worst a lame strawman. All wars cause casualties, therefore we shouldn`t worry about a current conflict. All sports come with a risk of injury so no need to concentrate on boxing. All medical drugs have side effects - so why pick on psychiatric ones? It`s still a shockingly lame reasoning, given the severity of the subject. Can only explain it by your blind urge to discredit the article. Now, if you really have done your homework you could pick on the fact that this site is sponsored by Scientology, which is never a good thing. However, even that shouldn`t deny the fact that they`re presenting important issues and providing some useful service with the database. The thing in question could be their motives or - in case of other, similar sites - merchandise they`re peddling. Sadly, the lack of real discussion around the subject (and attitudes witnessed here for example) cause such opportunists to thrive. By "real" I mean not just the sport of shredding easy targets like the OP or dismissing everything that goes against established consensus as "conspiracy". After all your answer to my "do you guys really think everything is hunky dory with the state of modern psychiatry?" was "no". So far I failed to see any engagement in this regard - perhaps scoring cheap semantic points is more important. This on top of making more WTF-type statements such as: There`s other option: maybe they aren`t really arguing "there`s no such thing as mental illness" and are unhappy with the status quo of the entire profession and the lack of engagement in the subject? So, if I start hearing "voices" - but I still be able to function and not murder people - then I shouldn`t worry, because you declared it`s not an "illness"? And voices telling me to kill are not psychoses in themselves, they require other psychoses to kick in? And from String Junky: Did it maybe occur to you that if you`re having a severe mental episode you aren`t able to think clearly (surprise!) and pontificate on experiences and weigh pros and contras. Maybe you`re in blind panic or just completely "gone" and in hands of a psychiatrist. Whose qualifications and choice of treatment is one of the issues we`re working very hard to avoid discussing here. Please treat the above questions as rhetorical from me - mental health is one of the subjects I find extremely depressing (how fitting) and I`m withdrawing from posting in this thread, given complete lack of any discussion of substance. I just sincerely hope no person with real psychiatric issues will read your input.

This is a rabbit hole, and I wonder, why are you guys heading down into it? For the record: I never stated that dictionaries define words (as a process) or analysed the process of defining. Please answer a simple question, if you will: Do you consider the following definitions (snippets of, for the sake of space) which are found in a simple dictionary, as reasonably descriptive and meaningful (of course on an intrinsically simplified "dictionary level") ? -love: A strong feeling of affection and concern toward another person, as that arising from kinship or close friendship. -fridge: a box, room, or cabinet in which food, drink, etc., are kept cool by means of ice or mechanical refrigeration. -cutting: Capable of or designed for incising, shearing, or severing

I gave it a second go and a fair think-over but try as might I fail to detect any other meaning in this statement than the one that I had a problem to start with. That is: we have a poster in disagreement with another and the above is his rebuttal of the part of the article stating how harmful psychiatric drugs can be by dismissing it with: "all treatments, for all disorders, have side effects. Even something as simple as aspirin." Now, English is my second language, I might be biased against the poster or just simply miss something. You`re welcome to explain any alternative meaning - the author in his reply didn`t offer much past the negative. Re: problems of psychiatry: -overprescribing of psychiatric drugs -prescribing psychiatric drugs based on weak assessments/diagnosis -prescribing psychiatric drugs when alternatives can be considered -prescribing psychiatric drugs motivated by personal gain (Big Pharma angle). These are just off top of my head, there`s of course more on the "idiotic" website and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversy_surrounding_psychiatry. The countries I refer to could be described as the ones ascribing to the Western - free market philosophy, since these are the ones I know best. Re: your participation in this thread: I`d need more data (post history) to establish if your behaviour qualifies for the barrel/fish exercise. In this particular case it`s of course ok to correct somebody`s mistake - if it was repeated ad nauseum without trying to engage in real discussion then perhaps yes. Your aside "A further 100,000 examples are available on request" might be an indicator of being emotionally involved however. Well...since you asked Also: none of the links in your post work for me, it might be something to do with my heavily modded browser though?

Evil=something morally wrong. It`s a definition. About as concise as one can get, but still.

Fairly shocking to see an established member from the Science side to write something like this. Did you just seriously dismiss the severity of psychiatric drugs side effects, because...aspirine? Lost for words. I`ve been frequenting scientific forums for a comparably short time, yet I`m extremely disappointed by the general quality of discourse. It seems to be the same pattern everywhere: basically, a bunker mentality which goes "if you`re not with us you`re against us". Now, of course, this is about science and not something more vague like politics or religion, therefore this attitude is partially justified since it should not be about opinions but facts. Also, the usually very, very poor standard of the "opponents" arguments flooding these forums - OP being one of them - can again sort of explain such responses. But only to a point. As members of the community which promotes reason and inquiry you should do much better than just dismiss and hand wave a super serious subject off only because the proponent is not too clear or produces mixed quality argument. Quite often I see the Science posters who actually seem to enjoy the shooting-fish-in-the-barrel exercise so much that they completely ignore the real issue. I mean - do you guys really think everything is hunky dory with the state of modern psychiatry? If so, I have no further questions.

OP contains adverb "ever" ("can it ever be farmed out?"). Therefore we don`t have to be constrained by current state of affairs. I think it`s safe to assume that in due time AIs will become increasingly complex, in terms of computing power & cleverness of the programmers. At this stage we might start watching for real "intelligence" to emerge. This is - at least the way I see it - the whole point of AI, otherwise it`s just a hype name for advanced set of routines, a la Siri or some such. Along the way there will be more progress in our learning about human intelligence and perhaps consciousness too. These fields will most likely become intertwined. And if we ever succeed in creating true AI - an artificial entity that is capable of thinking/problem solving on its own accord - i` msure it will be able to tackle a model or two. Then we just have to worry about emergence of the ghost in the machine and how not to become enslaved - something any self-respecting AI will surely attempt

I don`t really see a problem here. Even the dictionary definitions are fairly descriptive, (but obviously limited by the medium) E.g: morally wrong, causing ruin etc...I can work with that. Of course it`s just a word - used for one of the most complex subjects known to man. You can`t expect a dictionary, or even a few sentences to cover all possible angles. But! there`s a thing called Wikipedia, they have a "definition" and, more importantly, many links to follow:

Trump used to annoy me when he was irrelevant. Just a cartoon villain, so ridiculous you can`t even get properly angry with him, only annoyed (but mostly with the forever-free pass he was getting from most, despite being a well-known conman) But since the win, he actually stopped annoying me - his victory helped me with further understanding of how this world really works. He`s just a giant tumour, but not the cause of the disease. For me Trump`s presidency is a direct function of a complete collapse of the real liberal/left wing politics - and by real I mean real, not of Clinton/Obama/Clinton variety (you can substitute these names for any other fake-left politician since this same process is in progress in Europe now too) And what annoys me now most is the fact that these four years will be surely wasted on whining about how awful Trump is and then electing another Clinton. This will set the loop back to the beginning, and in due time you`ll get another Trump. Only, the thing is that the "busts" of the boom & bust cycle will be probably coming faster and be more severe. To be sure, opposing Trump - as in reality, on the streets and through direct action, not clicking on fb likes or writing yet another article for the Salon - is a noble endeavour and should be definitely encouraged. But what`s most important is building a base for the real change. The moment(um) was there, what with Sanders and for example Corbyn in the UK - however it was of a fleeting variety I`m afraid.

I see your point and while I might agree it is a position one definitely can take, I`m not so sure about its validity. Perhaps in a "ideal vacuum", as a pure idea, it might be - but in the real world not so much. There`s just too many conflicts it generates, of a kind that might belong to some other thread. E.g: personal freedoms, hypocrisy of allowing one kind and not the other, comparative harmfulness and so on. Also, the horse that has bolted from the tobacco stable was in recent years somehow collared and tamed. And as you say, legalisation and diverting funds to proper research and education - not only about harms, but benefits of marijuana and how to properly use it- would be much better than current status quo. Aw, come on Since when is it bad to relax? I must take objection here because it reinforces the usual tropes. I mean, if you feel cloudy/lazy/passive/slow in a negative context (or a feeling, more like) then you probably should stop or change the poison. However if you just say that because these are preconceived notions then..well Being (properly) stoned is way more advanced than just the perception a non-user might get while watching Brad Pitt in California (or any other "dumb stoner" caricature). I find it extremely creatively stimulating, experience enhancing and also a strong anti-depressant (though this is more situation/usage dependent - it can also intensify negative emotions). Consider that some of your favourite works of art/media - whatever the style - were created by drug users, and not only alcohol ones. Also, you don`t need to be couch-locked: given a right dose/kind/person it`s entirely possible to be very active.

Wow. It has been more than a decade or since I last checked on the Turing vs chatbot thing - I really thought this would be much more advanced by now. Eugene fails at the first sentence uttered and continues to be awful - though I suppose I have the advantage of knowing the subject. But even so! I mean, if this test is meant to be serious then shouldn`t the reviewer have some prior knowledge of how these things work? Otherwise it`s kind of pointless - it`s not only chatbots who are "dumb" so if you just pit them against random humans, the results might be rather worthless.

Th OP title starts with the words "No bias"...and it kinda baited me into clicking on it (despite the fact that I witnessed quite a few of such discussions and I know how impossible no bias+marijuana clause is No big surprise then that the first answer in this thread is heavily biased from the get-go and this trend continues - on both sides. But that`s normal- it`s an internet forum and human arguments usually descend into attack/defense routines. The bigger problem - IMO, as always - is the fact that the field in which this question exists (psychiatry/psychology/neuroscience) is still vastly unknown and open to various interpretations (even given recent advances). The researchers themselves quite often acknowledge this, unfortunately those who quote their studies mostly ignore such caveats, only to support their own views (again, on both sides). I`m a person who started smoking at the age of 21 and continued to do so nearly every day up till now (~20 years later). By default I`m also heavily biased then, on the other hand researching various forms of bias - and having a scientific outlook on life - is an intrinsic that somehow stuck with me from an early age. Make out of it what you wish. Here are some of my thoughts regarding the OP. -as for the main question: Does marijuana permanently effect the brain? Being a lab rat in my own 20 year long experiment, conclusion is : I don`t know. At this point of time I do not see any significant long term changes that I could attribute to drug use, comparing to the initial state. Of course, as I mentioned above - this field is so "vague" and unknown and suspectible to so many external factors that any conclusions regarding subtle changes are very risque. However - I did not detect any major ones. I`m not any more "dumber" or depressed or unstable than I was 20 years ago. About other people? Well...the only conclusion - again - is that observing other people proves to me that this subject is nigh on impossible to "resolve", due to the so many possible things influencing it. The only effect I could observe for sure is the fact that some people "burn out" - as in are unable to use the drug with pleasurable effect (most often get paranoid). AGAIN however this can be partially influenced by their personal circumstances and initial mental setup - though it`s also rather clear that the drug "builds" up in your system (question remains - if you take a long break and then can do it again, does it prove the change is not permanent?). -regarding short term changes (few days timescale) - these absolutely exist, similarly to alcohol perhaps. It all varies depending on type of marijuana and heap of external factors. The anecdotal "evidence" people love to quote about dumb stoners "forgetting" everything is just silly and baseless though: it`s like saying that drunk guy passed out on a sofa has no life - at this very point of time (+/- some hours), yes, however he might be a F1 driver, CERN scientist or whatever else "respectable" occupation you might come up with (meaning he`s functioning in a high-level profession/life in general). -regarding pro/contra legalisation debacle - this one is fairly easy, for a change: if you`re against it and at the same time not actively oppose other "legal" drugs such as tobacco or alcohol then your position is automatically invalid. As for those more logically inclined: people will always use this drug, however it being illegal multiplies serioulsy negative effects. Some of these are: -being incarcerated/having a police record - for doing something rather harmless/personal -price gouging by criminals -product polluting by criminals: mouldy weed or weed artificially altered to increase its weigh by adding harmful agents -propagation of "legal highs" (even if they`re illegal) - these are wildly dangerous chemical substitutes I just thought I`ll share some PERSONAL observations. I`m fully aware this is a science board though: please keep it in mind while replying. And oh, it`s my first post here so "Hello world"