Post #29,419
2/22/02 3:08:32 PM
|
And that's your "Truth"?
The Truth is, all opinions are not equal, because they don't all come into being in the same way. That's your "Truth"? A precious few of us first look at the real world, then derive our opinions thence, and then periodically check our opinions against new evidence, making minor alterations as needed. Dude, you're abusing the word "us" in that statement.No way is that what you do. Our opinions are an ever improving approximation of Truth. They converge upon Truth. So, your opinion is an approximation of the "Truth". Well, you know what's even CLOSER to the "Truth" than your opinion? >MY< opinion, that's what. So, admit that you're wrong and get over it. Instead they whine about how arrogant it is for the first groups to think that their opinions have anything to do with truth, because after all, we all have opinions, and who's to say? Sooooooooo.................. Your >OPINIONS< are closer to the "Truth" than someone else's >OPINIONS< and if they point out that your >OPINIONS< are just your >OPINIONS< and NOT revealed "Truth" then they're whining about how arrogant you are? Maybe they are. Personally, I'm laughing my ass off at your feeble attempts to portray your >OPINIONS< as revealed "Truth" using only the FACT that they are your >OPINIONS< to support that claim. I'll also use this space to refer to your other claims about the nature of "The Truth". #1. It can change over time. #2. Whatever works is a test for "The Truth". It's strange, but to me, you seem to be defining what an "opinion" is. A person's opinion is based upon what s/he perceives as the "facts" of a situation and his/her opinion can change over time and his/her opinion "works" for the "facts" that s/he perceives. Now, all that is left is your claim that your >OPINION< is somehow related to "The Truth". Good choice on forums to post this in. You see, that is a good working definition for "God" and "God" belongs in the "Religion" forum.
|
Post #29,421
2/22/02 3:29:04 PM
|
For those who need to think in concrete terms.
I have a monitor here.
I have three items around it.
#1. A water bottle.
#2. A coffee mug.
#3. A box of Keenex (r) brand tissues.
Can anyone tell me which item is CLOSEST to my monitor?
That's right. Without knowing where my monitor is, you cannot tell which item is closer to it.
The same goes for opinions and "The Truth".
You cannot tell if someone's opinion is closer to "The Truth" than someone else's without knowing what "The Truth" is.
And, if someone knows what "The Truth" is, then he doesn't have an "opinion". He has "The Truth".
|
Post #29,424
2/22/02 3:42:35 PM
|
Planet of the Whiners.
Gosh, they sure are touchy on planet Brandioch.
It used to be your wounded pride was amusing. Like teasing a cat or a Frenchman. But it got old fast. Trouble is, I'm not even trying to provoke you. I just speak plain sense, sometimes not even to you in particular, and you just throw a fit.
Well, I'm not about to shut up for your benefit. You'll just have to get over it. Or not. It's all more or less the same to me.
(Yes, folks, I do troll on purpose every once in a while. But nowhere near as frequently as it would appear from the reactions I get. I'm mostly an accidental troll.)
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Truth is that which is the case. Accept no substitutes.
|
Post #29,427
2/22/02 4:13:02 PM
|
Reply to my other post, then.
"For those who need to think in concrete terms." Go ahead. You claim to be closer to "The Truth" with your opinions. That requires that you know what "The Truth" is. I just speak plain sense, sometimes not even to you in particular, and you just throw a fit. :) I guess that asking you to share "The Truth" is "throw(ing) a fit" to you. I understand that. I've seen that same behaviour in most religiously obsessed people. One must NEVER question the revealed Truth of the prophet. You're having a problem because you can't tell the difference between your opinion and "The Truth". Or, more correctly, you know there is a difference, but you think you're closer to "The Truth" than I am. Which, effectively, means the same thing. How very Clintonesq of you.
|
Post #29,458
2/22/02 10:20:57 PM
|
Whiners and the truth
usually the whiners are the ones that are spilling out the truth left and right. They are the ones hurt by the lies and the wrongs that have been done.
Face facts, if everyone always did the right thing, it would be a perfect world. But because not everyone does the right thing, and people do sin, we need religion to forgive ourselves. That is why Jesus came to forgive people, because everyone has sinned in some way. Because of this, nobody is really 100% innocent unless they were just born, or are divine in some way (like Jesus, his mother Mary, etc) because they were born without sin.
I do what I think is right, not everyone will agree with me that what I do is right. Like complaining on public forums about how bad my life is. I just felt it was the right thing to do, and seek the opinions of others to see just what are my options, what I can do about it, and also this is how a document things in case I do die and someone wants to know why and what happened to my last days?
"Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
|
Post #29,444
2/22/02 6:17:43 PM
|
To illustrate it with math.
There was a simple "guess the number" game on one of my old calculators.
Essentially, you entered the upper and lower limits of the game and the calculator would guess a number and you would tell it if it's guess was correct or whether the number was greater than or less than its guess.
Of course, the program simply took the upper and lower limits, divided by 2 and guessed that number. If you said it was lower, the calculator took the lower limit plus its guess and divided by 2 and guessed that number.
Now, suppose you flipped a coin (heads = higher, tails = lower) for the input instead of thinking of an actual number.
Let's start with 32
The guess is 16, the coin is tails.
The guess is 8, the coin is tails.
The guess is 4, the coin is heads.
The guess is 6, the coin is tails.
The guess is 5, the coin is tails.
The guess is 4.5, the coin is tails.
The guess is 4.25.................
As you can see, the app is giving more and more "accurate" resolutions for something that does not exist.
What does this have to do with the current discussion? Just something to illustrate that it is possible to "approximate" something that doesn't exist. Particularly when you start out with a flawed premise and try to view random events (or unrelated events) as related. And the approximations can seem to be very, very accurate.
|
Post #29,475
2/23/02 8:38:40 AM
|
It's not a coin toss for all of us.
It's not just that you don't get it. You don't want to get it. Those who can, do. Those who can't, ridicule bitterly the very notion of being able to do.
In real life, inferring from data works, far more often than not. It yields results that in turn yield results, that in turn get things done. It's not a coin toss. This is the fact that, in your weird neurosis, you are so desperate to avoid.
Maybe for you everything is a coin toss. But for me, progress happens. I build things and they work. (And it's not just me saying they work. If their working is an illusion, it's a shared illusion. Delusion of crowds, if you're desperate to believe I'm wrong.) I refine them and they work even better. Ever more responsive, more flexible, more stable in extreme conditions. Problems get fixed shortly after appearing. And the problems get fewer and more minor after a while. Demos go well. Shipping dates get met. Units hold up well in field tests. Customers are satisfied, and place orders. Bosses are happy. You don't get all that tossing coins. Maybe for you things are different. Maybe for you it's all a coin toss. But the problem isn't reality, or Truth. The problem is you.
With this atttude, you're unlikely to learn anything useful. I wonder how you manage to hold a job. Are you a PHB or an academic or something? Surely you're not someone who gets things done, except perhaps on planet Brandioch. Why, I wouldn't trust you to change a light bulb. You'd probably flip a coin a dozen times to determine if it needs changing, and then decide the light bulb doesn't exist.
Reality isn't going to leave you alone just because you can't stand it. You really should try to come to terms.
Well, I'm off for a few days to get some stuff done away from my computers. Then I'll come back to get more stuff done with computers. I expect when I get back you and the usual gang of idiots will still be posting your usual childish nonsense. (Only you can prove me wrong on that.) And because I'm so efficient at getting stuff done, I'll have time to taunt you all during long firmware downloads. Hey, even us efficacious types have to have fun on occasion. See, you're good for something after all.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Truth is that which is the case. Accept no substitutes.
|
Post #29,476
2/23/02 9:32:44 AM
|
Before you go... If I may...
Hi,
I think that Brandioch is trying, in his rather direct way, to get to an important point - a point that you don't seem to see.
He's not arguing that reality doesn't exist, nor that all of life is a coin toss.
His coin toss example simply shows that how you arrive at the "truth" - the correct number - depends on the ground rules for the search. A simple bisection search won't find the answer if the ground rules are that random chance determines whether you answer "high" or "low" (because there are an infinite number of numbers in any finite interval). If we can't agree on the ground rules, the definitions of words, etc., then we can't reach consensus on what the "truth" is or even if it's a meaningful term in a particular discussion.
I think "truth" is intrinsically related to human filtering of reality. It's not the same as reality. I think it's arrived at from what people perceive to be logical, or at least reasonable, conclusions. But the thought process isn't boolean - there are shades of gray, as you said. How can you fit a grayscale object into a 0 or 1 box?
We all agree, I think, that the scientific method is our best tool for finding out the reality of the physical world. Brandioch isn't disputing that. What he's trying to bring out is that value judgements about the results of experiments color our findings and color what we see as the "truth".
This becomes startlingly clear if you consider how people with autism, perfect pitch, and other rather uncommon brains perceive the world. There are reports of people like Tesla who remembered sounds as colors, etc. What we perceive as reality is tremendously filtered by our brains. And that in turn affects what we view as "truth". As does our experiences, our education, etc.
This is an interesting topic. I hope you'll return to it and that both you and Brandioch can continue the debate with little of the jabbing which seems, unfortunately, to usually enter these discussions.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #29,479
2/23/02 12:36:03 PM
|
Don't forget the initial assumptions.
His coin toss example simply shows that how you arrive at the "truth" - the correct number - depends on the ground rules for the search. That is correct. But don't forget to include your starting assumptions. Such as whether "God" exists and takes an active part. Or whether there is a secret cabal that controls the governments and banks. Or whether there is an objective "Truth" that can be found. Suppose there are 6 Billion people on the planet. You're looking for the "Truth" about people. Person #1 comes up with the "Truth" that has 5,999,999,999 different special cases. Person #2 believes there is no "Truth". Who is correct? Which was one of my reasons for asking Marlowe to provide the "Truth" that he's found. You starting assumptions will determine at what point you claim to have found "The Truth". Well, that would be true EXCEPT where there was a demonstratable, objective "Truth". Note the use of the word "objective". Like gravity is "objective".
|
Post #29,843
2/26/02 2:54:06 PM
|
If that's really his point...
1) it's so trite, it's not worth nearly the fuss he makes
2) it really has nothing to do with anything that went before.
Anyone can be cute, with pseudophilosphy about subjectivity of truth. I have no respect for mere cuteness. I have respect for what works in real life. But I see a pattern here: Brandioch spews this crap in response to anything he doesn't agree with, rather than make a coherent fact-based argument. And here you go actually thinking he's trying to make some kind of a point. He's not trying to make a point, about truth or anything else. He's trying to pass off his intellectual incomptence as some sort of better smelling bullshit. Shame on you for buying the humbug. You really ought to be smarter than that.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Truth is that which is the case. Accept no substitutes.
|
Post #29,865
2/26/02 3:47:55 PM
|
Reality just doesn't exist for you, does it?
1) it's so trite, it's not worth nearly the fuss he makes Okay, yet this does seem to be at odds with your earlier statements about you being closer to "The Truth" because your method "works". Allow me to re-fresh your memory of what Scott said: His coin toss example simply shows that how you arrive at the "truth" - the correct number - depends on the ground rules for the search. So, because you've already determined what the ground rules are (ie. what "works" for you) you've already established what "Truth" you'll find. 2) it really has nothing to do with anything that went before. That's strange. I would say that it has EVERYTHING to do with what "went before". Because >YOU< were the one making statements about the "Truth". I illustrated how you don't have any idea what the "Truth" is. All you know is what your >OPINION< is. Then you went off about how your opinion is closer to "The Truth" because your opinion "works". In other words, you've established the ground rules for yourself for the search for "The Truth" and those ground rules will result in a certain "Truth" being found (whether that "Truth" is actually "The Truth" or not). Now, how can you say that it has nothing to do with the discussion? I'll say it again, your >OPINION< is nothing more than your >OPINION< and the ONLY reason you think it has any relation to "The Truth" is that it is your >OPINION<. But I see a pattern here: Brandioch spews this crap in response to anything he doesn't agree with, rather than make a coherent fact-based argument. So, Marlowe starts a discussion about what colour the tooth fairey's house is. I say there isn't a tooth fairey. Marlowe says I'm not bringing any "facts" to the discussion? And here you go actually thinking he's trying to make some kind of a point. I think I have made my point. There is NO tooth fairey. That means there is no tooth fairey's house. So arguing about what colour it is or saying that someone else is thinking of the wrong colour is idiotic. But you'll keep doing it. He's not trying to make a point, about truth or anything else. My point was that what you say is "The Truth" is nothing more than your >OPINION<. Also that the search for "The Truth" will always be meaningless because you will ALWAYS be constrained by your pre-conceptions and opinions. Just like in my math example. You can get ever closer to "The Truth" and actually think you're accomplishing something when you're just stringing unrelated incidents together. He's trying to pass off his intellectual incomptence as some sort of better smelling bullshit. If I recall correctly, >YOU< were the one that tried to introduce this metaphysical "Truth" shit into the Politics discussions. And you want to lecture me about "intellectual incomptence"? And I will continue to note that you're "Truth" definition is so meaningless as to grant "Truth" to Clinton (whom you obviously hate). Seems the flaws are all your's.
|
Post #29,478
2/23/02 12:31:35 PM
|
No random chance here
you either do or do not. Sometimes we get set up to fail no matter what we do. Just look at the Sunday Dilbert strip for this week. The PHB tells Dilbert to upgrade all servers by Tuesday, Dilbert says he needs at least a month to do the upgrades, so the PHB summons Kronos for Time Management who knocks out the PHB and then says that he will wake up and think that Dilbert is a weasle and the PHB will ask for status reports. Sometimes you just cannot win because your superiors have no clue what it takes to get the f*cking job done. They want it done in days, not months. Upgrade from NT 4.0 to Windows 2000, upgrade from SQL Server 6.5 to SQL Server 2000, upgrade from IIS 3.0 to IIS 5.0 and convert all the ASP pages by hand that won't work on the new version, upgrade all the custom VB programs to use the new server technology because they are going to break anyway. There just isn't a "magic button" we can press to get it done in a few days. No coin to flip either to tell us that we can do it.
The same with upgrading all the VB programs I have worked on in the past four years to work with Windows 2000 and Office 2000. Can't be done in days, takes months. But the PHBs don't know that, they think all I have to do is just recompile. They have no idea that the Word object changed from Office 97 to Office 2000, and that I'll have to research it on msdn.microsoft.com and make some changes to it to get it to work. That issues will pop up like Word 2000 hanging after I enter a lot of data into bookmarks, print out the template, and then close out a template, that Microsoft is aware of the issue and is working to fix it on the next service pack, whenever it comes out. Everything I tried to get around the problem had failed. But they still want me to fix it! If I disable the closing of the template, and just let the user close it, then nothing locks up. If I don't close it and leave it open, then nothing locks up. What apparently locks up is the Word menu, and if the user minimized and maximized, the menu is restored to normal operations. This issue was not there in Word 97 on 95/NT. If they only knew the walls I had to face, the things I had to do to get around them, and the lack of help that was there from my coworkers to get around those walls, they would have understood why it took so long to get the stupid program to work. Still I got it working before the Windows 2000/ Office 2000 migration was done by the rest of IT.
"Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
|
Post #29,481
2/23/02 12:40:16 PM
|
You still don't want to see the facts.
In real life, inferring from data works, far more often than not. Really? So Clinton was right and had "The Truth"? Ah, once again, you fall into the trap of assuming that your opinions are as valid data points as reproducable experiments. Sorry, your mind is no where near stable enough to make that claim. It yields results that in turn yield results, that in turn get things done. That depends upon what your "data" is. I notice you are unable to answer my question as to whether Clinton had "The Truth". He seemed to meet all your criteria, yet you don't seem to like the guy. Wouldn't that make you opposed to "The Truth"? Why can't you answer the question? Maybe for you everything is a coin toss. And this is one of the reasons why I keep pointing out that your "Truth" is nothing more than your opinions. You can't even tell an analogy from the real thing. If you have that much trouble with simple analogies, I can only imagine the trouble you'll have with real life. Which is probably why you can't answer my question about Clinton. With this atttude, you're unlikely to learn anything useful. I wonder how you manage to hold a job. Are you a PHB or an academic or something? Surely you're not someone who gets things done, except perhaps on planet Brandioch. Why, I wouldn't trust you to change a light bulb. You'd probably flip a coin a dozen times to determine if it needs changing, and then decide the light bulb doesn't exist.
Like I said. It was an analogy and you aren't capable of telling the difference. Well, I'm off for a few days to get some stuff done away from my computers. Translation: "I'm running and hiding so I won't have to answer your questions and I hope this topic will scroll."
|
Post #29,499
2/23/02 6:20:05 PM
|
Some people have to lie to get to the truth
or in Clinton's case, his own version of the truth. Apparently he didn't consider a BJ as sexual relations. His wife wasn't that upset about it. It doesn't make it right, but it kind of gets into that grey area of truth. not really a lie, and not the truth either. Sort of a half-truth?
"Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
|
Post #29,663
2/25/02 5:31:05 PM
|
One more time...
The guy is a liar and I'm not defending him.
However, the definition of sex story was rather heavily spun. He was in a courtroom. They handed him a slip of paper with a definition of sex and asked if he accepted it. The definition was rather broad and he declined and presented another definition. Both definitions had been used in various legal contexts. The Jay Leno version has him just making up new definitions of obvious words whenever he feels like it. The actual events were that he was doing a standard lawyer thing, arguing which of the available definitions should apply in this case.
The guy's a lawyer. Put him in a courtroom and he's going to act like one.
----
"You don't have to be right - just use bolded upper case" - annon.
|
Post #29,898
2/26/02 5:38:29 PM
|
That wasn't the big one
They handed him a slip of paper with a definition of sex and asked if he accepted it.
The quote that everyone got hung up on was, "That depends on what your definition of 'is' is." It's hard not to see that as twisting the language. If, as some have argued, that's "just what lawyers do," I don't see that as mitigating what Clinton did but as a condemnation of what lawers do.
I can't be a Democrat because I like to spend the money I make.
I can't be a Republican because I like to spend the money I make on drugs and whores.
|
Post #29,908
2/26/02 6:30:54 PM
|
I see that as a condemnation of
people who elect lawyers as leaders on a regular basis.
I don't hate lawyers. I'd feel the same way if firefighters were elected as often as lawyers are.
----
"You don't have to be right - just use bolded upper case" - annon.
|
Post #29,497
2/23/02 6:00:19 PM
|
Once.. such hubris might have been entertaining
But that was before techno made it possible for the late-night Tee Vee bigots and fanatics of other ilk to proliferate. Now such practitioners of personal-Certainty are a common pestilence.
Alas your insouciance and thus hubris knows no bounds - that it is insouciance, is demonstrated by your stark failure to notice that, what you are claiming *for yourself* is nothing short of - wisdom.
As I said, in these times of raving loonies attempting to impose Their Certain 'One Truth' upon everyone else: you are about as amusing as a case of Ebola selling hotdogs at the Super Bowl.
Your ego must thus be of that massive sort which has eluded for too many years - a proper application of that clue-by-four whose result is.. a soup\ufffdon of humility, so that you might coexist in an imperfect world, and with normal people.
When you are older - if they let you live long enough to reach that - you will come to understand why wisdom is a label which only someone *else* can affix to a one.
Meanwhile - live that Boolean life smugly, which perhaps - you deserve. But keep it in the Puns forum, OK?
Ashton
|
Post #29,864
2/26/02 3:46:44 PM
|
How hubristic of you to presume you know better than I.
Oh, have I wounded your pride by my overweening competence? Are you jealous that my systems result in satisfied users? Please forgive me for getting things done! And how dare I go and research my opinions while others politely refrain from knowing what they are talking about! We Americans are so arrogant, what with our digging the Panama Canal after the French decently screwed it up, what with putting a man on the moon when he had no business being there, what with saving Europe from the Nazis when we should have just minded our own business, what with going after these terrorists when all they did was kill some of us.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Truth is that which is the case. Accept no substitutes.
|
Post #29,867
2/26/02 3:54:05 PM
|
Marlowe defeated the Nazis?
And worked on the Canal? And helped NASA? We Americans are so arrogant, what with our digging the Panama Canal after the French decently screwed it up, what with putting a man on the moon when he had no business being there, what with saving Europe from the Nazis when we should have just minded our own business, what with going after these terrorists when all they did was kill some of us. Ummmmm, forgive my ignorance, but what EXACTLY was >YOUR< role in those events?
|
Post #29,869
2/26/02 4:00:28 PM
|
Ah.. there's the root/rub: John Dewey Pragmatism lives!
Right - you can string some Boole together and get - a logical result. [Gosh - how Difficult] Ergo - life is a logical process and..
You gots George B and John D to help you debug it all! And that's.. all *You* need. Ok - clearer now.
And you still! didn't follow my Rx for a restoration of some perspective in your tidy little 1/0 binary world:
Watch Rashomon at least 3x in a row. Get back to us with your hat in hand, foot removed from mouth.
Ashton
|
Post #29,873
2/26/02 4:10:47 PM
|
I'm still waiting for him to explain Clinton.
Marlowe focuses on how he "gets things done".
Well, Clinton obviously did MORE than Marlowe. So Clinton's got "The Truth".
Or a better approximation than Marlowe has.
Clinton got things done. From interns to perjury to campaign laundering. And he still walked out without a scratch.
Sounds like that meets Marlowe's definition of "Truth".
|
Post #29,894
2/26/02 5:25:39 PM
|
Attila got even More done..
I suppose it's some sort of Mercantile Theory of [Real] Enlightenment now reaching its zenith: symbolic logic as [Real] Enlightenment.. (Now ya can Prove.. Yup.. it's Real alright!)
(One has to sprinkle in the [Real]s for reminding the rest of us: his deductions are Real-close to The Truth; close enough for government work anyway..)
{sigh}
Omnes animus post coitum triste.
So.. Get Fucked! is really a plea to seek therapy..
Great Spirit! please protect me from the wrath of Those Who Know\ufffd
|
Post #29,935
2/27/02 12:00:13 AM
|
Only on planet Brandioch.
Here on Earth, Clinton's net contribution was negative. He damaged our military preparedness, and looted Social Security, both to create a bogus budget surplus. He sold our foreign policy to the highest bidder, and the victims at the WTC footed the bill. And then when us tech R&D types boosted the economy with our creativity, he hogged the credit. What a class act.
But I wouldn't expect you to appreciate the subtle distinction between hype and reality. In fact, it kind of figures you'd love such a blatant fraud as Clinton.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Truth is that which is the case. Accept no substitutes.
If competence is considered "hubris" then may I and my country always be as "arrogant" as we can possibly manage.
|
Post #29,963
2/27/02 10:54:04 AM
|
Thus proving my point.
Here on Earth, Clinton's net contribution was negative. He damaged our military preparedness, and looted Social Security, both to create a bogus budget surplus. He sold our foreign policy to the highest bidder, and the victims at the WTC footed the bill. Which was that >YOU< determine what "works" based upon >YOUR< opinion. And then when us tech R&D types boosted the economy with our creativity, he hogged the credit. Oh my, this is getting downright pathological. "...us tech R&D....." So, you've accomplished more than Clinton did? Oh, you're looking at his "net contribution". That's what determines whether he has "The Truth" or not. Which, I guess, is something different than "what works", which, if you will recall, was your earlier definition of "The Truth". So, Clinton getting elected TWICE isn't evidence of "what works" or accomplishing something. Well, it is, but it's offset by what you claim he did in damage. Like I said before, your version of "The Truth" is nothing more than your opinion. And you will always find something in your opinion to support your opinion. Clinton accomplished MORE than you ever will. And he was RE-ELECTED. Again, evidence that what he was doing "worked". But now you have to find other aspects to counter the aspects that meet your prior criteria. Let me guess, you also believe in phrenology. Or, at least you base your definition of "The Truth" on a similar background.
|
Post #29,548
2/24/02 12:38:53 PM
|
Another illustration - The Placebo Effect.
From the 2/23 issue of The Economist (on the web but you need to be a subscriber to read it there). p.83: According to Fabrizio Benedetti, a neuroscientist at the University of Turin, researchers now believe that the placebo effect results from the release in the brain of natural painkillers called endogenous opiates, which are produced when the brain anticipates relief. When people are dosed with a substance that counteracts the effects of these opiates, their respose to placebos evaporate. Moreover, the brain also contains a substance called cholecystokinin, which opposes the action of opiates. When patients are given a drug that degrades cholecystokinin, their opiate levels stay higher than normal and their responses to placebos become stronger.
The placebo effect also holds true in reverse. When patients do not know they are receiving treatment, they do not respond to it. Dr. Benedetti showed the audience a remarkable video of a patient with Parkinson's disease, an ailment that causes muscle tics and trembling. These symptoms can be alleviated by electrical stimulation of the brain. The video showed that when the patient was unaware that stimulation was being applied, his twitching continued unabated. But as soon as he knew the electrodes had been switched on, his symptoms were reduced.
[...] The research was reported at the AAAS meeting in Boston. The point? The brain is a complicated organic computing and sensing device with complicated filters. It doesn't measure objective reality directly. Its response depends upon many psychological factors - not just on objective things like the presence of drugs or voltages. Logic and measurments will only get us so far in knowing objective "Truth". One should be skeptical of those who claim to know "The Truth". Just as claims of supernatural events demand extraordinary evidence, similarly claims of knowledge of "The Truth" requires very strong evidence. (Why? Because life is filled with shades of gray. "The Truth" as it's being used in this thread, doesn't seem to allow shades of gray.) My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #29,554
2/24/02 1:09:51 PM
|
Re: "The Truth" according to the Rev. Ashcroft.
Ashcroft came to the Buckle on the Bible Belt to, among other things, sing as well as expound on his views. [link|http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/local/2734992.htm|Charlotte Observer article.] A quote, I hope is sincere, is: Some people, he said, have told him they're afraid he'll impose his religion on others.
"I have to carefully tell them that it's against my religion to impose my religion," he said. A quote amusing to me is: Ashcroft noted that he never attended seminary, and joked that as a result, "the things that I say may be totally wrong."
"As a matter of fact, there is a substantial community of individuals who believe the things I say are totally wrong," he said, alluding to his many critics. "That hasn't stopped me from saying them before and it won't stop me from saying them again." Alex
"Of course, you realize this means war." -B. Bunny
|
Post #29,565
2/24/02 5:19:24 PM
2/24/02 5:21:40 PM
|
Oops - blong under Alex, re Ashcroft
He comes almost close-enough to having a sense of humor!
..but not quite. It's not clear if his brief quips represent wryness - or maybe he just listened to some cues from an aide, about "what some folks are saying".
(It would help a lot though - if in fact he Has a sense of humor.. y'know?.. especially about Righteousness and stuff)
A.
|
Post #29,566
2/24/02 5:45:52 PM
|
Yes, one can always hope for s sense of humor.
Alex
"Of course, you realize this means war." -B. Bunny
|
