@vincentkennedy @phaethon
Here's the TT version of the article :)
Pseudoscience with no basis in neuroscience, physics or anatomy. Right & Left Hemisphere Synchronization: the limbic system—which includes the amygdalae and hippocampi and is involved in functions such as emotion and memory—resides on both sides of the brain.
Electricity - The brain consumes 20% of the body's energy at 10 times the rate of the rest of the body per gram of tissue. The average power consumption of a typical adult is 100 Watts and the brain consumes 20% of this making the power of the brain 20 W.
THE GATEWAY IS BS.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/left-brain-right-br
This is wrong in three fundamental ways, I'll let you figure it out.
No, I don't need to do ANYTHING. if you have rebuttal, the burden of proof is on you.
5/3 - And so here you are, not only you made a sore display of your fickle temperament by being mean, dismissive, imperative and arrogant over what I assume you describe as freedom. But you pushed me, mostly against my will, to rob you from you the opportunity to think about this and learn it on your own; in a more intimately and long-lasting fundamental way. A way that would have opened more than mere factual information but also an opportunity to refine your epistemic abilities.
4/3 And so. you are using science as a "bludgeonning tool of truth" to discretit an hypothesis about a new phenomena.
This actually goes against the paradigm of falsification of science and this attitude itself is unscientific.
A proper attitude would be: I think this is highly unlikely and instead of refuting it at the measure of "muh science so bullshit" you would, by scientific necessity, put your current scientific model in question.
3/3 The goal of this paper is to explain the nature and function of an unknown phenomena. Science could, if you are dealing with a mechanistic ecosystem, explain function. But it could never explain nature.
Being that science is neither affected or even could establish conclusions about nature, it would be completely false to then discredit an explanation about the nature of something in the basis that it is not scientific
2/3 - As a follow up, by claiming that there is no known scientific facts to support his claim, you imply that science, in order to grow, needs science. If your argument is correct, science could not exist for lack of having an initial prior science to support it.
Past the problem of origins of science itself, you have the same problem with discoveries. Say science started with geometry, how then could you use your known geometric science to explain chemistry?
If what you hold is true, science could neither exist or evolve.
If you want to adopt the least advantageous road for you so be it, I will explain my point.
I will split these in 3 posts if you don't mind.
1/3 - If you read the document, the author clearly states that he can not use a scientific model and will borrow from quantum physics in order to explain the functions, etc.
The basis of your argument is that this is not scientific therefore it's bullshit.
This implies that everything can be explained through science.
You're a fucking idiot. Sounds like you WANT to be smart. You are not impressive. IT IS BULLSHIT. Quantum Theory IS A BRANCH OF THEORETICAL PHYSICS, WHICH IS SCIENCE. You just stated a paradox. Have youbstufied QED? Do you know who Max Planck, Werner Heisenberg, and Erwin Schrödinger are? How is using Quantum Theory NOT a scientific model? Do you even know what the scientific method is? BOTTOM LINE: THERE IS ZERO PROOF THAT SUCH A PROPOSITION OR METHOD WORKS. Where do you get this unsound logic from?
