Posts by Nancy Brown11

The best way to answer if hitting kids actually creates genius is to ask if Bach this kind of music was composed while he was under the influence of corporal punishment, or if anyone would ever write such heavenly notes because of being beaten. My take? "Divine" masterpieces, like his fugues and toccatas, don't come from violence. No matter how much you lose your temper with your kid, you aren't going to turn them into someone capable of composing stuff like that through fear.

It honestly feels like Liq has no clue what I’m saying, what I'm asking, or even who I am or why I'm talking to him... at least that's my take! Not even worth flagging a moderator about it...

I mean, come on... drugs aren't just about chasing a high or seeing things. Most people actually use them for totally different reasons, and those trips are really just side effects.

I’m hoping my last post gave LIQu something solid to chew on—it’d definitely make my day if it did. Look, I know I probably went against common sense on a few points, but hey... there’s no rule saying philosophy or science has to play by those rules. Since I can’t exactly prove that every psychiatrist out there just knows this instinctively, I’ll just say the point itself isn't what matters most. What matters is that there's zero proof that what I'm suggesting is impossible.

I mean, someone might argue, "Yeah, but science *has* to work that way... it needs certain biases because you can never truly know anything for sure" (except for the fact that you can't know anything for sure, I guess), and then they'll start rambling about how "models" exist. But seriously, we're in a PHILOSOPHY forum here, so let's chill with the talk about models and "scientific methodology." That's off-topic. Philosophy is about the pursuit of truth, period. It's meant for people actually looking for what's real. Maybe the mods will let a thread about practical models slide, but even they should know they're missing the point—this is a PHILOSOPHY forum. Even science shouldn't be built on "mandatory assumptions," though judging by some of the stuff being posted here, people seem to think it's trendy to claim science is basically incapable of finding truth and only exists to build constructs out of bias. Good grief, some of the people posting here are totally clueless...

But what if this guy with all those primal urges actually MADE the choice to have them (maybe just because that's part of being alive)? If that's the case, wouldn't both sides actually have the same amount of free will?

Let me clear this up:

Libet expected conscious intent to show up before the brain's motor areas even started firing, but he found the exact opposite. That decision to act actually arrives nearly a full second after the motor regions begin prepping for movement. Your CONTROVERSIAL PART brain has already made its subconscious call to move, and you only catch wind of it once the action is already underway
.
There’s zero proof that what I marked red
in the paragraph above is actually what pulled the trigger on that decision!
Basically, there isn't any hard evidence that this "unconscious thing is the primary driver (deciding) for the action (that the action happens
)" in a physical, brain-based way.
The proof for that claim is missing because there’s no guarantee that an unconscious process—wherever it lives—has to be a physical brain function! Even so, the post just glosses over this unproven assumption, treating it like a proven fact. Then, based on that same shaky ground, they start "drawing conclusions" and "building models," eventually pivoting away from actual science toward pure "gut feeling" or common sense.

Is that claim, which gets presented as so convincing later on, actually convincing? Not to me. I don't see why a brain would bother doing something like that—what biological or material benefit could it possibly get from creating the illusion that "it wasn't me"? It would be way more efficient if everything just worked exactly as intended without trying to create these "impressions"—which would be much more impressive (much more impressive, if we follow the logic that everything is just the brain, as LIQ definitely thinks)! So, it turns out that what the post calls most "striking" is actually the least striking thing ever, and I'm not even exaggerating. It might be the easiest pill to swallow, but there’s really no good reason to serve up such nonsense or buy into it.

Secondly, the whole "voluntary" choice to move your hand and hook yourself up to electrodes just so someone can record data and draw conclusions speaks volumes about how "methodologically sound" any interpretation of this experiment really is.

So, they used common sense to jump both ways (like skipping over the question of "why does the unconscious *have* to be brain-based"). They skipped that part because people who are easily swayed by media spin often fail to realize that talking about free will isn't stifled by finding the unconscious; if anything, it makes the whole debate even wilder!

And there isn't even proof that the brain hadn't already CONSCIOUSLY decided to perform the task before those preparatory signals even started. Someone could have decided to do something, forgotten they even made the choice right before they did it, and then only realized it as they were starting. In other words, we can't rule out that possibility, and any decent psychiatrist knows (and teaches) that these kinds of "quirks" and "glitches" are totally normal parts of everyday life for "sane" people.

They’re supposed to list side effects in tiny 1000:1 doses... honestly, if anyone takes what these forum ladies say at face value, they'll end up thinking doctors are always right.

Let's see what's actually inside a standard Excedrin pill. .

And let's do a little deep dive online to see what these substances actually do and what their potential reach is...
Then you really have to stop and think about whether things are actually going down the way this lady claims.

What happens if someone takes it after using drugs, drinking alcohol, or taking Benadryl? Alcohol can multiply the effects of codeine several times over (it's common knowledge since codeine is a staple in opium, and even traditional opium tinctures are alcohol-based), whereas lemonade only bumps up the absorption slightly. Does the fine print on an Excedrin box say "don't drink lemonade beforehand"? I doubt it. And don't even get me started on how much damage regular coffee can do—people talk about caffeine-induced psychosis—let alone the pure caffeine hit found in those pills. If you mix codeine with Benadryl on top of that, you're looking at more potentiation. Plus, we're talking about a cocktail of different substances here, which means the effects are inherently unpredictable, especially when you mix an opiate (codeine) with a stimulant (caffeine)—that's basically a "speedball." Science itself admits it doesn't fully grasp all the implications of these combinations; the best it can say is that they're "unpredictable." On top of that, these "contraindications" might not even show up immediately... they could hit you 50 or 60 days later.

Basically, Excedrin is a speedball.

So, we really need to consider if it's naive to trust these forum users who claim a medication must list every single possible contraindication.

Brain and consciousness aren't the whole story, you know?

If we only focus on those two things, we're missing the bigger picture, which means our theories on motivation—and whether we actually have free will—are gonna be totally skewed. It’s like trying to explain how a car works by only looking at the steering wheel; you're ignoring the engine and the fuel entirely. Focusing solely on brain activity and conscious thought isn't a scientifically sound way to interpret experiments because it ignores the reality of the unconscious mind. We don't even know if what we call "unconscious" is just a biological necessity or if it's actually part of how we exercise our freedom. Even if it hasn't been fully proven yet, we've never actually proven the unconscious *doesn't* exist. So, while the experiments LIQ presents are solid and worth keeping an eye on, the conclusions LIQ draws from them are pretty naive and unscientific. Honestly, it's probably best to just ignore those interpretations too, using them as a "what not to do" example.

Trying to break down exactly where those interpretations veer off track and lose scientific footing would be a massive headache. It’s like trying to fix a leaky pipe using a broken wrench; language itself creates these hurdles. When you try to point out flaws to someone who's stuck using flawed logic, the gaps in communication make it nearly impossible without writing a whole damn book.

lonegardener said:I don't see how. 🤷

The whole idea of "freedom" is an absolute mystery. It feels like a subjective impression that you just can't prove or disprove through an experiment (sure, there are studies that claim to debunk free will, but I find them unconvincing). At the end of the day, you either choose to believe in freedom or you don't.

If someone believes in free will, they’ll likely argue that they *chose* to believe in it (just as others chose the opposite).

On the flip side, someone who doesn't believe in free will will say they have no choice but to feel that way—because free will doesn't exist, so there's no "decision" to be made. They simply believe because they must, just as others must believe.

Personally, I'm undecided 😬—as usual. I honestly can't tell if I'm unsure because it's predetermined, or because I've freely decided to remain indecisive. 🤣

I’m totally on board with this, except for one thing: there really are people out there who say, "Look, I don't know if free will exists, but I've decided to believe it doesn't." And honestly, there are plenty of them. But I can't get behind the idea that we can't test it through an experiment... I mean, who knows? I'd rather just say "I don't know," because truth be told, I really don't. It would be wild to try and design an experiment like that, but man, imagine everything you'd need to pull that off.

placidwolf27 said:Most people have probably heard those stories about using LSD to help folks kick an alcohol addiction
I saw this one documentary on YouTube claiming a 50% success rate, but honestly, as far as I can tell, none of that is actually verified—it could just be someone talking nonsense, as the old saying goes...

But what does the actual medical establishment say? What’s the consensus regarding psychedelic substances in general? How do they view the states they induce, what are the potential risks, and has anyone actually documented any real benefits?

What does "psychedelic" even mean, though? Like, what actually counts as a "psychedelic"? We can't really dive into this until we're all on the same page about the definition. For instance, I'm totally lost on it.

Flip it around: can we actually prove through experience that free will doesn't exist?

And would the answer to one of these questions basically dictate the answer to the other?

I’m not just asking if free will is real or not—I mean, is it even possible to provide empirical evidence regarding its absence?