John Mack, M.D., is a psychiatrist with a long list of credentials, publishing credits, and was (is?) on the medical and teaching staff at Harvard.

He thinks his patients were abducted by aliens.

Having a multi-million copy best seller does not make you a good shrink. Nothing changes the fact that M. Scott Peck writes pop culture crap for the worried well.

No doubt, John Mack is suffering from some biochemical anomaly in his brain function. The aliens messed him up when they did that brain probe on him because they don't understand the biophysics of terrestial beings. :p

Here's the deal, from my perspective.
I'm one of those people with a low heart rate and stimuli threshold.
But, I'm a pacifist and don't like violence. I went through some anti-social stages early in life but made a CHOICE.
Just like I, when I was a bouncer, saw people who were troublemakers stop doing something they were doing when they saw me coming. People who later (as I was throwing them out) told me that it was not their fault because they "were sick", going so far as to show me their meds. People are nuts about clubs in a college town. But, they did not try to hit me, someone they knew was bigger and had others around to back him up? Why, if they were sick and could not help themselves? CHOICE.
If you know the difference between right and wrong, what is expected and what is required and what is not, you have the CHOICE.
Sure, for some it is harder than others, just like for me it is harder to take a shower and brush my teeth & tell my son a bedtime story because I am disabled... but I do it, I choose to.
(BTW. I made a good bouncer because I was a pacifist, it is how I got the job... I have never hit anyone out of anger or first in my life.)

NEVER hit in anger or first? Not even as a little kid?

No brothers, sisters, or neighbors... I cheated.

The Void (again)
 

"Right" and "wrong" are entirely subjective and culturally biased; this can be shown through a myriad of examples.

Choosing to do something does not mean the choice is "free," it just means that you get something that you want through the action (healthy teeth, mutual affection with your son) that is greater than what you would get from not acting.

I'm not trying to get you mad, rkzen, but if I say there is no free will I have to defend my position. And as I said before, acknowledging the essential meaninglessness of the world does not have to be a negative thing. Ironically, it's almost a kind of "zen" in itself.

Peace.

I agree with you when you say that acknowledging the essential meaninglessness of the world can be positive , Pangloss . It is a sort of heroism . It is the heroism of the tramps in Waiting for Godot .

He never came, as I recall.

No , he never came , and they never hanged themselves either .

Dr. Pangloss would understand that. So would Doris Day (Que sera sera).

You should really fucking warn people about spoilers.

Don't have time for a thorough read right now, but just hopping in reall quick on the last page. Don't even know where the conversation has meandered, so here goes my "broken record" . . .



Okay, choice. Does it occur in the brain? (And by "brain" I mean shorthand for whatever equipment we have that performs this function.) Is the "brain" a physical object? Then, the brain must follow the laws of physics, whether we fully understand them or not, right? Unless there is some "magical" influence which grants humans special excemption from the rules which govern every other particle of energy/matter in the universe.

The actions of our constituent parts must be determined by these rules - unless we are magical in some way. Neurology, Psychology, etc. - they describe the higher level functions of organized energy/matter, the top layer of function. But, the energy/matter they deal with cannot ignore the fact that it is governed by physics. You can't ignore one in favor of the other, and I'm not doing that. I'm saying physics is underneath everything, and physics means things are determined, whether we understand how they are determined or not. And we don't understand it, but we can't ignore it either. We are physical objects - unless you believe that we are magical beings endowed with the ability to defy the laws of nature. We are physical objects. Does that make me think less of myself? Does that make me feel that I am not in control of "myself"? Of course not, because I am operating within the framework of the human "operating system" - which includes everything we are able to percieve about the world as we know it. It doesn't mean I can't be aware of the fact that humans are just another part of the world as we know it.

.
.
.

Now, many things in this are open to debate. For starters, if I were reading this, I would say my whole argument is too "Newton-esque" and discuss the relationship between conciousness and "reality" as relates to the emerging synergy between science and ancient spirituality.

Of course, I am simply discussing (in this thread) a tiny part of the subject - I really haven't moved beyond the opening line, but people seemed to struggle with that one basic concept so much that I got dragged down into a silly debate.

Some things are intelligently debatable, some things aren't.

I nipped out to buy a packet of fags just after I wrote that last post to Pangloss . I have all this spare time because I am a teacher on holiday , in case you are wondering . On the way out , I met the man who owns the building in which I live . 17th century French building with amazing architectural features . I smiled and shook his hand , and he asked me if I was aware of the tragedy .

His brother hanged himself from one of the 17th century rafters , a floor up from my floor . This happened last Friday , and I did not even know . I was probably spouting the usual Beckett existential crap on a machine at the time .

I remember seeing the brother last week by the letterboxes in the hall . Our family is moving to the Caribbean , and we exchanged polite words about how it is interesting to see differrent places .

Sorry Flint to have piggy-jumped your post , but I have to admit to feeling slightly stunned .

Well, at least the phasers are only set to stun!

They put a chip in my head!!!
 

Hey Flint (and others). Check out the below article. I posted the text instead of a link because one has to suscribe to get it. It relates to this string in that we are finding out more and more just how material the brain really is. It reminds me of another article I read where they stimulated this one area of a woman's brain and all she could do was laugh. She said that when they did this, everything in the hospital room just "seemed" funny; the lab coats, the machines, they all cracked her up. Laughter used to be thought of as one of those precious, almost-spiritual things, but it too is just synapses and chemicals.:neutral:

Man Uses Chip to Control Robot With Thoughts

By ANDREW POLLACK
Published: July 12, 2006
A paralyzed man with a small sensor implanted in his brain was able to control a computer, a television and a robot using only his thoughts, scientists reported today.

Seven Films Showing Matt Nagle Controlling Electronic Devices Using Thought. The development offers hope that in the future, people with spinal cord injuries, Lou Gehrig’s disease or other ailments that impair movement might be able to better communicate with or control their world.

“If your brain can do it, we can tap into it,’’ said John P. Donoghue, a professor at Brown University who led the development of the system and was the senior author of a report published today in the journal Nature.

In separate experiments, the first person to receive the implant, Matthew Nagle, was able to move a cursor, open e-mail, play a simple video game called Pong and draw a crude circle on the screen. He could change the channel or volume of a television set, move a robot arm somewhat, and open and close a prosthetic hand.

Although his cursor control was sometimes wobbly, the basic movements were not hard to learn. “I pretty much had that mastered in four days,’’ Mr. Nagle, now 26, said in a telephone interview from the New England Sinai Hospital and Rehabilitation Center in Stoughton, Mass., where he lives. He said the implant did not cause any pain.

A former high school football star in Weymouth, Mass., Mr. Nagle was paralyzed below the shoulders after being stabbed in the neck during a melee at a beach in July 2001. He said he was not involved in starting the brawl and didn’t even know what sparked it. The man who stabbed him is now serving ten years in prison, he said.

There have been some tests of a simpler sensor implant in people, as well as tests of systems using electrodes outside the scalp. And Mr. Nagle has spoken about his experiences before.

But the paper in Nature is the first peer-reviewed publication of an experiment using a more sophisticated implant in a human.

The paper helps “shift the notion of such ‘implantable neuromotor prosthetics’ from science fiction towards reality,’’ Stephen H. Scott of Queen’s University in Canada wrote in a commentary in the journal.

The implant system, known as the BrainGate, is being developed by Cyberkinetics Neurotechnology Systems of Foxborough, Mass. The company is now testing the system in three other people whose names have not been released — one with a spinal cord injury, one who had a brain-stem stroke and one with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, known as Lou Gehrig’s disease.

Timothy R. Surgenor, the president of the company, said Cyberkinetics hoped to have an implant approved for use as early as 2008 or 2009. Mr. Donoghue of Brown is a cofounder of the company and its chief scientist. Some of the authors of the research paper work for the company, while others work at Massachusetts General Hospital and other medical or academic institutions.

The sensor measures 4 millimeters — about one sixth of an inch — on a side and contains 100 tiny electrodes. The device was implanted in the area of Mr. Nagle’s motor cortex that is responsible for arm movement, and was connected to a pedestal that protruded from the top of his skull.

When the device was to be used, technicians connected the pedestal to a computer with a cable. So Mr. Nagle was directly wired to a computer, somewhat like a character in the “Matrix” movies.

Mr. Nagle would then imagine moving his arm to hit various targets, as technicians calibrated the machine, a process that took about half an hour each time. The implanted sensor eavesdropped on the electrical signals emitted by nearby neurons as they controlled the imaginary arm movement.

Scientists said the study was important because it showed that the neurons in Mr. Nagle’s motor cortex were still active, years after they had any role to play in physically moving his arms.

Cursor control was not very smooth. In a task where the goal was to guide the cursor from the center of the screen to a target on the perimeter, Mr. Nagle hit the target about 73 to 95 percent of the time. When he did, it took an average of 2.5 seconds, though sometimes much longer. The second patient tested with the implant had worse control than Mr. Nagle, the paper said.

By contrast, healthy people moving the cursor by hand can hit the target almost every time and in only one second.

Dr. Jonathan R. Wolpaw, a researcher at the New York State Department of Health in Albany, said the BrainGate performance did not appear to be substantially better than a non-invasive system he is developing using electroencephalography, in which electrodes are placed outside the scalp.

“If you are going to have something implanted into your brain, you’d probably want it to be a lot better,’’ he said.

Dr. Donoghue and other proponents of the implants say they have the potential to be a lot better, because they are much closer to the relevant neurons. The scalp electrodes get signals from millions of neurons all over the brain.

One way to improve implant performance was suggested by another paper in the same edition of Nature. In a study involving monkeys, Krishna V. Shenoy and colleagues at Stanford University eavesdropped not on the neurons controlling arm movement but on those expressing the intention to move.

“Instead of sliding the cursor out to the target, we can just predict which target would be hit, and the cursor simply leaps there,’’ said Mr. Shenoy, an assistant professor of electrical engineering and neurosciences.

He said a patient using the system could do the equivalent of typing 15 words a minute, about four times the speed of the other devices.

Other obstacles must be overcome before brain implants become practical. The ability of the electrodes to detect brain signals begins to deteriorate after several months, for reasons that are not fully understood. Also, ideally, the implant would transmit signals out of the brain wirelessly, doing away with the permanent hole in the head and the accompanying risk of infection.

Mr. Nagle, meanwhile, had his implant removed after a bit more than a year, so he could undergo another operation that allowed him to breathe without a ventilator. He can control a computer with voice commands, so he does not really need the brain implant. But he said he was happy he volunteered for the experiment.

“It gave a lot of people hope,’’ he said.

For more on the subject of "the peeling away of human arrogance"
Carl Sagan's Pale Blue Dot

Puh-lease,

Your original point, which you have now forgotten, was: since humans are governed by physics, they are automatons.

You said in post #2, So, unless one believes that there is some "magical" quality to a human being, then one must accept that we are essentially automatons.

OK, let's try it another way.

My brain, I very readily admit, is governed by the laws of physics.

So is my dog's brain. But I notice an immense difference between my dog's brain and my brain. My dog, for example, is not on the Intarwebs arguing about the nature of her brain. She is unable to even manage the simple task of selecting one particular key over another.

This difference can be explained by the laws of nature. But it is not very interesting to examine it from that point of view.

Nature, in creating man, developed an intelligence so profound that it is able to comprehend itself, the passage of time, logic, consciousness, etc. Merely through the laws of physics, it developed a meat so complex that it could use chemical/electronical means to save memories of past events. But that dosen't mean we're automatons - in fact it means the opposite.

You can dispute free will, and we know that personality is largely a product of the chemistry - the laws of nature striking again. But personality doesn't dictate our choices; it only suggests them to us. That seems pretty self-evident to me.

My dog is an automaton, in that her choices are almost entirely instinct. My choices are partly instinct, but I can override this and regularly do.

Like all people I have a gregarious nature, but I can exercise that nature differently. I can't choose not to be gregarious (lordy knows I've tried), but that doesn't mean I don't have free will to choose how to be. My basic shyness may suggest a general course of action, but I can choose to exercise it differently - I can stay in my room and sulk, or I can create an online community where I can feel a little more free to be social in ways I enjoy.

The laws of physics are specific and straight-forward, but when applied over millions upon millions of years, they have created a being so complex that it can have consciousness and be creative and make different choices.

Yes, it is complex, and we don't fully understand it. But it isn't magical. So my original point stands, logically - unless a rebuttal to the laws of physics is offered.

Humans are an animal that is only .0000001% more complex than bacteria - in the big picture. That doesn't bother me. If it bothers you, then you tell yourself "I am human, I am special, I am above all things." Sorry, you aren't.

"Automaton" doesn't specify level of complexity. If you agree that your dog is an automaton, then you agree that you are an automaton. If not, then you are saying that a man is built on a different platform than a dog. That isn't the case. Sorry.

Not magical, yes - but automaton or not was your operative argument here, and you have completely dropped it.

Man is an automaton. There, now I said it again, so you won't forget.

Ah, so it's your definition of "automaton" that is really the root of the argument.

We could have avoided about 80 posts with clear reading?

Perhaps.

You claim that we are at about the same level as bacteria, so then why are we debating human rights issues in other areas of this forum? If we are as Flint says then we don't need to because human happiness is also an illusion.

Illusion or not, it's all we've got. We've still gotta live in it.

Big thanks out to Pangloss for mentioning Matt Nagle, one of my profs was involved in some research regarding the chip used. Google the term 'Utah Array' for more info.

*cue hippie music*

You guys are freaking me out...

:bong:

Draw your own conclusion based on the available evidence, but don't shoot the messenger, and don't put words in my mouth. There is a whole arena of debatable topics just begging to be discussed here, but arguing that "the Earth (read: man) is at the center of the universe" is not one of them.

Utah Array
 

I think the best thing about that story is that Matt is now a REALLY important part of breakthrough research. Probably makes it easier to deal with being paralyzed. As they say, "There but for the grace of...."

Wait a minute! I'm supposed to be an atheist!:eek:

All I'm saying is that there's no reason to waste time and energy on something that isn't valuable. If happiness does not exist then there's no reason to pay attention to it. A good argument I've heard against teaching kids that we are glorified monkeys is that they will eventually make the inevitable connection, "Hey, if we're just animals then why care about them more than I would for a bird or rabbit?? 200 casualties in a firebombing? Big deal, they'll repopulate". If people are separate from animals then say so, if we arn't then stick to where that logic leads you.

It's just a way of removing accountability for people who don't want to deal with it.

I personally DO agree that humans and animals are equal, but I take the opposite approach... Humans shouldn't be treated badly, but neither should animials. Treat every creature as if it was your equal or your superior.

People are not seperate from the animals. Logic leads me there. And, it creates some interesting ethical questions and debates. But, at the first sign of trouble, I don't simply abandon logic and revert back to a state of superstition.

As individuals, we have to take responsibility for our actions because it is the right thing to do. There isn't anything coming down from above to force us into compliance - there is neither a bearded old man in the clouds, nor a biological imperative to control us into behaving correctly. We have to do that ourselves, to the best of our ability, with the tools we've been given. Being aware of what those tools are, and trying to understand them, doesn't automatically force us to a silly conclusion like "do whatever you want, it doesn't matter anyway." I don't think we should avoid clear thinking in favor of fear-based rhetoric.

I was just bringing up the inconsistancy in punishments for killing animals and humans. We treat humans as more important than animals, I'm just saying we should look for the reason we do so.

@9th: ah-hah, I gotcha, I mis-read your post

Mutant
 

I don't know about that. If you look at primate societies (and we are primates) the biological imperitive is to maintain relative stability within that society so it survives and reproduces offspring. This results in behaviors that produce stability and increase bonding (removing lice, defending the group against enemies, etc). Look to the primates to see ourselves on the rudimentary level. Basically, our brains are too big. This results in both the benefits and pitfalls of being human.

There could even be a biological imperitive for believing in a "god" or an afterlife. As an atheist, I always feel like a mutant anyway.:3eye:

In evolutionary terms? The answer is obvious- we treat them as more important 'cause thay are us. The emotional mechanism is called empathy, and empathy is stronger for those who are more similar to us - it's easier to put ourselves in their shoes. Unfortunately, this can also result in the various bigotries, where it becomes difficult to empathise with humans who are different from oneself in various inconsequential ways.

I gotta say that I think this entire argument got started as someone's way of wimping out on saying "I don't beleive in God or spirit or spirituality." That's fine if folks want to be atheists. More power to you, but the the whole "we are but sub atomic particles" argument sounds suspiciously like the inverse of the intelligent design b.s.

Why can't people just stand up and stay, "I don't beleive" or "I believe"? Why the hell does science always have to be dragged in as the handmaiden of someone's personal vendetta of belief or disbelief?

I was raised a Christian and trained as a scientist. For years, I was at best an agnostic. Then a bunch of stuff happened in my life which turned me into a skeptical believer in a Greater Intelligence. BFD. Its my trip, and I'm not going to apologize for what I have experienced and learned on both sides of the equation to anyone. Yeah, every being follows the natural laws of science in so far as we understand them at this point in time. You can bet that our understanding of science is going to change considerably in the next 1,000 years - should we live so long.

As a biologist, I give the human species another 500 years max before we go the way of the trilobite. That doesn't mean I believe we are mere subatomic robots. It means that I think we are a complex species which still must follow the laws of biology and ecology.

Next topic, please.

Wimping out? It was explicitly said in post #1. The discussion was over the implications of that.

I personally don't perceive a conflict between science and spirituality.

Woah, explanation please Flint. You're one of the last people I would expect to say that.

You know what's weird? A bunch of stuff happened in my life that proved to me that there IS a Greater Intelligence. Bad stuff, too.

We can conclude from that:

A) There IS a God

B) He's a dick.

:lol: thanks~! I needed that!

By "wimping out" I meant using science where science does not belong. You don't use science to explain your spiritual beliefs or lack there of. Belief is just that - belief. The word "science" comes from the Latin scio - to know. Again, I don't like Flint's argument because it reminds me of intelligent design in reverse.

ahh....that's why it makes me cringe! Like de-evolution. UR-EK-KA! That's it!

Wimpy (I'll gladly pay you Tuesday)
 

Why not? You propose that "spiritual beliefs or lack there of [sic]" are somehow seperate from the brain? How could that be? From where does this "spiritual" component emerge? Flint's basic proposition is that anything outside our physicality enters the realm of the metaphysical (magic, etc). My only intent was to get people to talk about how almost all behaviors are now being reduced to brain chemistry, with a very explicit example. I said at the beginning how I feel about free will and a soul. Starting a thread with "I don't believe in God" would not produce much useful discussion.

Either "God" or this "greater power" (or both) are indeed dicks or there are no such things. To conclude the latter does not mean we should just sit on our hands and not do anything. Nihilism does not have to be negative. It's a starting point. It's up to "us," whatever our bodies can do to improve the world and help others. The "Golden Rule" should not be the exclusive province of the religious or spiritual. Are we not men, marichiko?

There's glory for you!

And by glory, I mean a nice, knock-down argument.

I caught sarcasm in this post. Flints reply implied he concidered it at face value. The fact that we interpret things as we will since we have a free will to do so proves we are not automations.

plus,,,,dogs can't read. Is further proof. I can make this silly statement is further proof of my free will.

I thought maybe life was a useless excursion of drudgery and then you die and become food for the grubs. I like the way you say it better though.

No it doesn't. If you and Flint both started at identical states, with identical brains and identical bodies, with identical upbringings, and read the statement in identical settings with identical states of mind, and then interpreted it differently, that would be evidence against the automaton proposition.

The choice of the word automaton may not be optimal, as some people may take it to imply some sort of mass production, and therefore everyone acting the same. A better word may be deterministic.

Why not what?

Np, I do not propose that a spiritual outlook is somehow seperate from the brain. It is our highly evolved brains which allow us to have a sense of awareness as unique selves, allows us to question and argue such things as metaphysics, makes us stand in awe of the stars on a clear summer's night. Does this understanding mean that I think physics is behind all of these things? Not necessarily. I am saying that it is an act of hubris on the part of scientists who proport to know all the answers to these things. I do not know these answrs and I studied science and the scientific method for 6 years in one of the finest science departments in one of this country's better universities. I became especially intrigued by the philosophy of science and made a study of that as well. In the end, Shakespeare summed it up as well as anyone, "There is more on heaven and earth than ever dreamed of in your philosophy."

I'll accept that, but why feed into the hands of the syncophants?


We are men and we are women, both. Nowhere did I imply that the Golden Rule is not a valid precept for people of any persuasion to attempt to follow. Try reading Edmund O. Wilson for starters. If you want to be a decent human being on purely scientific precepts, Wilson is as good a philosopher of science to start with as any. However, do not tell me that science has proved ther is no God or that science has proved we are all automotons running our predestined little lives to an extant that would make a Calvinist proud. Science has not done these things.

Ahhhh! my brain hurts!!

This thread is one big reaktion formation.

Read The Future of an Illusion, take two aspirin, and call me next week.

There is no such thing as antisocial personality disorder.

But there IS a such a thing as pompous-windbag-who-posts-once-and-thinks-they-have-any-affect-at-all-on-what-anyone-thinks personality disorder, as far as I can tell. If you're gonna join to help or to give insight, great. But don't be a dick about it. Do you have a single thing to back up your post for those of us who dont rush out to spend our precious little money on a book we wont like just to figure out what some nutcase on a forum is talking about?!

I mean, uh, welcome to the cellar, care to elaborate on that point?
(Man, I think I'm PMSing, and I'm not even a chick...)

Don't worry Ibram. That's just your gender confusion talkin'.

No, I want door #3....or maybe #4
You're doing the same think Flint did, gotta be A or B.
You can't say what we don't know is governed by physics.
Nor is it reasonable to say if we find things that don't fit the laws as they are understood now, it's magic.

"mag·ic n.
The art that purports to control or forecast natural events, effects, or forces by invoking the supernatural."

There's no reason to suppose what we don't understand has anything to do with the supernatural. :headshake

so what are they saying? Magic and physics? what does magic have to do with physics? Magic is a vague term. I think it's just screwy. I think I'll let loose like Ibram.:p


hehehe