111–120 of 133 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you define these systems as "peripheral," then it's tautological that they're not host to central aspects of self-awareness, but I'd argue that "gut feelings" and proprioception are indispensable components of human consciousness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peripheral_nervous_system
My favourite scientific myth is "cholesterol causes heart disease" evangelized by Ancel Keys [1] in the Seven Countries Study [2]. From there, we developed plant oil. From plant oil, we developed margarine. From margarine, we discovered trans-fat. And we found the trans fat causes coronary heart disease, hence in full circle. Worse still, from the fear of cholesterol, we developed "cereal that lowers your blood chole…
Various cholesterol lowering drugs, statins being the most widely prescribed but certainly not the only class, show consistent relationship with cholesterol lowering and reduced risk of MACE (MI, stroke).
Plaque is made of foam cells that consume cholesterol. They grow and obstruct arteries, and eventually rupture causing critical flow obstructing events.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James_Sidis
On the face of it, the experiment seems to have succeeded at making him extraordinarily intelligent, and also pretty much screwed up his life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't remember the exact context at this point, but I've definitely encountered someone complaining about "ascorbic acid" as an additive, which is of course vitamin C.
Let's not forget the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide. Used as an industrial solvent, its vapours can cause severe burns, yet they put it in food.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Absolutely true, but there somehow seems different quality to them. The myths of old seemed to be little factoids that were not easy to verify and were taken at face value, then just spread until they became "common knowledge". The new ones seem to have an almost religious quality to them. Flat-earthers for example, if someone told me 25 years ago that this would be a thing I would have just laughed.
Flat-earth is a conspiracy theory, flat-earthers are told that the earth is round, but they don't believe it, they usually also believe in all sorts of other theories: fake moon landing, chemtrails, covid 5G, aliens, etc... make your choice. Conspiracy theories went strong even before the internet, some had devastating consequence. At least, flat-earth is harmless, it only makes you sound stupid. And I also believe t…
These kind of conspiracy theories, if you are willing to keep asking questions, almost always blame "The Jews". People pushing these conspiracy theories are, whether they understand it or not, pushing the ideas that 1: You have zero control over your government and cannot gain any control, 2: Science isn't the goal of many science institutions, and instead they are merely mouthpieces for this global cabal, 3: This global cabal even has the power of fooling your own senses, like many of these believers would not be swayed if you put them on a rocket and let them see the earth from space. These people are prone to dismissing strong evidence with hand wavey excuses like "oh virtual reality" or similar.
I would argue the point of these is to push 1: voter apathy and general detachment from the ways society can be changed and improved through their effort, 2: anti-science and anti-intellectualism sentiments, 3: "You can't trust anyone but us", 4: "The Jews" bullshit
One of my favorite myths is that an idea can be declared false simply because the science does not yet exist to prove it true. I think we all have beliefs that have not yet been verified. The key is to let go of those beliefs when the science does show the errors in those beliefs. Myths have played an important role in helping us understand our surroundings. Certainly, though, they have often been misused and exploit…
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but it sounds to me like you're saying that as long as somebody hasn't disproved a belief, you're justified in believing it. Is this what you're saying? That seems like it might lead you to keep believing things for which you have insufficient evidence to conclude they're true, and as such would be a less than ideal epistemological tool.
And how about the bumblebee's impossibility of flight myth? I've also hear it regarding generic 'beetle', and with specific beetles. I always thought it was pretty obvious that we just didn't understand the aerodynamics, or aerodynamics per se, enough. I mean, there's a special kind of insect that gets to bend the laws of physics? Really?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know that reference. When I watched that movie I was just like ugh, and then I continued watching, and it just got worse.
Inception also used that myth, I think, to justify why time runs at different speed in the dream. (Which makes no sense, when they go multiple layers..)
Computers are very fast at raw, boring mathematical calculations such addition, but that doesn't transfer to entire physics simulations or human scale activities. Think about how much time it takes a large file to download/transfer, for instance. A lot of videogame design through history and continuing through the modern day is fighting to keep the physics simulation close to real time and lot of classic videogame glitches and/or bugs are when it takes longer than real time to simulate. (With the fun that the Halting Problem tells us that we'll never be certain exactly how long it takes to run algorithms, in general.)
Some people use 100% of the brain from time to time. When they do, it's called an epileptic seizure.
>Studies of brain damage: If 10 percent of the brain is normally used, then damage to other areas should not impair performance This is unbelievably naive to use as some sort of proof, using 10% does not imply that its 10% of the physical organ. Rather 10% compared to what one could do with better training, improved lifestyle, etc. And this does not have to be purely intellectual, it can be imagination capabilities,…
If you're talking about 10% of some non-physical concept of brain "potential", then you have to define, potential WHAT? Creativity? Intelligence? Speed of thought? Hand/eye coordination? Something else deemed important? All of it? None of it? How could you possibly attach a 10% potential value to any of this unless you operationalize it down to some tiny measurable part that lose the gestalt? If we're not defining the 10% as physical brain area, then the 10% proposition seems not only unlikely true but likely meaningless, a priori.