Edit: I'm quite frustrated because of a fight that happened. Perhaps feeling especially negative. You should know that it is actually a thing I read in Across the Unknown not to give in because of life circumstances. Or rather, the way it was worded to me sounded highly unempathetic. I get seriously angry about this.
"But a lot of people have to deal with bullshit often! It isn't something they fucking imagined."
Yeah. I've been feeling especially paranoid and suicidal. It's just that when I hear that word paranoia or something reflects back to you to tell you that it's you doing it to yourself... I can't help but want to give it a middle finger.
I mean is it really paranoia if you're right about what you're "paranoid" about? Of course, they can say that's typical language, but I can easily say the same of that.
Back to business as usual I guess...
I mean seriously, it's frustrating when people make assumptions about you:
You don't have status? You're worthless
No money? You're a bum
Not married? You're a loser
I mean... that's not even a quarter of it.
Sorry, sometimes I love the red and the white of flowers set against the soft white-blue and its other various shades of the sky. There's something about that that just--
Oh I'm sorry? I'm psychotic for this? I'm still on this same fucking planet as anyone. Sorry that I'm not so lost in the labyrinth of words, status, and titles that I just get lost (but I'm not really anywhere but the same place) in admiration of these things.
This is lengthy, but there is something important to note here. Actually several things which are important to note.
I should say now, that this is not all of what I meant to share and note. There was another essay which pointed out how the idea that the brain is a "computer" are erroneous by showing how the terms are greatly abused and misused. Particulary, the idea that the computer to brain analogy is faulty because there are several things which do not line up at all.
Robert Epstein's essay, "The Empty Brain" was just the breath of fresh air I was looking for in trying to understand why the IP metaphor is popular these days. More so, I was irked because the metaphor is obviously dangerous to people's perception of the world. That and the idea that we are "chemically bound" to our experience. These are just beliefs though as much as anything which is what I am trying to point out.
They're popular ideas because they come from what most believe to be "reputable" sources. What else can be said about this except that it is a logical fallacy? Today, the younger generation tends to believe that it's intelligence is something measurable. They believe that they "possess" intelligence because they can "mock" ideas which are not popular to their perceptions. They haven't (and still don't) say anything because they only know the fallacy of "appeal to authority". The very essence of everything they "know" is predicated on this very fallacy.
"This is coming from __ therefore, it is true!"
Look, if history repeats itself then this is just one of the things that gets repeated as well. You'd think that the younger generation which believe it knows what "intelligence" is would be more mindful of this. They're not.
"If the metaphors and paradigms of the Scientific Revolution were true, then why has the consequence been an increasing move towards deconstructionism, suicide, and nihilism? Why does my soul feel like it is strangled?"
"We tend to think, Kuhn argues, that scientific knowledge is a slow, accumulative process whereby the study and research of past ages is gradually built up over time, like a tower or edifice being constructed over the centuries from the ground up. Each generation, we imagine, passes the torch of scientific knowledge on to the next generation to complete a new row of bricks, in a glorious, ongoing progress towards more and better ways of knowing the deepest truths of the cosmos. The only problem with this picture is that anyone who actually studies the history of scientific developments knows that it is false and misleading as to how scientific revolutions actually work."
"One particular theory that explains some aspect of the cosmos will enjoy its time in the spotlight, until another vastly different theory comes along and overturns the presuppositions and implications of the earlier. In other words, the "knowledge" of the previous theory is not kept, preserved, or built upon, but scrapped and thrown out in favor of a new one."
"These examples point us to an important corrective: we tend to believe that see with our eyes, but in reality we see with our imaginations."
"Language, which is actually fundamentally pictorial/metaphorical at its root, translates and makes sense of the images that our eyes transmit to us. As scandalous as it may be, Language and Imagination are the heart and lifeblood of Science."
"Initially the drug appeared to confirm earlier research by wiping out the synaptic connection. But when cells were exposed to a reminder of the shocks, the memory came back at full strength within 48 hours. “It was totally reinstated,” Glanzman says. “That implies to me that the memory wasn't stored in the synapse.” The results were recently published in the online open-access journal eLife."
“A theory that is wrong is considered preferable to admitting our ignorance.” – Elliot Vallenstein, Ph.D.
"Finally, there is not a single peer-reviewed article that can be accurately cited to support claims of serotonin deficiency in any mental disorder, while there are many articles that present counterevidence. Furthermore, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) does not list serotonin as the cause of any mental disorder. The American Psychiatric Press Textbook of Clinical Psychiatry addresses serotonin deficiency as an unconfirmed hypothesis, stating “Additional experience has not confirmed the monoamine depletion hypothesis” (Lacasse & Leo, 2005)."
"In fact, the idea that low levels of serotonin cause depression has become so widespread that it’s not uncommon to hear people speak of the need to “boost their serotonin levels” through exercise, herbal supplements or even sexual activity. The “chemical imbalance” theory is so well established that it is now part of the popular lexicon.
It is, after all, a neat theory. It takes a complex and heterogeneous condition (depression) and boils it down to a simple imbalance of two to three neurotransmitters (out of more than 100 that have been identified), which, as it happens, can be “corrected” by long-term drug treatment. This clear and easy-to-follow theory is the driving force behind the $12 billion worth of antidepressant drugs sold each year."
"However, there is one (rather large) problem with this theory: there is absolutely no evidence to support it. Recent reviews of the research have demonstrated no link between depression, or any other mental disorder, and an imbalance of chemicals in the brain (Lacasse & Leo, 2005; (Valenstein, 1998).
The ineffectiveness of antidepressant drugs when compared to placebo cast even more doubt on the “chemical imbalance” theory. (See my recent articles Placebos as effective as antidepressants and A closer look at the evidence for more on this.)"
"Reducing levels of norepinephrine, serotonin and dopamine does not actually produce depression in humans, even though it appeared to do so in animals.
The theory cannot explain why there are drugs that alleviate depression despite the fact that they have little or no effect on either serotonin or norepinephrine.
Drugs that raise serotonin and norepinephrine levels, such as amphetamine and cocaine, do not alleviate depression.
Although some depressed patients have low levels of serotonin and norepinephrine, the majority do not. Estimates vary, but a reasonable average from several studies indicates that only about 25 percent of depressed patients actually have low levels of these metabolites.
Some depressed patients actually have abnormally high levels of serotonin and norepinephrine, and some patients with no history of depression at all have low levels of these amines.
Although there have been claims that depression may be caused by excessive levels of monoamine oxydase (the enzyme that breaks down serotonin and norepinephrine), this is only true in some depressed patients and not in others.
Antidepressants produce a number of different effects other than increasing norepinephrine and serotonin activity that have not been accounted for when considering their activity on depression."
"No matter how hard they try, brain scientists and cognitive psychologists will never find a copy of Beethoven’s 5th Symphony in the brain – or copies of words, pictures, grammatical rules or any other kinds of environmental stimuli. The human brain isn’t really empty, of course. But it does not contain most of the things people think it does – not even simple things such as ‘memories’."
"The faulty logic of the IP metaphor is easy enough to state. It is based on a faulty syllogism – one with two reasonable premises and a faulty conclusion. Reasonable premise #1: all computers are capable of behaving intelligently. Reasonable premise #2: all computers are information processors. Faulty conclusion: all entities that are capable of behaving intelligently are information processors.
Setting aside the formal language, the idea that humans must be information processors just because computers are information processors is just plain silly, and when, some day, the IP metaphor is finally abandoned, it will almost certainly be seen that way by historians, just as we now view the hydraulic and mechanical metaphors to be silly."
"Misleading headlines notwithstanding, no one really has the slightest idea how the brain changes after we have learned to sing a song or recite a poem. But neither the song nor the poem has been ‘stored’ in it. The brain has simply changed in an orderly way that now allows us to sing the song or recite the poem under certain conditions. When called on to perform, neither the song nor the poem is in any sense ‘retrieved’ from anywhere in the brain, any more than my finger movements are ‘retrieved’ when I tap my finger on my desk. We simply sing or recite – no retrieval necessary."
"We are organisms, not computers. Get over it. Let’s get on with the business of trying to understand ourselves, but without being encumbered by unnecessary intellectual baggage. The IP metaphor has had a half-century run, producing few, if any, insights along the way. The time has come to hit the DELETE key."
"Pollan says there is no agreed definition of intelligence. "Go to Wikipedia and look up intelligence. They despair of giving you an answer. They basically have a chart where they give you nine different definitions. And about half of them depend on a brain — they refer to abstract reasoning or judgment."
Edit: Oh right! I remember seeing this cool set of "artwork" created by an algorithm loaded into a computer (wtf ever that is and if I even got that right) and...
On the one hand, the images were really neat and trippy looking.
After thinking about it now? It isn't art. It reflects nothing about the human experience. Only that some people like to worship robots instead of properly adding to the experience themselves by thinking "people are bad" rather than it being their example that contributes to "bad people". Apathy at its worst! Loathsome! Horrid!
Edit 2: https://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2017/08/04/your-brain-is-not-a-computer/
"You know all of those thousands of research studies that rely on Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) that produce those millions of color pictures of the brain lighting up when it’s doing something? They tell us virtually nothing about why those parts of the brain are lighting up, nor why that would be important.
Imagine taking a person from 300 BC and introducing her to a modern electrical switch connected to a lightbulb. She can turn the switch off and on and see the impact of that behavior on the light. But it would tell her virtually nothing about how electricity works, nor anything about the component parts of electricity. That’s what fMRI scans of the brain are to researchers today."