contradiction

ssri's will just make you puke and crap everywere. welbutrin , if you dont have a siezure, youll be delutional, but you might as well just stay up for 5 days.

seratonin is not the path to the third person. it was already mentioned......... dissosiatives........ dis-assosiate the mind from body. dxm is too periphial ... ketamine........ dmt wont give you third person. just a melting of the self and thinking thats way too fast. ketamine in the dark with eyes closed. 500mg ...... you become and then can do as you wish.

i read somewhere that they gave suger pills to half of these people and 20mg morphine to the other half . a certain amount of the suger pill people experienced pain relief, blah blah.. but... the interesting part was that they gave everyone NAXALONE (at a later date, in the same pill, with suger, or morphine) ........ ok naxalone is an opiate antagonist, so, it blocks the effects of morphine and other opiate painkillers. as one would expect, the people taking the morphine pill with naxalone in it no longer experienced relief. the significant part is that the people taking the suger pill with naxalone no longer experienced relief either! (at the beginning everyone was told they were getting morphine.) so, this says that placebo is accually a real physical chemical reaction in the brain, ...some chemical is produced that binds to opiate recepters, and is therfore blocked. so this takes the concept of placebo effect from psychological, to physiological. mind to matter....... which are the same thing anyhow.

fafalone: dimethyltryptamine? i guess. i really dont think seratonish things do good jobs. increase perception. seems like an out of body. not. 5-ht has nothing to do with it either. the dissociatives : ketamine, dextromethorphan, salvorian A, they all cause perfect dissociative experiences (seperation of mind and body)........ they all have a common recepter . i forgot. sigma opoid comes to mind , but i doubt thats the one we are looking for. oh... just how does brain make mind.

restless leg syndrome type thing............. antisiezure meds. gaba agonists. good apathetic chlorine channel. BZ recept.

DOPAMINE ............YUMMIE DA has a lot to do with it as well. although it is not the main effect, no drug is MENTALLY addictive without it. just like how morphine or THC have many complex effects that account for there addiction and withdrawal, and these are both mental and physical in effect, but dopamine is the one that makes you feel/think "ohhh yea.... i needed that" oh ,, and nothing is "in" nicotine that makes it addictive. thats like asking whats in a key that lets it fit in the lock.

i have to tell you that i had a very bad experience with nitro in a weedwacker. since nitro fires under little pressure and heat, after it got going i took off the plug wire and it kept SCEAMING until it seized. so i suggest doing this in a fast car with bad breaks. sounds like fun

naptha???!! I guess i have no clue.. but i really dont think gas smells at all similar to zippo fluid. im shure its a complex mix of hydro-carbies. have you tried a solution of nitromethane ,methonol and gas? seems like theyed be miscible. i know nitro and methanol mix fine. gas seems like it would. youd have to put them all in a bottle and if they accually form 2 layers, find a solvent with a polarity as such to dissolve all. i will warn you... alcohol is hell on seals, gaskets etc. and nitro detonates, hence only glow plugs in little remote airplane moters. methonal is awesome to pass emissions with, given your car is old enough to not have a computer: wich just will compensate for it.

sorry, only get to do this once or so a week. question: i read that sound can also be thought of as a PHONON. so anyhow, a wave of sound(i know its different) is a QUALITY of the air it is in, right? meaning, it is the air itself that is the sound. no seperate particles. so.... where does the phonon come in? is a preexisting thing labelled that when it is transmitting the wave? and how about light, and i know its more of a sretch since light seems so seperate and we are used to the particle thinking. but could it be thought of the same way? probably not. if there ever was a COMPLETE vaccuum(never would happen, so hypothetically, just like absolute 0) would light travel in it? photons seem as though they would, but waves seem as though they would not. since waves seem to be a quality of the medium there in, like sound. ????????????????????????

i disagree with aman because i think we play by the same rules throughout our beings. free will is an not real. i do agree totally that the billiard balls would react exactly the same. as would the universe. causality is causality, if we know the rules or not it doesnt matter. so i agree that if you start with the same thing youll end up with the same thing. we are a part of it though. we are it. we are matter that tries to stay organized and filters out special types of matter to keep, as other bits slowly fall off. like a wave in an ocean. fighting to keep its shape, an illusion of a "thing", even though the matter it is accually made of changes. it is only information. with the illusion of intention. are cells 'programmed" to replicate? or do they just do so. is there intention in to molecules attracting? or does it just happen?

consciousness is an illusion. mind is a quality of the brain. brain is to mind as flame is to hot. thoughts are physical. no such thing as free will. straight determinism. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- radical edward said this implies total knowledge of physical laws, and the assumption that all of physics is computable, which is arrogant, and most likely incorrect. total knowledge? no.. it is all computable. i doubt this will get proven any time soon, but yes, i am saying this because i have never found anything that violates determinism. come on, thats why drugs work, and lobotomy's work. why should we be seperate from cause and effect? like you said, we are "organized structures" ..physical and complex. i am accually confused as to your stance on this. because you said we follow the same rules as the rest of the universe. i agree, so then why would you disagree that mind is the brain, and that is why it follows the same rules as the rest of the universe? if you did,, like i said, im not shure where you are on this one. how far does determinism go for you?

fafalone.. i agree, that if we did know the position etc of all that, we could predict. IF is the key word that i think a few people missed when they read your post. but i do agree, since it is only because we dont know that we cant predict.

FAFALONE......... uncertainty does not violate determinism. both are true and reliant on each other. its only when we try and think this illusion called 'mind' has a magical influence that we are wrong.

yes, you could do that... and also later we may be able to use smaller particles to do the measuring with, lessening the uncertainty. keep in mind, even the little thermometer in a whole lake does have uncertainty because the thermometer does alter the lakes temp. its so small it doesnt matter though so this isnt some new magical thing. the most important thing is that we can never be completely objective to an experiment, wether with our tools or whatever. we are part of the equation, and deterministic as well, hell; thats why we arent objective!

T-flex.. exactly! people are so starved for anything magical! haha. oooh.... consciousness.... whatever. this quantum uncertainty is exactly what you said. physical inability to measure. nothing magical. ill give another example in large terms of your electron one. if we measure the temp of a lake with a small thermometer, all is well, the act of measuring does not disturb this so called "objective" measurement. if however, you were to measure the temp of a thimble full of water with a fat thermometer, the act of measuring would change the tempereture, and lead to uncertainty. same thing. THE KEY POINT PEOPLE NEED TO REMEMBER IS THAT THAT THIMBLEFULL OF WATER WAS AT A REAL TEMPERATURE. it is only the INABILITY TO PERCEIVE that accounts for the uncertainty. there not accually uncertain.. things are still going on perfectly deterministicly. its all in the size of what is being measured. electrons etc. are small (hahaha), and the tools for measuring them are the same size, and therefore influence alot, leading to the inability to perceive what it was before the measurement. THE VERY FACT THAT THE MEASUREMENT INFLUENCES,(WHAT CAUSES UNCERTAINTY) IS PURE DETERMINISM AT WORK!

chaos theory and determinism totally agree... chaos is simply the inability for a human to percieve, in the same way the a lottery ticket is random, but not truely

cant be done we have slowwed down time.. just travel fast in space. hit the speed of light and it stopps... pass it and theoretically, it reverses. problem is, time is relative, and that is why when we have astronauts travel fast and there clocks read different, they still can come back and be in the same time as us. something else changed with time to compensate. like matter slowed down.. or something.

first of all, the fact that a human is observing the event is no different than if a robot were. im with Albert on this, at least not agreeing that determinism is violated AT ALL. chaos theory is bull. at least in that it makes it seem as though chaos accually exists: real chaos.... and it never does. all it states is that a chaotic system is one that shows "sensitivity to initial conditions" -conditions of measurement that is. In "unchaotic" systems, usually a more precise measurment of the initial conditions will lead to a more precise prediction of the outcome. in a chaotic system, the smallest imprecision in the measurement of the initial conditions leads to drastically wrong prediction of what will happen... all a chaotic system is , is where there are too many variables and its too complex. nothing is random, and causality is working just fine one of the first ways chaos theory was discovered was in a computer program to predict weather. causality is working fine inside the computer, we are just too dumb. consciousness is an illusion. mind is a quality of the brain. brain is to mind as flame is to hot. thoughts are physical. no such thing as free will. straight determinism.

how about the brain--mind relation? i think mind is a caricteristic of brain. its seperateness is an illusion. i guess its real, since thoughts are physical. but its seperateness, as well as the illusion of seperate bodies-are functions to keep "me" organized this specific way. why? because if i didnt, then i wouldnt be here, and any organized matter that didnt try to stay organized simply wouldnt do so. a wave in a ocean has no intention. truely, either do i. what are the chances? look at the effect infinite time has on probability. everything has to happen some time. DETERMINISM anyone? central state materialism? thoughts are physical events in my brain, and therefore subject to determinism. look at it on a very inaccurate phycological level, as to why i did something or am typing right now, or get down to the nitty gritty and think of it physically. as in photons coming from this computer screen blah blah... but thats the realityi just read the other day that all humans emit electromagnetic radiation of all frequencies, all the time. like 200-250 watts an hour! presumably the majority is of infrared...

what do you folks think of the theory of indeterminecy, or the uncertainty principle? crap..

what do you think about chaos theory? i think its bull... at least in the way its presented: as if there was true chaos. some people forget, at least it seems, that it is only our inability to perceive. they take it to this new level where causality is accually failing. fantasy.

so is individual photons travel at different speeds, then what does that say about the speed of light.... that they are either traveling at or slower than it? i dont like the supposed absolute speed of light idea. no such thing as absolutes. what do you guys think?

so you have 2 polarized filters, with the polarization at 90 degrees to each other. no light gets through both. first one gets the "up and down" polarized light waves, witch is half, second is horazontal, so it blocks the rest. .... now put a third one in between the two... at 45% to either one... and somehow 25% of the original light gets through all three. something to do with waves bending