Oh, Mr. Science!

[aggle-rithm]

I didn't say it was magic.

Who said it was magic?

Well, I certainly got the impression that you felt there was something other than a logical, physical explanation for it. Was I mistaken?

 

[Akhenaten]

I don't think it was the lightning strike that gave him music ability, but why did he have the desire to pursue the music after the lightning strike when he never had the desire before.

because life threatening situations make you re-assess priorities, and often make people more likely to indulge themselves in more personal pursuits.

And I say this explanation is half-baked nonsense as well.

Can you explain why this "half-baked nonsense" would be accepted by almost everyone as being perfectly reasonable? Are you proposing an even more reasonable explanation? Let's hear it.

Yes, your mind is taking waves and transferring them into thoughts like a tv.

This is simply not true, and no great amount of expertise in brain science or rocket surgery is needed to realise that.

To start with, TV sets don't transfer waves into thoughts. Just pictures and noises. Admittedly, some peoples' thoughts do consist of just pictures and noises, but it's not generally the case.

Can you please explain the "wave" nature of our sense of smell? What is the mechanism by which smell waves are transferred into thoughts?

That's just not what so-called neuroscience calls it.

There's a pretty good reason for real scientists to not talk like this. I imagine it's a credibility thing. Why do you believe that neuroscience has an alter ego?

Your mind is not just in your brain.

I'm not going to use the obvious rejoinder here, partly because it would be ad hominum, and partly because it would be anatomically incorrect.

Your brain is a vehicle for your mind. I don't see how you can't understand that this makes perfect sense.

Actually, that kind of does make sense to me, so suspend your incredulity for a minute. At least don't keep trying to argue from it.

I learned about this back in the day when I was taking 100 level psychology courses.

Perhaps you shouldn't have done so many. Just concentrating on a few might have yielded better results.

 

[chillzero]

And I say this explanation is half-baked nonsense as well.

How so?

 

[jmercer]

And I say this explanation is half-baked nonsense as well.

Can you explain why this "half-baked nonsense" would be accepted by almost everyone as being perfectly reasonable? Are you proposing an even more reasonable explanation? Let's hear it.

How so?

Please don't argue with the forum expert on half-baked nonsense. If anyone should be able to define nonsense, mayday certainly has the expertise to do so.

 

[tiger]

Yes, this is has to do with what I'm talking about.

Now wait a minute you called Neurology a so called science so is this back to being a medical thought for you or has that light bulb not turned on yet.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I don't think it was the lightning strike that gave him music ability, but why did he have the desire to pursue the music after the lightning strike when he never had the desire before.

Yes he did. Why don't you at least read your own sources? He had been playing music since he was 7. Just not the piano. Is it unusual for people with an interest in music to take up a new instrument? Not exactly.

Yes, your mind is taking waves and transferring them into thoughts like a tv.

No. [tm]

I happen to know, in detail, how waves and a TV work. Whichever way out minds work, that is not it.

Hans

 

[Marcus]

I think I get it now. Neuroscientists, being only so-called scientists, just don't have the smarts to recognize mayday's breakthrough discovery of the brain turning waves into thoughts like a tv. All that so-called science about the emergent properties of neural networks is just silly.

 

[arthwollipot]

To be fair, both light and sound can be described as waves. So when light waves hit our retinas they are translated into nerve impulses which can contribute to thought. Same with sound waves. Our eyes and our ears could be described as mechanisms by which "waves" are transmitted to our brains. I don't know of anyone who would describe them that way though.

 

[EHocking]

To be fair, both light and sound can be described as waves. So when light waves hit our retinas they are translated into nerve impulses which can contribute to thought. Same with sound waves. Our eyes and our ears could be described as mechanisms by which "waves" are transmitted to our brains. I don't know of anyone who would describe them that way though.

.... well, you could think of one, at least...

 

[tiger]

To be fair, both light and sound can be described as waves. So when light waves hit our retinas they are translated into nerve impulses which can contribute to thought. Same with sound waves. Our eyes and our ears could be described as mechanisms by which "waves" are transmitted to our brains. I don't know of anyone who would describe them that way though.

What you say can be considered true and I don't dispute your reasoning at all, and a doctor may very well explain it that way for people to understand it better. But I am not hearing those words coming from you, that neurology is a so called science.

 

[mayday]

To be fair, both light and sound can be described as waves. So when light waves hit our retinas they are translated into nerve impulses which can contribute to thought. Same with sound waves. Our eyes and our ears could be described as mechanisms by which "waves" are transmitted to our brains. I don't know of anyone who would describe them that way though.

Thank you thank you thank you!!!!!

I know exactly what I am wanting to say. Most times, though, I have a lot of trouble putting it into words.

Thank you for your objectivity.

Also, TIGER, when I said "so-called" scientists I was not trying to say neurology is not a science, rather, some scientists can get so bogged down in the details they can't see the whole picture. I dont even think many neurologists will deny that science has much more to learn about the brain, mind, etc. than is currently known.

 

[mayday]

Can you explain why this "half-baked nonsense" would be accepted by almost everyone as being perfectly reasonable? Are you proposing an even more reasonable explanation? Let's hear it.






This is simply not true, and no great amount of expertise in brain science or rocket surgery is needed to realise that.

To start with, TV sets don't transfer waves into thoughts. Just pictures and noises. Admittedly, some peoples' thoughts do consist of just pictures and noises, but it's not generally the case.

Can you please explain the "wave" nature of our sense of smell? What is the mechanism by which smell waves are transferred into thoughts?






There's a pretty good reason for real scientists to not talk like this. I imagine it's a credibility thing. Why do you believe that neuroscience has an alter ego?






I'm not going to use the obvious rejoinder here, partly because it would be ad hominum, and partly because it would be anatomically incorrect.






Actually, that kind of does make sense to me, so suspend your incredulity for a minute. At least don't keep trying to argue from it.






Perhaps you shouldn't have done so many. Just concentrating on a few might have yielded better results.

I have to be on my way to work right now, but I will get to you later. I wish I had more time to stay here. Unfortunately, all I can get in right now is bits and pieces.

I will respond to the half-baked nonsense. It was a flippant write off to something that was not as simple as a quick simplified explanation. Something significant happened there.

 

[Locknar]

A guy gets hit by lightening, has a dream of a "out of body experience", recovers, and goes on to write a song after the event.

Am I missing something here? Odd yes...anything paranormal though, no.

 

[Lucky]

I don't think it was the lightning strike that gave him music ability, but why did he have the desire to pursue the music after the lightning strike when he never had the desire before.

because life threatening situations make you re-assess priorities, and often make people more likely to indulge themselves in more personal pursuits.

chillzero, you are quite wrong – at least, according to Dr Oliver Sacks, leading (and world famous) expert in clinical neurology. I wonder why, with no knowledge whatever of neurology, or of this case, you think you are qualified to 'explain' it in one dismissive sentence.

Dr Sacks does not buy your 'explanation' of a psychological cause for the sudden obsession with (and facility for) classical music. He believes it is due to neurological damage caused by the lightning strike (though he can only guess about the precise pathology, as Tony Cicoria isn't his patient). He describes this case in his latest book Musicophilia, along with similar cases where the pathology is known (e.g. a temporal lobe tumour, epilepsy, tertiary syphilis).

Precisely how some particular type of neurological damage, which we generally understand only as an impairment, can result in a (possibly compensatory) increase of ability in some specific area, is still somewhat mysterious. We certainly know more than we would without Dr Sacks's contribution - it is his life's work.

A guy gets hit by lightening, has a dream of a "out of body experience", recovers, and goes on to write a song after the event.

Am I missing something here? Odd yes...anything paranormal though, no.

Yes, you are missing the whole fascinating story. Read Dr Sacks's book.

I didn't say it was magic.

Who said it was magic?

No, I can't see where you're supposed to have represented the Cicoria case as 'magical', or 'supernatural', either.

You seem to be interested in near-death and out-of-body experiences. So is Dr Sacks (he discusses Tony Cicoria's experiences as the probable result of cerebral anoxia, or of some more direct damage from the lightning strike). Read his book!

 

[Locknar]

Yes, you are missing the whole fascinating story. Read Dr Sacks's book.

Being a fascinating story is not the point...there is simply nothing paranormal in the story that Mayday posted.

The NDE aspect that Mayday implies is nothing more then speculation at best, a campfire story at worst. Even if we were assume it occured, this happened in totally uncontrolled surroundings, with no baselines or protocols established.

 

[tiger]

chillzero, you are quite wrong – at least, according to Dr Oliver Sacks, leading (and world famous) expert in clinical neurology. I wonder why, with no knowledge whatever of neurology, or of this case, you think you are qualified to 'explain' it in one dismissive sentence.

Dr Sacks does not buy your 'explanation' of a psychological cause for the sudden obsession with (and facility for) classical music. He believes it is due to neurological damage caused by the lightning strike (though he can only guess about the precise pathology, as Tony Cicoria isn't his patient). He describes this case in his latest book Musicophilia, along with similar cases where the pathology is known (e.g. a temporal lobe tumour, epilepsy, tertiary syphilis).

Precisely how some particular type of neurological damage, which we generally understand only as an impairment, can result in a (possibly compensatory) increase of ability in some specific area, is still somewhat mysterious. We certainly know more than we would without Dr Sacks's contribution - it is his life's work.



Yes, you are missing the whole fascinating story. Read Dr Sacks's book.



No, I can't see where you're supposed to have represented the Cicoria case as 'magical', or 'supernatural', either.

You seem to be interested in near-death and out-of-body experiences. So is Dr Sacks (he discusses Tony Cicoria's experiences as the probable result of cerebral anoxia, or of some more direct damage from the lightning strike). Read his book!

One of those so called neurologists said that????

 

[MRC_Hans]

*snip*
Dr Sacks does not buy your 'explanation' of a psychological cause for the sudden obsession with (and facility for) classical music. He believes it is due to neurological damage caused by the lightning strike *snip*

Well, that is indeed quite possible. There are numerous verifiable accounts of people having personality changes as a result of brain trauma.

However, the whole point is that this is nothing mysterious; in fact, it very much supports a materilistic view of the brain as a physical seat of the personality, the ego.

Another important point made here is that Tony Cicoria did not aquire some ability he had not had before. If he was changed, it was in the way that his interest changed focus, and he started using his, already existing, musical skills in a different way.

Hans

 

[chillzero]

chillzero, you are quite wrong – at least, according to Dr Oliver Sacks, leading (and world famous) expert in clinical neurology. I wonder why, with no knowledge whatever of neurology, or of this case, you think you are qualified to 'explain' it in one dismissive sentence.

Really?
I have experience of life threatening situations and how they alter a person's perception. Even if I hadn't, I was identifying a known, non-mysterious possibility and speaking in general terms also.

Dr Sacks does not buy your 'explanation' of a psychological cause for the sudden obsession with (and facility for) classical music.

Dr Sacks read my post and used it as a basis for theory? Wow.

He believes it is due to neurological damage caused by the lightning strike (though he can only guess about the precise pathology, as Tony Cicoria isn't his patient). He describes this case in his latest book Musicophilia, along with similar cases where the pathology is known (e.g. a temporal lobe tumour, epilepsy, tertiary syphilis).

Precisely how some particular type of neurological damage, which we generally understand only as an impairment, can result in a (possibly compensatory) increase of ability in some specific area, is still somewhat mysterious. We certainly know more than we would without Dr Sacks's contribution - it is his life's work.

I agree, as does MRC_Hans that neurological damage is a possibility. I sincerely doubt it's the ony one. Even if it is, I still fail to see how this would support the non-scientific paranormal element being presented here.

So... he makes assumptions about a case that is not his own, about a patient that is not his own, about a pathology that he has no sight of. And yet you want me to take his word as absolute proof that a man who was hit by lightning didn't just decide that returning to a pleasant pasttime he used to enjoy would be something he'd find beneficial?

 

[Akhenaten]

chillzero, you are quite wrong – at least, according to Dr Oliver Sacks, leading (and world famous) expert in clinical neurology. I wonder why, with no knowledge whatever of neurology, or of this case, you think you are qualified to 'explain' it in one dismissive sentence.

Dismissive? In any case, Chillzero's statement is verifiable by anyone with eyes, ears and a few years under his or her belt. Dr Oliver needs to get out more.

BTW. "world famous" and "clinical neurology" probably don't belong in the same sentence, even if it's intended to help with an appeal to authority.

 

[arthwollipot]

Thank you thank you thank you!!!!!

I know exactly what I am wanting to say. Most times, though, I have a lot of trouble putting it into words.

Thank you for your objectivity.

Be careful not to make the mistake of thinking that I'm actually agreeing with you.