Hypoxia – 4 of spades

At UD this claim was made:

Neither rocks nor human brains dream. Only the mind/soul dreams. The human body is a diving suit, specifically designed to be operational by conscious/subconscious intent – meaning, an individualized consciousness (mind/soul) can use it to functionally operate in the physical world. A rock has no such capacity for service.

I have to wonder how what this video depicts can be squared with that.

Hypoxia – 4 of spades

During hypobaric chamber, or altitude chamber training, #14 displayed symptoms of hypoxia, after exceeding his time of useful consciousness (TUC).

What does the (mind/soul) bring to the party that hypoxia disrupts?

I’ve been fascinated by this video since I first saw it. It’s like the mind get’s trapped in a “loop”. But if the physical brain is just being used,  hypoxia must somehow be making it’s way “back up” the channel the mind/soul is using and confusing that too? As it’s not as if when normality is restored the mind/soul notices the disruption. It happened on “both sides” exactly the same, or so it seems.

Perhaps our memory of the event is being back-filled after the event. I hope someone more experienced in such matters can enlighten.

129 thoughts on “Hypoxia – 4 of spades

  1. When people are held responsible by their fellow commenters, the results can be quite revealing.

    Walto has been flinging accusations right and left in this thread, but watch what happens when OMagain holds him responsible:

    OMagain:

    But, personally, I’d prefer it that if you are going to call someone a liar just make it plain what you are calling them out on, explain it! I can’t quite see it (an edit was/was not made? huh?)

    walto:

    I get what you’re saying, OMagain, but I’ve been down that road. It’s an exercise in futility. It makes for long, convoluted, uninteresting posts. Torturous really (like a couple of Butler’s books on Darwin).

    Walto doesn’t mind making accusations, but when asked to back them up, he suddenly loses interest. He’s been down that road and didn’t find it very rewarding. It’s much easier to make unfounded accusations.

    The people who have strong, well-thought-out positions are happy to be held responsible for them. It’s the bluffers who get nervous when they hear the words ‘responsibility’ and ‘evidence’.

    How about answering OMagain’s question, walto? You made the accusation. Can you back it up, or are you bluffing?

  2. Patrick: “I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they’ve always worked for me.”
    – Hunter S. Thompson

    Best answer so far.

    Maybe more poetry would help, too.

  3. keiths,

    I already answered OMagain’s question, masterbaiter. Maybe that’s another post of mine you mysteriously missed–like when I said that my suggestion that inane posts (like yours!) be highlighted in orange was not in earnest or when I said that I was not interested in more moderation or (the many) when I have asked you questions that it would be uncomfortable for you to answer because any truthful answers would make it even clearer (if that’s actually possible) what a pretentious dick you are.

    But I’ll answer his question again, as you insist.

    I get what you’re saying, OMagain, but I’ve been down that road. It’s an exercise in futility. It makes for long, convoluted, uninteresting posts. Torturous really (like a couple of Butler’s books on Darwin).

    You know, somebody asks a question, which is not answered. Then, when it’s asked again, there’s a huffy response that it’s already been answered, along with several links to other stuff having little to do with that question. Or there’s a subtle modification of something that one has written along with links to more irrelevant stuff. It’s not interesting enough for anybody but the principals to care enough about to read–a fact which is depended upon by one of the parties. (Actually, that affected the snoresville response to those books of Butler’s–in spite of the fact that he was a much more interesting guy than anybody here.)

    It’s a lot of trouble for anybody who doesn’t really enjoy these spats, even when it’s enjoyed by the other party. Anyhow, trust me, it wouldn’t make the posts more enjoyable.

    BTW, since your last bait, I’ve recalled a couple of other English words of which you don’t seem to fully get the English meanings:

    Responsible (and “Responsibility”)
    Acknowledge
    Honest
    Mistake
    Error
    Ought
    Argument
    Prove
    Fabricate
    Regress

    These words actually already have meanings. One has to stretch them beyond all sense to make the sentences you use them in have any chance of being true.

  4. walto: I already answered OMagain’s question, masterbaiter.

    Actually my question was just specifically about the “lie” accusation, and to my mind you have not answered it, just said why you are not going to answer it. But I’m not going to press you on it, if that’s your answer then that’s your answer and people can judge for themselves.

  5. For those want this absurd dialog continued, other than you–I can’t imagine that there are any such (it seems like whining to me), but you’re so insistent! Here are some questions you have not answered:

    Does the truth of an explanans require the truth of its explandum? (And, if so, has altruism in ants been shown to have (or if you prefer “to require”) a genetic explanation?

    Did you or did you not see the post in which I said my orange highlighting remark was not in earnest before posting a link to my prior, joking suggestion?

    How is a “why” question one can’t or prefers not to answer a “regress”?

    How is an ought statement that is derived from a definition of some goods and an empirical statement referring to such good “free-floating”?

    Why does Gralgrathor not object to be called “Gral,” and did I laugh when you called me “Walt”–but ‘keiths” may not be shortened to “keit”?

    Why was your “Yids” post not reprehensible?

    What is your purpose in posting here?

    I truly believe that (a) OMagain and everybody else (including your hugging friend) will agree with me that this list (and this post, generally) is unpleasant, boring, and not what this site is for; but I’m also certain that (b) you will press me to post it again and again and again. I really don’t know why you like this stuff: it’s so fucking irritating.

    Finally, I thought y’all might be interested in hearing that for those of us who have never crossed paths with the founding Lizzie, the references to her seem very much like references to Godot in a certain play.

    Everything will be fine once Lizzie comes back!

  6. walto,

    I can see you’re riled up by Keith – but he’s got the rainman-like focus of interest that allows him to keep correlating, linking and quoting his, your and everybody else’s comments, using them against you – and everybody else, for that matter.

    So responding to his

    O really? Prove it!

    with

    I don’t really want to; proof is boring.

    is probably not the best way to come to some kind of resolution…

    Keith,

    Sorry, Keith, but you’re generating almost as much traffic with your insistence as phoodoo does with his trolling, and it isn’t going anywhere, no matter who’s right, hence me butting in.

    Do you think it would help if I got some more ID-ots/creationists to post dumb comments here? To move your attention away from this futile bickering?

  7. OMagain: Actually my question was just specifically about the “lie” accusation, and to my mind you have not answered it, just said why you are not going to answer it.But I’m not going to press you on it, if that’s your answer then that’s your answer and people can judge for themselves.

    I hadn’t seen that when I made my last post, and I’m a little surprised you actually want more of this stuff, but OK, the lie I was referring to was that two of the questions I’d asked had been “already addressed” by some stuff that doesn’t address them at all.

    The thing is, HE knows very well what we’re talking about each time he tweaks me or I tweak him. Nobody else is likely to know or care. I believe it was Patrick who said that meta-posts (like this one) are bad. I agree with him. But again, I’m not going to stop unless keit does (and he won’t–or can’t).

  8. walto: I hadn’t seen that when I made my last post, and I’m a little surprised you actually want more of this stuff, but OK, the lie I was referring to was that two of the questions I’d asked had been “already addressed” by some stuff that doesn’t address them at all.

    OK.

  9. Gralgrathor,

    ‘rainman-like’ </i>
    Gral, as I've mentioned to Neil, I mildly object to this medicalization of what is really lawyerly prickishness (if that's what you were doing there.) Also, IIRC, in the movie the rainman got stuff right.

  10. walto,

    I have already addressed your accusations, as anyone can see by following the links I’ve provided. Why do you insist on injecting your obsession into thread after thread?

    Gralgrathor,

    I’m sure this is as boring to you and to everyone else as it is to me. However, I do not begrudge commenters the right to defend themselves. After all, I can skip over the comments I find boring, and so can you.

    I didn’t object to the “traffic” you “generated” when you got riled up in your exchange with phoodoo — he was being a jerk and I figured you had the right to respond. I just didn’t find it very interesting, so I skipped over most of it.

  11. keiths,

    Actually, you either don’t know what “address” means or you’re lying, because you most certainly have NOT addressed them: you’ve weaseled and posted irrelevancies [NB: neither of those is the same thing as actually answering a question]. Furthermore, you KNOW this goddam well: that’s much of what is so frustrating about dealing with you.

  12. Instead of posting (irrelevant) links, I encourage you to simply answer my questions right here.

  13. Let it go, walto. File this with your other imaginary grievances and obsess over them if you must, but spare the rest of us.

  14. Strike “imaginary,” change “obsess over” to “think of,” and rewrite “the rest of us” as “me,” and I’ll be perfectly happy to oblige. Let’s see if you can do this.

  15. keiths: and so can you

    I can’t. It’s like a soap. You know you hate it, but once you’ve seen 2 minutes you start wondering who’s going to have an affair with whom next.

  16. I note that my rewrite is completely neutral; grievances may be justified or silly, and we may think of something sensible or stupid (we may even be obsessing!) But you don’t really want to “let it go”–you prefer to keep your post in its original insulting version rather than accept a completely neutral truce. Because, and this is the point, you LIKE this stuff.

    This is a good example of why diplomatic discussions often go nowhere. It doesn’t help if one party is willing to “let things go.” Reasoned discussions require ALL parties to be reasonable.

  17. Gralgrathor: I can’t. It’s like a soap. You know you hate it, but once you’ve seen 2 minutes you start wondering who’s going to have an affair with whom next.

    I don’t want to give anything away, but I hug I recently got here was really nice.

  18. Gralgrathor,

    I can’t. It’s like a soap. You know you hate it, but once you’ve seen 2 minutes you start wondering who’s going to have an affair with whom next.

    I can guarantee that I will not be having an affair with walto.

    Back to Genes in Conflict, young man. You can watch Honey Boo Boo after you finish the next chapter.

  19. walto:
    keit,

    Let it go.

    hmm, walto, I think it’s time for you to re-start using “keiths” as his nym; after all, he’s got “walto” correct.

    Fair’s fair.

  20. I’m happy to do so, hotshoe. But, as I’ve said, I had no problem with him calling me “Walt”–I just thought it was funny. And Gralgrathor doesn’t mind being called “Gral” so far as I know. (Do you mind being called “hot”?) keit is just a diminutive for whatever “keiths” is.

    But as I’m letting bygones be bygones (even if he can’t), I’ve probably now used “keit” about as often as he used “Walt,” and he obviously doesn’t like it [maybe he needs a hug too??], I guess I can stop now. Is “keith” alright, do you think or do I have to go with the entire “keiths”?

  21. BTW, hotshoe, I value your opinion on this sort of thing: do you think my request for a rewrite of

    “Let it go, walto. File this with your other imaginary grievances and obsess over them if you must, but spare the rest of us.”

    to

    “Let it go, walto. File this with your other grievances and think of them if you must, but spare me.”

    was neutral/fair, or was I asking for too much?

  22. walto:
    I’m happy to do so, hotshoe. But, as I’ve said, I had no problem with him calling me “Walt”–I just thought it was funny.And Gralgrathor doesn’t mind being called “Gral”so far as I know.(Do you mind being called “hot”?)keit is just a diminutive for whatever “keiths” is.

    But as I’m letting bygones be bygones (even if he can’t), I’ve probably now used “keit” about as often as he used “Walt,” and he obviously doesn’t like it [maybe he needs a hug too??], I guess I can stop now.Is “keith” alright, do you think or do I have to go with the entire “keiths”?

    Uh, yeah, you have to go with the entire “keiths”. That’s his chosen nym.

    And if you ever call me “hot” I’ll have to hunt you down IRL and burn you.

    Let’s be friends instead.

    Hugs,
    — hotshoe

  23. walto:
    BTW, hotshoe, I value your opinion on this sort of thing:do you think my request for a rewrite of

    “Let it go, walto. File this with your other imaginary grievances and obsess over them if you must, but spare the rest of us.”

    to

    “Let it go, walto. File this with your other grievances and think of them if you must, but spare me.”

    was neutral/fair, or was I asking for too much?

    Yep, your version is neutral/fair.

    Hmm, sounds like a D&D alignment:

    Neutral Good

    A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them.

    Neutral good is the best alignment you can be because it means doing what is good without bias for or against order.

    Neutral good can be a dangerous alignment when it advances mediocrity by limiting the actions of the truly capable..

    Interestingly, they go on to say:

    The ideal government for this alignment is any social order in which altruism is rewarded and radical egoism is punished. Neutral good beings want the power of the state to be used for the benefit of all without sacrificing individual freedom. Rehabilitative justice is used to reform criminals and evil-doers.

    http://easydamus.com/alignment.html

    Seems relevant to some of the recent discussions about moderation here.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.