BrainMan

The problem is that if you think .999... is not the same as 1, then any proof using a limit is question begging. The very concept being questioned by those that think the numbers are not equal is that a number getting closer and closer to some other number, x = .9 x = .99 x = .999 ... never actually reaches that number, even after an infinite number of iterations. An infinite limit is presumed to ignore minute differences, so using it as a proof is not valid if there might be a miniscule difference between .999... and 1. In other words, the definition of a limit is really what is at question here (along with all other operations with infinite iterations to be completed). [Nonstandard analysis, in fact, defines limits as operations that ignore infintesimal differences by mapping them onto the closest real numbers, which conforms with the intuitions of those that think .999... is not equal to 1.]

The problem is that both questions (language and arousal) are quite complicated on thier own, and connecting the two is no small task. I know a bit about both, but I really don't know where to start for an explination- much less just a brief overview for a layman. How about this: Reading can invoke the imagination. As we imagine the scenes we read about, our imagination can activate some of the same parts of the brain that are activated when we actually experience it! Thus, imagining a visual image (like a beautiful person) activates the visual system of the brain to create the image. Imagining a movement (like running your hand along another person's...) activates the motor systems of the brian that actually create the movements. This can "trick" the brain into thinking that it is about to mate, which can cause the release of hormones (like adrenaline, to speed the heart and make breathing heavier) and the release of transmitters (like dopamine) for pleasure. [There is something called the dopamine brain reward pathway which is activated during pleasuarble events.] This whole chain of events activates a sort of "feedback system" between the brain and the body that continues to escalate as the person becomes more and more excited. Was any of that helpful?

Yes, and similar effects happen by shifting images over to the left or right with respect to normal vision. I really don't think there is any danger in doing this.

A number is finite iff |x| < n for some integer n. A number is infinite otherwise- we will call this number H. A number is infintesimal iff |x| < n for every integer n- we will call this number d. [0 is trivially infintesimal, and the only real number that is infintesimal.] d = 1/H Nonstandard analysis provides a means by which we can talk about infinite numbers and divisions by numbers smaller than any possible fraction 1/n, where n is an integer, in a rigorous way. It also turns calculus into arithmatic...how cool is that!

Yeah, I really meant an experience of "speaking style" rather than an actual voice. But still, it does seem to have some "voice-like" quality about it. It is easily recognized as "my own" though, and that is what I don't understand. Why? How could I possibly recognize such a generated speech like process as my own if I don't actually say it out loud? Schizophrenics hear voices of other people speeking to them, and we now know that such "voices" are internally generated- the schizophrenics simply don't regonize the voices as their own. So what is so different about us normals that we *can* recognize such internally generated speech?

Why is that when I think to myself, I do so in my own voice? Why not someone elses voice? There is no logical reason why I could not think with a different voice, yet I don't (and, in fact, I really can't). Does anyone else here NOT think with thier own voice? Can you, if you try hard, consistently think to yourself with someone else's voice without imagining another person speaking it to you? I've found that I can't without great effort, and even then only for very short periods of time before I automatically flip to my own voice. Anyone else claim to be different? In any event, why do you think that is?

For 2, the number of ways to have one column of switches needs to be multiplied by the number of ways to have the other column of switches, which makes it [nCr(10, 5)]^2 rather than 2*nCr(10, 5) For 3, this is a matter of finding where the area is 1/2 the origional area after cutting the triangle in two with a line of y = c. That is the same as taking the integral of y = x/2 from 0 to 2 (for the original area, A = 1) and then finding the integral of x/2 from 0 to u, setting it equal to 1/2 (half the original area) and solving for u. The answer is Sqrt(2).

err...nevermind. The answer will have to be complex...

I took discrete math just for fun, and I found it to be of great help once I started studying mathematical statistics. I also found it helpful for being able to read and understand proofs in general... along with being able to construct some basic proofs myself.

There are a number of physiological differences that have been found between personalities- including measures of GSR and EEG. I know of one study, with a single patient, showing changes in the brain before ad after switching personalities using fMRI. [i can give the reference if anyone wants it...I dont know of a internet site with the info.]

LSD can increase AND decrease neural firing, but the question is about which effects at which times cause the effects we know LSD to have. As I mentioned, exposure to LSD induces down-regulation of 5-HT2 receptors. This may well imply increased activity of 5-HT2 receptors leading to down-regulation, which in turn results in decreased activity of the 5-HT system at 5-HT receptors (due to there being fewer of them). This down-regulation can be a long lasting effect of acute exposure to LSD. People on LSD lack the ability to inhibit after-images- which also occurs during flashbacks of HPPD subjects. [What I meant in the other post was not that this is a cause of the flashback, but that the same mechanism is at work.] Given the inhibitory nature of 5-HT in the visual system, the lack of inhibited afterimages, and the known down-regulation of 5-HT2 receptors (where LSD is known to act), I would say it is a fair bet that this one aspect of visual hallucination is a result of lowered 5-HT activity, not increased ativity.

My understanding is that CBT, medication (of many different forms), and some other forms of therapy are all of equal effectiveness from a statistical standpoint, and medication + therapy is more effective in only some limited cases. Am I misinformed?

Interesting. A pet theory of mine is that dreams are primarily made up after the fact (as or after a person is waking up) rather than experienced primarily during sleep. An after the fact interpretation, if you will, of otherwise incoherent experiences. In other words, dreams (mostly) happen when we wake up.

So it isn't enough to lower suffering and provide comfort to a rat, but we have to allow them to pursue happiness as well? Should we allow them to vote?

I worked with rats for a few semesters in a behavioral neuroscience lab doing drug testing, and I want to point out what I noticed. I am willing to bet that those animals suffered less than the luckiest of rats living in the wild. We worked very closely with the animal welfare people, and the total comfort of the animals was ensured every step of the way. They were put down peacefully with gas so we could get to thier brains afterwards (and you just can't do that with humans). They generally had access to food, drink, and sex at a level unprecedented for wild rats. [What else do rats want, anyway?] We even managed to argue with each other a bit over which type of bedding was most comfortable for transport and such. There was some level of necessary suffering (like recieving injections), but I've seen humans put through far worse in experiments and walk away content. Just my own personal experience... I wonder where all this "terrible suffering" supposedly is in animal testing.

I couldn't care less about about people trying to show that chiropracty doesn't work. That should be the default position anyway. I want good evidence that it DOES work, else I call it crap.

Re the brain damage question- If I remember correctly, shrooms *can* cause brain damage to some extent, but such effects have not been demonstrated for LSD. I would have to do a bit of searching to make sure, and Im too lazy right now... anyone able to verify this?

The damage has to do with the reuptake transporters on the cell. Serrotonin becomes depleated which leaves the trasporters open to certain types of toxins that get in and damage the cells. The SSRI's block the transporters, preventing the damage.

fafalone- The statement might be erroneous for a few reasons: 1) It is based upon animal testing (as mentioned), 2) Most of the citations given are administering very large amounts of marijuana to rats over long periods of time (three and six months), which is probably unrealistic compared to normal, average human use, 3) marijuana use may lead to both memory loss and cell death, but no direct connection between the two is established, which goes to point 4) there may be many other factors involved in the memory problems having little to nothing to do with the cell death. The memory problems due to marijuana use in humans is not permanent. Is memory recoved to due the cells recovering? New cells growing? Older cells taking over functioning? Something having nothing to do with cell loss? Does the cell loss matter in the long term at all? I dont know, the authors of this study dont know, and I suspect that you dont know either... hence the erroneous statement. Hypnosonance- If you are going to critique a study, at least take the time to do it right.

An interesting read about mind control: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3682773.stm -------- Humans have the capacity for both telepathy AND telepathic mind control- it is called "language". Limited? Maybe, but it is certainly the most powerful form of telepathy and mind control that I know of!

"No Mr. Psychologist, all I see is a random configuration of black ink on an otherwise white card, which is being held up by a protoplasmic figure capable of producing air vibrations normally called "questions"."

A waste of time!?!? Pfffffffft... I could collect light that reflected off famous people and sell it in spheres as a novelty item!

I don't think anyone has contributed anything of substance to this thread in the past 10 to 12 posts.

Well, solar power is used and converted into electricity to power (among other things) light bulbs. Trapping large amounts of light in a sphere would cut out the middle man, so to speak. If it was actually feasible, anyway...