futrethink

---ccdan. ---Just to through a little humour into this post, to which APA do you ascribe this retarded conspiracy to because, in a quick search for what the acronym stood for, I found: Alabama Pharmacy Association, Ambulatory Pediatric Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, Arkansas Pharmacists Association, Asociación Psicoanalítica Argentina, Association of Paediatric Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland and the Australian Physiotherapy Association. That is not counting the others I didn’t find. On to the serious stuff. ---You have brought up the other obvious aspect of this topic and that is that AD(H)D are only symbols/letters/words for something that could be a natural part of human life. An unknown and seemingly misunderstood aspect of it but, still normal for the human brain and, what might be, its full capabilities. ---In a way, all the concept described by “AD(H)D” is is just a cultural/societal way of describing something to encapsulate it into a certain box of knowledge in which to make it easier to deal with. It, in itself, is usually no problem for the people who have it. The problems arise from the interaction with others and their expectations of how things are or should be. This includes the ideas of how parents and/or adults think children should act. ---The above ideas of parents and/or adults about the supposed actions of children are in part due to a fast paced and information overloaded society, with the multiple and, in many cases, too many areas of focus/stress that parents and/or the adults that interact with AD(H)D children chose/are forced to have in their personal lives.

---Since there have been no criticisms, comments or compliments for a period of time pertaining to the main subject of the breakdown, if anyone wishes to continue the debate the subject of fate or free will (which is a part/an aspect of what I use the breakdown as basis/a proof for) on this thread, please do so. ---I did not wish to debate it, merely because I wanted to see if the breakdown was logical enough to pass any microscopic inspection on its on merits.

---Tyler Durden and mulreay (as a proper answer to your post # 10) ---A certain amount of time does pass between a physical choice or an unconscious choice and a conscious choice. I have never said there wasn’t and in fact, I specifically mention that the length of time for a choice to occur is “seemingly instantaneous.” ---But, the bodily action and first conscious interaction are of two differing choices. ---We do have conscious control over bodily actions, but only to a limit. An extreme example of this is certain meditational techniques to allow lucid dreaming or control over certain aspects of the autonomic system.---With practice it is even possible to cause the body to instinctively react in a manner which conforms to how you choose to have it: a fireman running almost automatically towards a fire, instead of away from it (even though the body’s physical reactions would still be the same of the flight or fight variety), because of their training or certain individuals feeling pleasure where others would feel pain. ---I am guessing that those aspects of choice were not what you were focusing on, correct? You will forgive me if I don't continue on that path of discussion, which you probably wish to continue on, and focus on the time point. ---As mulreay (post # 10) has already explained the same information as yourself, allow me to answer both you and them, because I did not really properly answer them when they brought it up. Both you and mulreay explain pretty well the same thing using different ways to describe it: mulreay, “It has already been proven that a human brain can make a decision at least 6secs before it becomes a concious thought.” And yourself, “Well, doesn't an entire half second (or more) pass between a bodily action and you actually being conscious of the action?” & “From what I recall in biology, signals from muscles in the body to the brain (or vice versa), usually take only 1/10th of a second.” ---The answer is in your explanations and is in tune with what I explain in the breakdown, but you both don’t catch it, because you consider what is happening as all one choice, when it is the end of one choice and the beginning of another: the body initiates an action/“The final action of the choice is to cause an action to occur” and then, the conscious mind becomes conscious of what has happened/”an objective concept is perceived/interacted with” (which is the initial stage of the breakdown). ---I will be chastised for this but, there are many levels of choice occurring at all times and two easy ways to break down/describe the obvious levels for the human existence is to think of/describe them as the ego, superego and the id or as mind, body and spirit, if you prefer. As a side tangent that I haven't really looked into and don't really consider as likely, but possible, I think that the same concept shown by those two descriptions might also be broken down into not-so-obvious levels of their own and they might not be easy to describe, so, sorry on that point. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged---walkntune. ---As has already been explained to you, in a scientific manner, matter matters. Having the knowledge that matter exists only as interactions of energy fields and contains empty space, does not eliminate the perception of that door hitting you in the face and hurting your nose, when you are watching that fine-looking individual walking by and not paying attention to where you are walking or your (or anyone's) offspring crying when they fall off their bike and land on the hard pavement or the feel of a loved one in your arms and etc. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged---As a side note: I thank my readers/posters/opponents for causing me to note that the description of the objective concept, initially interacted with, should either be more elaborately described to include other specific perceptions or just left as an "objective concept."

---walkintune. ---This post will include some things that you probably already understand, from what I can figure out about you from your few posts on this thread, but to be sure I still have to post them. ---If I understand your usage/definition of the concept of ‘awareness’ correctly, in that respect, yes it does affect awareness, but faith doesn’t affect the objective concept of awareness/perception/original interaction. It only alters what happens after the awareness occurs. ---Faith isn’t the only thing which opens possibilities, because faith/belief/a guess is a part of every choice made. The religious person has as much faith as the scientific person, but blindness affects them both equally. ---They have the same options to choose from as the brave person, who lives in ruts (different though they may be) too. This is because, the brave person considers acting cowardly as something that they can’t do, while the fearing person considers the options requiring acting brave as bad. A person in fear can have cause to fight, instead of flee, and use the same options as the brave person, should one aspect of who they are as a person see the need. ---No, it isn’t. Simply seeing/having the knowledge of how the concept described as ‘energy’ might be the basis of existence, doesn’t negate the existence/presence of the concept described as ‘matter’ in how existence works. And no, I am not showing connotations of the 3 points/perceptions of balance; positive, negative and equal, because I understand/perceive there to be 6 points/perceptions.

---mulreay. ---Isn’t the meaning of life; To search for the answer to the question, “Is there nothing more?” ---To simply accept the unknown as too dangerous to try to understand, would be to accept that life is something which can never be greater then what it is right now, correct? Thinking that life of this level, especially human life, is the ultimate it can be is to be arrogant, is it not? ---True. ---We, as individuals made up of individuals, make choices and we have choices happen to us (even from within our own bodies). ---Do you have any links to those studies or anything relating to showing this? I am not doubting your information, but it would help provide proof for me in my arguments with others. ---That being all said; can you find any errors in the breakdown? ---The breakdown fits for a computer’s manner of making a choice as it does for a human’s, correct?

---gib65. ---Here is a question for your friend, “If an adult checked their medical records and found all evidence pointing to the exact same physical characteristics of AD(H)D, with their past and present physical and mental activities following the same and have had no medication to alter/create this ‘problem’, is it all in everyone’s imagination or caused by drugs?” ---I’ve copied and pasted the following directly from this google search: http://www.google.ca/search?q=adhd+smaller+frontal+lobes%2C+studies&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a Search for the headline: Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD): Diagnostic Criteria The reason for doing this is because, if I set up the link directly to the site, it is blocked due to a requirement of logging in as a medscape member, so I don't know how long the article and link will be easily found on the first page. ---Clicking on the links, on the site in the article, will give you the references and studies connected with the information. Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD): Diagnostic Criteria , Authors and Disclosures, Kytja K. S. Voeller , MD , Western Institute for Neurodevelopmental Studies and Interventions, Boulder, CO. Neuroanatomy and Physiology of ADHD Behaviorally, ADHD is a disorder of self-regulation, which implicates some sort of dysfunction of the frontal-subcortical system.[34,37-39] Many magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) morphometric studies (ie, studies involving measurements of various brain regions) have been conducted using different techniques and different populations (including subjects from different regions of the globe). These studies have identified relatively consistent differences in the brains of children with ADHD compared with those of normal controls. A large, well-designed longitudinal study involving 544 MRIs from children with ADHD and age- and sex-matched controls has provided evidence that ADHD is associated with an atypical pattern of brain development that appears in early childhood.[40] The major findings of these studies are summarized as follows: __1.____Total cerebral volume is smaller in individuals with ADHD and in controls. There is a small but significant reduction (on the order of 5%) in mean total cerebral volume or intracranial volume.[41-47] In one study comparing boys with ADHD, their unaffected male siblings, and matched controls, the subjects with ADHD had a significant (4%) reduction in intracranial volume. Their unaffected siblings had a 3.4% reduction compared with controls (a statistical trend). Cortical right prefrontal gray matter and left occipital gray and white matter were reduced in the subjects with ADHD and their siblings.[42] This suggests that changes in cerebral volume need to reach a certain crucial level before they become obviously symptomatic. Moreover, this study strongly supports the genetic basis of ADHD. __2.____Frontal lobe volume is smaller in persons with ADHD. Brain regions involved in self-regulation (executive function) show differences from those of controls. In most studies, the frontal lobes or subregions of the frontal lobes were found to be smaller in subjects with ADHD than in controls.[40,41,45,47-49] In one study, the inferior portions of dorsal prefrontal cortices and anterior temporal cortices, bilaterally, were reduced in subjects with ADHD.[49] __3.____Various regions of the basal ganglia, particularly the caudate nucleus, have been reported to be smaller in children with ADHD compared with controls.[40,41,43,50] Studies on normal individuals have shown that the caudate decreases in size as the child matures (a manifestation of the normal "pruning" of neurons seen in many parts of the brain during development). Children with ADHD start out with smaller caudate nuclei than controls, and with maturation, there is a further decrease in size. As a result, any difference in size between children with ADHD and controls becomes less apparent with increasing age.[40,41,51] (This might explain the variability in size observed in different studies because the age of the subjects varied considerably across these studies.) Other regions of the basal ganglia have also been reported to be reduced in volume in subjects with ADHD relative to controls.[52,53] __4.____Right hemisphere structures are affected more than left hemisphere structures. In normal child and adult populations, the right frontal area is larger than the left frontal area. Given the important role that the right hemisphere plays in regulating attention and the deficits seen in ADHD, it would not be surprising to observe reduction in right frontal lobe volume. This was not a consistent finding, but it was noted in a number of studies.[40-44,54] In some studies, a decrease in the right frontal gray-matter volume was noted, or changes in volumes of certain subcortical structures were more prominent on the right.[42,53] It is possible that the reduction in size is due to the reduction of global brain volume, as suggested by Castellanos et al.[40] In normal adults, the right caudate is larger than the left caudate.[55-57] However, based on the large National Institute of Mental Health study of children with ADHD, the right caudate nucleus is smaller than the left caudate nucleus.[58] This asymmetry was not necessarily observed in all studies, but they generally involved many fewer children and were not longitudinal.[43,46,49] __5.____There is a relative decrease in the size of the cerebellum. The cerebellum also participates in the regulation of executive function as a result of its reciprocal connections to the prefrontal cortex.[59] The decreased size of the cerebellum in children with ADHD was initially described by Castellanos et al.[41] and has been corroborated in a number of other studies.[40,43,44,60,61] __6.____A number of studies reported a reduction in the area of the anterior[42,44,62-64] or posterior corpus callosum.[65] However, in the large National Institute of Mental Health study, this was not confirmed.[41] It is worth noting that treatment with psychostimulants was not responsible for the reduction in various brain areas because these findings were also noted in children who were drug naive. Interestingly, children on psychostimulant treatment actually had somewhat greater white-matter volumes than those who had not been treated. [40] In summary, there is now much research suggesting that, when carefully examined, groups of children with ADHD have small but significant reductions in total brain volume and in the various regions of the brain that are involved in the regulation of attention and impulsivity. This would suggest that the behaviors seen in children with ADHD are not simply the result of environmental factors or some sort of distortion of perception on the part of parents and teachers, but rather a very real brain dysfunction.

---walkntune. ---True. That is an aspect/a part of the process of choice.---Your possible error (I am not sure if you understand the entire objectivity of what ‘mind’ is) is in thinking that an organic mind is the only possible aspect (of an individual) capable of doing as you explained. ---It is not that an individual can make choices, it is that an individual must continually make choices or the choices must be continually made for them. ---So, as much as an individual exists within time and space, instead of being time and space and while existing and not existing at the same time as the only existing thing within nonexistence (slightly confusing to explain, but some people get it without the explanation), choice is a continual part of every individual’s existence from the start of knowledge of that individual’s existence to the end of knowledge of its existence. It is also that not only our minds that make choices/have choices happen to them, but any individual (think objectively as to what an individual is and how it is defined) that exists. ---To try a different tack, “At a single point in time, does an electron (an aspect of what a brain and/or mind is) or a computer make a choice of the available options?”

---walkntune. ---Actually the first part of the process, at what you are looking at and thinking about, comes down to, “Do I choose to exist or not exist?” before it goes through the flight or flight process, because after making the choice of existing with what you already have or not, you then make the choice of (should the individual choose to exist) flight or flight and then another choice of what would be the best way to get the result of existence. Following that choice of what’s best is,” The final action of the choice is to cause an action to occur that will cause/start that one singular future/timeline to become a part of existence and that might have the believed to be one possibly final needed end-result.”---What you are not catching is what actually a ‘choice’ is and how many choices occur to any individual within any measured point in time.

---walkntune. ---I didn’t initiate this thread to debate the external/societal/environmental reasons for making a choice, the repercussions of a choice or the how/what/why society is the way it is, so if you wish to debate those points, we can take it to a sociological or philosophical (fate v freewill) area/thread. ---I merely wish to have this dissection of the process of choice looked at by others and for constructive criticism given if there are any errors so I may fine tune my explanation of it, but, for now I’ll answer the points you brought up. ---If you read through the breakdown, you will find out that an individual has multiple options for which to choose from (freewill), but they can to only make one choice and are fated to only make one choice, which is what fate is; having no other available options/choices to choose from and doing only that one thing.---Humans have the same amount of free will as any other individual. That degree of free will is the exact same amount for a human in one situation as any other individual being in that exact same situation, even if it doesn’t feel like it, due to the differing emotions/past experiences/knowledge that each individual has as a part of their past. ---True and anyone who believes that human beings don’t have parts of them that are animal and that human beings are not animals at all are lying to themselves.---As for the carrot and stick of emotions affecting our lives? Yes, they do. This can be proven, if it hasn’t already (I don’t have the time to look for links showing such proof) to affect how you live your life. One such example would be; how you live your life as an adult, because of your emotions from being a kid.

---tomgwyther. ---Emotions and time are indeed mentioned, albeit obscurely, in the breakdown, “Available facts/information/variables from past existence is taken” and “The surrounding environment and all information pertaining to that point in space and time.” ---Everything that is available to the individual is included/involved in making the choice. ---Another point I try to clarify is that; the individual making a choice/having to choose could be any form of a singular being due to the objective and fully basic nature/existence of individuals, which can be described as massenergy or any other word/symbol/analogue known in any language/form of communication/transmission of information. This is, for the nonce, we’ll leave as any animal or vegetable. ---This is not to create the connotation that a mineral thinks (not counting the seemingly illusionary aspect of what will come to be for computers; if it is believed to think by organic/human computers, and it itself believes/calculates it thinks and feels emotions past its programming, other then by personal beliefs what objective proof is there to say that the illusion is an illusion), but that choice also is a part of its mineral existence. ---As for having an objective? My signature is my hypothesis which, as arrogant as it may seem, I am trying to find information for to prove it wrong.

---The following is a personal breakdown of how a choice occurs. I use it in discussions to prove points and wish to have it analyzed by as many individuals as possible to point out any possible errors. ---You will have to excuse my posting style, but I prefer to use the “---“ to show a tab/where the opening of a ‘paragraph’ has started (just following the teachings of basic English usage {and yes, I know that I will make obvious errors, so point them out if necessary}) and should anyone have knowledge of how to properly insert a blank space to replace the dashes, I would appreciate the information. My posting style also includes multiple and seemingly synonymous words with a “/” between them to show the overall and relatively objective concept described by all the words, but it is important for me to do so to try and avoid some predictable arguments arising from a miscommunication of an improper concept. ---I do not have a computer at home, so I must use library and internet café computers, so if some time passes before I reply to anyone’s post, please be patient. ---To any readers who think that this post is an insult to their intelligence, due to the multiple and blatantly obvious statements of information, I must mention that this is not how it should be seen. As with any hypothesis, the originator of such must present all their facts in connection with it and all the connections between those facts that brought it about. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ---A choice is defined, by most dictionaries, as one of two things: a noun or a verb. ---To my way of thinking, you can’t make a choice unless you have nouns with which to do the verb. Thereby, the entirety of the concept of an objective ‘choice’ is any and all nouns, from the past, present and possible future, in connection with and the verb/action itself. ---That being out of the way, on to the breakdown of how a choice occurs on the physical(matter) and/or spiritual(emotional) and/or mental(thinking) levels and seemingly instantaneously: ~~~~~~A choice is required as a part of a linear temporal existence. To make that choice, the following occurs; an objective concept is perceived/interacted with. This is either a massenergy object appearing within an individual’s perceptions or a path/need/ideal that is to be reached. Either way; the first thing that occurs is an interaction of perceptions. An individual doesn’t cooperate with something that it has just perceived, it just interacts with it. ~~~~~~Available facts/information/variables from past existence is taken and brought forward and acknowledged as a part of that individual’s existence. ~~~~~~The surrounding environment and all information pertaining to that point in space and time is perceived/accepted as being a part of the individual’s existence. ~~~~~~The original idea/belief/concept of what was expected to be the possible future, from the previous point in time, is brought forward, accepted/acknowledged and then examined in connection with the previously noted object/objective. ~~~~~~During the examination of the original future, the connection between the new object/objective and the new object/objective itself, the previously mentioned past and present information is brought forward and used to predict any and all, new possible futures that might result. ~~~~~~Examinations of the new possible futures are made. ~~~~~~The most likely/probable/positive/okay/good futures/timelines are selected and the remaining futures are discarded/removed/noted as negative/bad/evil from the choice process. ~~~~~~A single possible end-result is selected as the most positive choice. A period of time for that end-result is determined. The possible futures/timelines and the information needed for to reach the previously selected end-result are examined. ~~~~~~The information and the future/timeline that is considered/believed the most wanted/positive/possible to reach the single possible end-result are selected. All other information and futures/timelines are noted as/believed to be the most negative/least likely for to reach that single possible end-result and discarded. ---The final action of the choice is to cause an action to occur that will cause/start that one singular future/timeline to become a part of existence and that might have the believed to be one possibly final needed end-result. ---I might have missed a few steps or thought that they were unimportant enough to put in, but the above is as basic as I believe is needed for now.