The Economics of the Brain

[PerVirtuous]

I never said it was, I even gave a link pointing out what pseudo-science is.

The link is not needed. Your posts are great examples. No evidence is used. Conclusions are reached without evidence. Psuedoscience! Perfect!

What a link on energy in the brain is irrelevant.

It was not the same subject matter. The article did not address volition whatever. It only measured impulses and did not draw any conclusions about the effects of habitual thinking, proportional distribution of energy, or the quality of thought.

I did, I pointed out your claims about energy in the brain are unsubstantiated and go against the available evidence.

You pointed out no such thing. You simply made an unsubstantiated claim. To point it out would require a logical argument, and you have, to date, not offered a single one.

Edited May 25, 2009 by PerVirtuous

[PerVirtuous]

Yes the science did give us the computer. And yes my link was relevant because it linked directly to your claims of evidence

Yes it is a process and that process gave us the computer.

I never said it created, made, endorsed or believed anything.

You did though.

Prove something. Anything. Ha ha ha. Giving more of your opinion is getting very boring.

[Mattshark]

Prove it. Ha ha ha. You are like a child.

I do not need to you have not shown any evidence.

All of them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis

You certainly are not showing a great expertise in biology with that question!

That is not splitting an atom.

Splitting an atom is nuclear fission.

Photosynthesis does not split any atoms at all.

They are completely consistant. You obviously did not understand what you read.

I did but your arguments are baseless.

This makes no sense and does not apply to anything I said.

Yes it does. You claimed science wasn't only materialistic. That is untrue. Is showed you the scientific method and if you actually read it you would understand why your claims regarding science are incorrect.

Meaning the process did not provide correct answers the first time around.

Possibly, it could just be that something new was discovered.

And? There is a problem with that? Why? Because you think so? That is not a very compelling argument. I am not wasting my time with idiotic crap like this anymore. When you learn to write an actual argument complete with premise, supporting evidence, and THEN a conclusion, you can make your silly and worthless noise alone.

Because your claims about energy were demonstrably false and the link it put up about brain metabolism showed that.

[Mattshark]

The link is not needed. Your posts are great examples. No evidence is used. Conclusions are reached without evidence. Psuedoscience! Perfect!

Where? What scientific claims have I made that I have no backed up exactly?

It was not the same subject matter. The article did not address volition whatever. It only measured impulses and did not draw any conclusions about the effects of habitual thinking, proportional distribution of energy, or the quality of thought.

And what are those things exactly? I look forward to the explanation.

The link says what the energy is used for and how it works.

You pointed out no such thing. You simply made an unsubstantiated claim. To point it out would require a logical argument, and you have, to date, not offered a single one.

Yes it did, you ignoring this does not change that.

[PerVirtuous]

I do not need to you have not shown any evidence.

Yes I have.

That is not splitting an atom.

Splitting an atom is nuclear fission.

Photosynthesis does not split any atoms at all.

yes it does.

I did but your arguments are baseless.

No you didn't

Yes it does. You claimed science wasn't only materialistic. That is untrue. Is showed you the scientific method and if you actually read it you would understand why your claims regarding science are incorrect.

No I didn't

Possibly, it could just be that something new was discovered.

Meaning the information was incomplete, as it always is.

Because your claims about energy were demonstrably false and the link it put up about brain metabolism showed that.

The link did not show that in any way. You are just playing games with words.

[Mattshark]

Yes I have.

yes it does.

No you didn't

No I didn't

Meaning the information was incomplete, as it always is.

The link did not show that in any way. You are just playing games with words.

No seriously you don't think a chemical reaction in photosynthesis is nuclear fission do you. Really.

Which atom is split and into what exactly?

You have not back up any of you claims at all with any evidence.

Yes of course science is incomplete, what would be the point in having scientists if it wasn't. Doesn't mean you should reject everything though.

[PerVirtuous]

Where? What scientific claims have I made that I have no backed up exactly?

Name one you have.

And what are those things exactly? I look forward to the explanation.

The link says what the energy is used for and how it works.

Ha ha ha. You are implying that we have a complete understanding of the mind. We do not. We haven't even scratched the surface. You are like someone in ancient times claiming that flight is impossible and linking to simple machines and saying, "See. These are the machines that we have to use. None of them will support filght. I have proven my point" All you have done is prove you have no idea what this discussion is actually about.

Yes it did, you ignoring this does not change that.

You have not written a single logical argument. Nothing you can say will change that fact. You cannot win a debate unless you do, therefore, you are not winning

[PerVirtuous]

Yes of course science is incomplete, what would be the point in having scientists if it wasn't. Doesn't mean you should reject everything though.

Never rejected anything. Simply said it was incomplete and you agree.

[N080DY]

Never said it was did? There is no such thing as absolute truth in my opinon, there is however observed facts and reliable evidence and ignoring these is not scepticism, it is ignorance.

In your every post, you seem to assume that everything you say is 100% true... Philosophical skeptic doesn't ignore reliable evidence or facts, he just doesn't assume they are 100% correct...

There is no absolute truth in science, there is study, evidence and experiments etc. No truths. Science is extremely open about interpretation of data and about the statistical analysis used. If you disagree with the outcomes you can point to where there were errors.

In that particular part, I meant "truth" loosely... The correct term would've been "100% correct"... And the rest of that is my point really, you never can be sure something is 100% correct...

That is not how science works, you do not read from a book to study it, you learn the method, you learn the analysis techniques and you learn how to apply them. You read papers and critique them, you learn about how conclusions where made, you learn about how studies where performed, how data was collected and how you make it as unbiased as possible as open as possible and as free from opinion as possible.

You learn the method, from books or someone teaches you, you learn analysis techniques from books or someone teaches you... Please note the "for example" I used after the word "book"... And that learning part is probably the same for people studying to be a priest, maybe the goal isn't the same (to make data as unbiased as possible etc.) but the method and the resulting scientist/priest probably is, both going after the goal, assuming that everything they've learned and read (or the underlying ideas) are correct... If that makes sense...

After some surfing around wikipedia (sue me, it's the best source of information I have), I found this handy thing: Skeptic

Now if you scroll a bit down at that page, you'll notice there are two distinct chapters called "Philosophical skepticism" and "Scientific skepticism"...

I hope you both noticed where the confusion began... Matty, this thread is in the Philosophy part of the forum, so you might think we're talking about philosophic skepticism, which you mistook for scientific skepticism... You apparently just assumed you were right or something, don't really care... To a true philosophical skeptic, you're a philosophical pseudo-skeptic... I called you zealous because you seem to act like it, I'm not here to judge you... And again, since this is in the philosophy section, you might think that the energy that was talked about in the OP was more of a mental energy (or something) rather than actual brain energy...

Thanks for the link to pseudo-science by the way, only got the general picture of it... What I got from the link was that all the so-called "pseudo-sciences" haven't or can't be proven with the proper scientific method... So if you'd make a scientific hypothesis and test a "pseudo-science" according to the right methods, it wouldn't be pseudo-science... Sounds confusing, so correct me if I got that wrong...

[Mattshark]

Name one you have.

No, sorry you made the accusation, it is your responsibility to back it up

Ha ha ha. You are implying that we have a complete understanding of the mind. We do not. We haven't even scratched the surface. You are like someone in ancient times claiming that flight is impossible and linking to simple machines and saying, "See. These are the machines that we have to use. None of them will support filght. I have proven my point" All you have done is prove you have no idea what this discussion is actually about.

No I am not, but your claim has no evidence and seem to feel it doesn't need any, despite me posting evidence against it.

You not see a problem there?

You have not written a single logical argument. Nothing you can say will change that fact. You cannot win a debate unless you do, therefore, you are not winning

uh huh, of course

You just keep on ignoring that evidence against your claims.

[PerVirtuous]

Let's put this stupid notion that Mattshark has given ANY evidence to bed.

Look at the name of the article posted.

Brain Energy Metabolism

An Integrated Cellular Perspective

It discusses the chemical reactions of the brain on a cellular level. It does not address thought, volition, electrical impulses, or anything at all to do with any higher functions of the brain. It is entirely irrelevant. I doubt he read it, understands it, or even realizes it in no way adresses anything I have spoken of.

It is quite amusing that he is hanging his hat on that.

Edited May 25, 2009 by PerVirtuous

[Mattshark]

In your every post, you seem to assume that everything you say is 100% true... Philosophical skeptic doesn't ignore reliable evidence or facts, he just doesn't assume they are 100% correct...

That is your assumption, doesn't mean it is the case.

In that particular part, I meant "truth" loosely... The correct term would've been "100% correct"... And the rest of that is my point really, you never can be sure something is 100% correct...

I never do. But my source is on energy in the brain has a greater degree of validity than Per's claims.

You learn the method, from books or someone teaches you, you learn analysis techniques from books or someone teaches you... Please note the "for example" I used after the word "book"... And that learning part is probably the same for people studying to be a priest, maybe the goal isn't the same (to make data as unbiased as possible etc.) but the method and the resulting scientist/priest probably is, both going after the goal, assuming that everything they've learned and read (or the underlying ideas) are correct... If that makes sense...

No, there are valid reasons behind the technique, if you want to critique it and improve it feel free though.

After some surfing around wikipedia (sue me, it's the best source of information I have), I found this handy thing: Skeptic

Now if you scroll a bit down at that page, you'll notice there are two distinct chapters called "Philosophical skepticism" and "Scientific skepticism"...

I hope you both noticed where the confusion began... Matty, this thread is in the Philosophy part of the forum, so you might think we're talking about philosophic skepticism, which you mistook for scientific skepticism... You apparently just assumed you were right or something, don't really care... To a true philosophical skeptic, you're a philosophical pseudo-skeptic... I called you zealous because you seem to act like it, I'm not here to judge you... And again, since this is in the philosophy section, you might think that the energy that was talked about in the OP was more of a mental energy (or something) rather than actual brain energy...

Thanks for the link to pseudo-science by the way, only got the general picture of it... What I got from the link was that all the so-called "pseudo-sciences" haven't or can't be proven with the proper scientific method... So if you'd make a scientific hypothesis and test a "pseudo-science" according to the right methods, it wouldn't be pseudo-science... Sounds confusing, so correct me if I got that wrong...

Wiki is a decent enough source for a lot of information.

It is a philosophy section yes and I have not tried to address the philosophical side, I addressed the claims on energy only, I personally think you can relate that mental energy to actual energy as I see no distinguishing features between the too.

I am not zealous, I just like evidence.

[PerVirtuous]

No, sorry you made the accusation, it is your responsibility to back it up

Why? You have not backed up anything you have said.

No I am not, but your claim has no evidence and seem to feel it doesn't need any, despite me posting evidence against it.

You not see a problem there?

You have posted no such evidence. You can not find one single fact in the link you gave that refutes anything I posted. Not one single fact. I did back up everything said with a logical argument. Apperently you do not understand what those are, as you have yet to make one.

You just keep on ignoring that evidence against your claims.

I cannot ignore what doesn't exist. Either actually put up such evidence or shut up.

Edited May 25, 2009 by PerVirtuous

[Mattshark]

Let's put this stupid notion that Mattshark has given ANY evidence to bed.

Look at the name of the article posted.

It discusses the chemical reactions of the brain on a cellular level. It does not address thought, volition, electrical impulses, or anything at all to do with any higher functions of the brain. It is entirely irrelevant. I doubt he read it, understands it, or even realizes it in no way adresses anything I have spoken of.

It is quite amusing that he is hanging his hat on that.

Of course it doesn't relate to volition, that it relates to how energy is used.

It very much cover neurons btw.

It is relevant completely to your claims about evidence.

[PerVirtuous]

Of course it doesn't relate to volition, that it relates to how energy is used.

It very much cover neurons btw.

It is relevant completely to your claims about evidence.

It relates to how energy is used on the cellular level only. How does that apply to anything I have said? It does not, can not, and you have no argument at all. It is a fraud. It does not ever mention how energy is distributed voluntarily, not once.

Edited May 25, 2009 by PerVirtuous

[Mattshark]

Why? You have not backed up anything you have said.

You have posted no such evidence. You acn not find one single fact in the link you gave that refutes anything I posted. Not one single fact.

I cannot ignore what doesn't exist. Either actually put up such evidence or shut up.

Well sorry Per, but you are lying. I only addressed the issue with energy in the OP.

I posted a link that directly relates to energy in the brain, and no it doesn't cover volition and quality of though, no scientific source is going to do that because they are subjective beliefs.

It does however address energy in the brain and the neurology associated.

[Mattshark]

It relates to how energy is used on the cellular level only. How does that apply to anything I have said? It does not, can not, and you have no argument at all. It is a fraud. It does not ever mention how energy is distributed voluntarily, not once.

Sub topics with in the link

ENERGY METABOLISM AT THE ORGAN LEVEL

ENERGY METABOLISM AT THE REGIONAL LEVEL

Why should it mention voluntary distribution of energy? I will accept that if you can show evidence of it.

[PerVirtuous]

Of course it doesn't relate to volition, that it relates to how energy is used.

It very much cover neurons btw.

It is relevant completely to your claims about evidence.

It is not evidence relevant to anything I have posted. it is like saying that the chemical composition of gas effects how drivers act at red lights. It is irrelevant and in no way evidence that is applicable. Ha ha ha. You are a fake. I challeng you to find a single thing in your link that actually applies to anything I wrote. You can't, because you are a complete fraud. You simply pretend it does. hahaha.

[Mattshark]

It is not evidence relevant to anything I have posted. it is like saying that the chemical composition of gas effects how drivers act at red lights. It is irrelevant and in no way evidence that is applicable. Ha ha ha. You are a fake. I challeng you to find a single thing in your link that actually applies to anything I wrote. You can't, because you are a complete fraud. You simply pretend it does. hahaha.

Wow, well done for the school yard tactics, and you said my debating was off.

You talk about energy in the brain. This link is evidence that your claims about energy in the brain are incorrect. If you wish to provide evidence to the contrary feel free.

[PerVirtuous]

Sub topics with in the link

Completely disingenous. This is a con. Prove it.

Why should it mention voluntary distribution of energy? I will accept that if you can show evidence of it.

You never read the OP, did you. Ha ha ha. It was all about the voluntary distribution of energy in the mind. Since you have not adressed what the OP was about, your evidence is completely irrelevant.

Here are links refuting your link completely:

http://www.princeton.edu/~pear

http://www.psyleron.com/

http://www.pauldevereux.co.uk/

http://www.lifescientists.de/

http://www.temple.edu/cfs/index.html

[PerVirtuous]

Wow, well done for the school yard tactics, and you said my debating was off.

You talk about energy in the brain. This link is evidence that your claims about energy in the brain are incorrect. If you wish to provide evidence to the contrary feel free.

But there is no evidence in the link you gave even adressing anything I said. How can it refute what it does not address? You are completely lost. Ha ha ha. You have no idea what this discussion is even about. You claim a molecular study of a single cell shows how the brain as a whole works. I am discussing economics of energy consumption. This is the fallacy of Composition:

Composition: because the attributes of the parts of a whole have a certain property, it is argued that the whole has that property

It is not applicable. Your link is useless. It is not evidence. You have no argument. Just your worthless opinion. All opinions are worthless in a debate. You lose.

Edited May 25, 2009 by PerVirtuous

[Mattshark]

Completely disingenous. This is a con. Prove it.

You never read the OP, did you. Ha ha ha. It was all about the voluntary distribution of energy in the mind. Since you have not adressed what the OP was about, your evidence is completely irrelevant.

Here are links refuting your link completely:

http://www.princeton.edu/~pear

http://www.psyleron.com/

http://www.pauldevereux.co.uk/

http://www.lifescientists.de/

http://www.temple.edu/cfs/index.html

Why is it a con exactly?

Yes and my link was about all energy in the brain. It is relevant.

Where do they refute my link exactly (not that all those links are quality sources).

[N080DY]

That is your assumption, doesn't mean it is the case.

I'm guessing you mean the first sentence... You might want to think what you type more, cause it comes off like you're certain that you're right and the other party is wrong... You come off as over-zealous about proving that the other party is dead-wrong...

I never do. But my source is on energy in the brain has a greater degree of validity than Per's claims.

I don't see the connection between your article and PerVirtuous' claims, he's talking from purely philosophical view and you're talking from purely scientific view... At least that's the feeling I get from you two...

No, there are valid reasons behind the technique, if you want to critique it and improve it feel free though.

I'm not trying to critique it, I'm trying to make the point across, you seem as zealous that science is 100% correct as a zealot is about his/her doctorine... They both have valid reasons behind the technique...

Wiki is a decent enough source for a lot of information.

It is a philosophy section yes and I have not tried to address the philosophical side, I addressed the claims on energy only, I personally think you can relate that mental energy to actual energy as I see no distinguishing features between the too.

I am not zealous, I just like evidence.

Some people don't seem to like it though...

Philosophy section is made to address the philosophical side of things... Please note the second response in this reply...

Well I'm sorry, but you come off as over-zealous about the evidence... Some great scientific breakthroughs have been made based on an assumption on how things are, without much of an evidence, they went and tested the hypothesis, which proved to be correct and revolutionised the science of the day... Well at least I think a few discoveries were made that way... So basically, if I come up with a logical hypothesis on something that's considered "pseudo-science" and test it according to the scientific method, it would be valid, even without your "evidence" at the start... Not all science has initially been based on solid facts, just a hypothesis that could explain an unknown phenomenom...

[Mattshark]

But there is no evidence in the link you gave even adressing anything I said. How can it refute what it dies not adress? You are completely lost. Ha ha ha. You have no idea what this discussion is even about. You claim a molecular study of a single cell shows how the brain as a whole works. This ia the fallacy of Comosition:

Composition: because the attributes of the parts of a whole have a certain property, it is argued that the whole has that property

It is not applicable. Your link is useless. It is not evidence. You have no argument. Just your worthless opinion. All opinions are worthless in a debate. You lose.

Yes there is, the link is evidence.

It addressed energy in the brain. That is all I was addressing. It addressed the whole organ and regions too. You claim it didn't address electrical impulses but it covers neurology.

Sorry but it is perfectly valid. If you want to disagree with it fine, saying it is invalid is however incorrect.

All you have is opinion, sorry. So your argument must be worthless too

[N080DY]

Yes there is, the link is evidence.

It addressed energy in the brain. That is all I was addressing. It addressed the whole organ and regions too. You claim it didn't address electrical impulses but it covers neurology.

Sorry but it is perfectly valid. If you want to disagree with it fine, saying it is invalid is however incorrect.

All you have is opinion, sorry. So your argument must be worthless too

Congratulations, both of your arguments are worthless... Virtuous' because it lacks any scientific facts, and Matt's because it lacks any relevance to the philosophy of Virtuous' arguments... So on the Philosophical standpoint, Matt's arguments are worthless, and on the scientific standpoint, PerVirtuous' arguments are worthless... Notice something here? You're both addressing each other's arguments from the opposite standpoint, which probably is useless from the start...

Edited May 25, 2009 by N080DY