Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I. If I hack into your highest military database, I control your missile defense system and all operations you're running. If I hack into thousands of your networks using self-recalibrating automated subroutines, I run your whole economic infrastructure on top of the aforementioned seizure of governmental operations.

II. I prevent this from happening to my nation by putting all networks into self-adapting, self-evolving automated firewalls that will take any hacker millions of years to crack due to the pure algorithmic complexity to trace the program's source while the firewall is rerouting it from said source 20 trillion times per second.

China will still win.

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
China will still win. 中国将永远是赢家。

Why is this military database connected to the internet?

Originally posted by Dolos
I. If I hack into your highest military database, I control your missile defense system and all operations you're running. If I hack into thousands of your networks using self-recalibrating automated subroutines, I run your whole economic infrastructure on top of the aforementioned seizure of governmental operations.

That's not how it works.

There exists and entire area of Cyber and Physical Security known as "Secure System Controls". These integrate PLCs, VPNs, firewalls, and isolated networks that literally cannot communicate to anything outside their network because it is physically impossible to connect (no Wi-Fi, physical connection points, and a physically isolated network).

The idea that anyone could "hack" into a missile network and launch some of the US ICBMs with 10+ Megaton Warheads is not only preposterous, it is fear-mongering.


To put it more directly, the missiles cannot be launched without several authentication mechanisms being hacked AND physical interaction. So unless a hacker cannot only hack all layers of security (hilariously impossible even with every single computing device in the world being used at once to brute force hack one or more of those layers: we are talking hundreds of trillions of years required for just one layer) but also be at the physical controls (which are completely isolated and require you get past isolated authentication mechanisms, physical security measures, automated security measures, and several layers of human security).




Here's a story: one of my college mentors was hired by the Navy to both hack and "socially engineer" his way into a secure naval facility. It was the type of facility that was not even "top-secret" secured. He made his way into the facility and got as far as being able to physically touch a switch closet (which required him to get passed 3 layers of physical security including "picking" a lock..let's forget about the cameras...he did not go into details how he got around that). This project of his took 2 months of planning to execute, insider knowledge of his target from top-level Naval Officers (because they hired him to do this as part of a secure audit process that routinely tests their security), and his years of experience of hacking and infiltrating secure facilities.

Here's what happened when he got to a switch closet to start some of his real hacking: he ended up with a gun in his back by a guard. Based on how he tells the story, he was pretty dang close to getting shot to death (being shot vs. being shot with the specific purpose of killing the target is obviously different). He had to have his orders on his physical person. If he reached for them, he would have been shot. There was a particular procedure he had to complete that got him out of that situation (I believe it was announcing his name, assignment, and orders).

Then the guard's CO? arrived to pick up and confirm his orders (they were called in and he was the picked up and "debriefed". He was caught because he did something/ANYTHING to the switches which set off security servce. This "network state" is monitored by IDS/IPS.





This is at a lower-level military facility. The security measures at a nuke weapons facility will be much higher: possibly the most secure facilities, in the world.


I hope that clears up any notion you had that "hacking nukes" was feasible: it's just Hollywood Bullsh*t. An infinite amount of 0-Days will never get you into a network that is physically isolated from the rest of the world.


TL: DR America! F*** YEAH! estahuh

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Why is this military database connected to the internet?

Because this is Hollywood? rofl

Solution to hacking isolated networks = EMP projectile launched from hypersonic stealth craft and detonated near the facility, followed by an altered reboot that gives you access.

Solution operating manual switches required = Recon seal team with access to tech that can jam signals allowing for alteration of the aforementioned reboot of nuclear systems. They'd be there for weeks in secret during the recalibration of the nuclear launch codes and systems.

This is the amalgamation of the Air Force Collaboratory, Navy, Cyber Security, the Bureau of Central Intelligence, and the CIA - and a small part of what would go down in a WW3 setting.

When AI can be integrated into the human brain this whole operation doesn't have to be the product an amalgamation of advanced military branches, but can be run by one Cyber Specialist (should pull in yearly earnings of about a billion $) who has control over several bodies and minds through his Super Program designed on a 20 exaflop nanoserver platform with femto-scale quantum-entanglement integrated circuitry.

Originally posted by Dolos
When AI can be integrated into the human brain this whole operation doesn't have to be the product an amalgamation of advanced military branches, but can be run by one Cyber Specialist (should pull in yearly earnings of about a billion $) who has control over several bodies and minds through his Super Program designed on a 20 exaflop nanoserver platform with femto-scale quantum-entanglement integrated circuitry.

/smh

why does this person need access to America's nuclear arsenal?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I hope that clears up any notion you had that "hacking nukes" was feasible: it's just Hollywood Bullsh*t. An infinite amount of 0-Days will never get you into a network that is physically isolated from the rest of the world.

IIRC America's nuclear control is built into a mountain, itself capable of withstanding direct nuclear explosions.

That being said, in the 70s (I think) they found out that for years one of the codes to launch the nukes was still the factory default of 00000 or something.

Or you could just drop a gray goo caterpillar that completely corrupts any of those archaic systems. But that's next century's tech.

so, when you say "cyber warfare", what you really mean is "science fiction technology used against modern military targets"?

Originally posted by Oliver North
so, when you say "cyber warfare", what you really mean is "science fiction technology used against modern military targets"? More like, "next decades tech against military targets a decade from now."

Oh, that's right. Little bit of a pick up. Almost violates thermodynamics, but it doesn't need to do these things actually not when you have programs and ICT advanced enough.

Originally posted by Dolos
Solution to hacking isolated networks = EMP projectile launched from hypersonic stealth craft and detonated near the facility, followed by an altered reboot that gives you access.

Solution operating manual switches required = Recon seal team with access to tech that can jam signals allowing for alteration of the aforementioned reboot of nuclear systems. They'd be there for weeks in secret during the recalibration of the nuclear launch codes and systems.

This is the amalgamation of the Air Force Collaboratory, Navy, Cyber Security, the Bureau of Central Intelligence, and the CIA - and a small part of what would go down in a WW3 setting.

When AI can be integrated into the human brain this whole operation doesn't have to be the product an amalgamation of advanced military branches, but can be run by one Cyber Specialist (should pull in yearly earnings of about a billion $) who has control over several bodies and minds through his Super Program designed on a 20 exaflop nanoserver platform with femto-scale quantum-entanglement integrated circuitry.

Yeah, its amazing what future technology will be like when you're making it up off the top of your head.

Originally posted by Dolos
Or you could just drop a gray goo caterpillar that completely corrupts any of those archaic systems. But that's next century's tech.

In the future where gray goo caterpillars exist, there will also exist anti gray goo caterpillars, or AGGCs for short

Originally posted by Robtard
In the future where gray goo caterpillars exist, there will also exist anti gray goo caterpillars, or AGGCs for short No just nanite automatons (IE caterpillar) wired to a different system that attempt to assimilate enemy nanite automatons. Same principle.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yeah, its amazing what future technology will be like when you're making it up off the top of your head. Technology will find a way do horrific things. Cyber security is increasingly integral <- that's what I'm trying to instill.

*We're innovative beings and we will create war technologies that will be capable of shocking the world.

STFU guys, he hacked the interwebz, now the missiles are his. Also your baby monitor at home, cause magic.

Originally posted by Dolos
Solution to hacking isolated networks = EMP projectile launched from hypersonic stealth craft and detonated near the facility, followed by an altered reboot that gives you access.

Solution to EMP: Faraday cages...which are present even on ICBMs (yeah...they are shielded from powerful EMP bursts that come from special nuke explosions, even mid-flight).

Originally posted by Dolos
Solution operating manual switches required = Recon seal team with access to tech that can jam signals allowing for alteration of the aforementioned reboot of nuclear systems. They'd be there for weeks in secret during the recalibration of the nuclear launch codes and systems.

A "recon seal team"? lol, the US is going to fight itself, eh? On top of that, how is a seal team supposed to get past all the physical security measures which are designed specially to prevent people from getting passed them including recon seal teams?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Solution to EMP: Faraday cages...which are present even on ICBMs (yeah...they are shielded from powerful EMP bursts that come from special nuke explosions, even mid-flight).

I was unaware of "Faraday cages". This is interesting.





Nano-scopic cameras and sensors covering every inch of the body, projecting an image of what's behind said recon operative. They cannot be seen. As for getting past sensors, in said scenario (without faraday cages in mind), they're down along with everything else.

Solution to Faraday cages = carbon-buckeyball nano-drills released from hand-thrown discs (by recon ops) or penny-sized devices put on surface of cage (depending on size) will degradate it without it being visibly known (swiss cheese: microscopic holes covering most of surface area), making the switches and networks vulnerable to high atmosphere nuclear EMP bursts of projectiles launched from low-orbit hypersonic stealth crafts with necessary reaction speed and precision (again from faster, more precise automated targeting systems).

Originally posted by Dolos
Nano-scopic cameras and sensors covering every inch of the body, projecting an image of what's behind said recon operative. They cannot be seen.

Except for those pesky sonar and infrared cameras.

Originally posted by Dolos
Solution to Faraday cages = nano-drills will degradate it without it being visibly known, making the switches and networks vulnerable to high atmosphere nuclear EMP bursts of projectiles launched from low-orbit hypersonic stealth jets with necessary targeting speed and precision (again from better integrated circuit technologies).

Except the "field integrity" sensors that would detect the drilling, even at the microscopic level.

Nothing's insoluble so we could do this all day.

Will you accuse me of being less than pragmatic with the solutions I create? So far so good before your reply, or no?

inimalist, you're an excellent empirical-sceptic but your field is psychology so quit trying to hate. You too, Bardock, I don't care what you've studied, one hater at a time. I'm only one man, for now. Talking to you as well, SC.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Solution to EMP: Faraday cages...which are present even on ICBMs (yeah...they are shielded from powerful EMP bursts that come from special nuke explosions, even mid-flight).

I'll just point out again that American nuclear command is built into a mountain, or, something that is not known to carry electromagnetic signals very well.

Originally posted by Dolos
I was unaware of "Faraday cages".


Are you ****ing kidding me?

Originally posted by Dolos
inimalist, you're an excellent empirical-sceptic but your field is psychology so quit trying to hate.

and what field do you have a Master's degree in?

well, sure, and here is a psychology related question:

if you had access to the technology you are describing being used to attack the American nuclear facilities, why do you need the nukes? They would be a step backwards in warfare capability.

Originally posted by Dolos
Talking to you as well, SC.

I dunno, the fact that I know more about this than you despite it not being my field makes you look pretty bad.

Originally posted by Dolos
I was unaware of "Faraday cages". This is interesting.

You're a futurist and you're not aware of behavior of electrical fields?

http://i1179.photobucket.com/albums/x381/istoryahe/mj-laughing.gif
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m0njd2ZttQ1r0gbnl.gif
http://weknowgifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/charlton-heston-laughing-gif.gif
http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view5/3539315/jim-carrey-laugh-o.gif
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_me5mhvEjR31qcfi9c.gif
http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view3/1471113/joker-laughing-gif-o.gif
at this thread.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I dunno, the fact that I know more about this than you despite it not being my field makes you look pretty bad.?
It's not his field either, so he ends up looking bad either ways.

Originally posted by Dolos
Nothing's insoluble so we could do this all day.

Will you accuse me of being less than pragmatic with the solutions I create? So far so good before your reply, or no?

You can pretend stuff about future tech all you want: notice I have not commented on those. Just the "current" stuff you've talked about.

Originally posted by Oliver North
and what field do you have a Master's degree in?

I really dislike that I cannot say this, currently. However, I won't say it when I can..in...about...1 year and 3 months. estahuh

Originally posted by Oliver North
and what field do you have a Master's degree in?

well, sure, and here is a psychology related question:

if you had access to the technology you are describing being used to attack the American nuclear facilities, why do you need the nukes? They would be a step backwards in warfare capability. First of all, I'm not attacking any particular nation in my scenario. How so? The destructive capacity of nukes or bioweapons are not surpassed by AI that cannot be forced into minds without consent. I'm not talking about setting the nukes free here, I'm talking about protecting life by seizing control of them. They'll never be launched.

My field is snide remarks, and I excel at it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
My field is snide remarks, and I excel at it.

That's my field, too. But I visio and word at it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I really dislike that I cannot say this, currently. However, I won't say it when I can..in...about...1 year and 3 months. estahuh

to be fair, I've also never used it to try and stifle criticism of my points, and even with Dolos, there are several times I've posted far more than needed in an attempt to try and explain my points better to him.

I only mention it because he was attempting to dismiss everyone because they didn't have the necessary expertise, which he obviously doesn't have. As it stands, it was close to him attempting to use my education as a reason why I shouldn't participate in his thread.

I said one at a time.

You know you're always welcome in my threads Oliver.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You can pretend stuff about future tech all you want: notice I have not commented on those. Just the "current" stuff you've talked about.



I really dislike that I cannot say this, currently. However, I won't say it when I can..in...about...1 year and 3 months. estahuh
In three years I'll have a Master's in Creative Writing...


...and I'll be more qualified to talk about the sciences than Dolos. g_serious

Originally posted by Oliver North
and what field do you have a Master's degree in?



Dolos' field is super-science. /pwned

Originally posted by Dolos
I said one at a time.

You know you're always welcome in my threads Oliver.

You know, opening a thread doesn't give you any special power about who participates in it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You know, opening a thread doesn't give you any special power about who participates in it. Careful, he'll cyber warfare your ass if you offend him.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Careful, he'll cyber warfare your ass if you offend him.

He doesn't know what a Faraday cage is, and most of his ideas are slight variations of Asimov short stories, I think I'll be alright.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's not how it works.

There exists and entire area of Cyber and Physical Security known as "Secure System Controls". These integrate PLCs, VPNs, firewalls, and isolated networks that literally cannot communicate to anything outside their network because it is physically impossible to connect (no Wi-Fi, physical connection points, and a physically isolated network).

The idea that anyone could "hack" into a missile network and launch some of the US ICBMs with 10+ Megaton Warheads is not only preposterous, it is fear-mongering.


To put it more directly, the missiles cannot be launched without several authentication mechanisms being hacked AND physical interaction. So unless a hacker cannot only hack all layers of security (hilariously impossible even with every single computing device in the world being used at once to brute force hack one or more of those layers: we are talking hundreds of trillions of years required for just one layer) but also be at the physical controls (which are completely isolated and require you get past isolated authentication mechanisms, physical security measures, automated security measures, and several layers of human security).




Here's a story: one of my college mentors was hired by the Navy to both hack and "socially engineer" his way into a secure naval facility. It was the type of facility that was not even "top-secret" secured. He made his way into the facility and got as far as being able to physically touch a switch closet (which required him to get passed 3 layers of physical security including "picking" a lock..let's forget about the cameras...he did not go into details how he got around that). This project of his took 2 months of planning to execute, insider knowledge of his target from top-level Naval Officers (because they hired him to do this as part of a secure audit process that routinely tests their security), and his years of experience of hacking and infiltrating secure facilities.

Here's what happened when he got to a switch closet to start some of his real hacking: he ended up with a gun in his back by a guard. Based on how he tells the story, he was pretty dang close to getting shot to death (being shot vs. being shot with the specific purpose of killing the target is obviously different). He had to have his orders on his physical person. If he reached for them, he would have been shot. There was a particular procedure he had to complete that got him out of that situation (I believe it was announcing his name, assignment, and orders).

Then the guard's CO? arrived to pick up and confirm his orders (they were called in and he was the picked up and "debriefed". He was caught because he did something/ANYTHING to the switches which set off security servce. This "network state" is monitored by IDS/IPS.





This is at a lower-level military facility. The security measures at a nuke weapons facility will be much higher: possibly the most secure facilities, in the world.


I hope that clears up any notion you had that "hacking nukes" was feasible: it's just Hollywood Bullsh*t. An infinite amount of 0-Days will never get you into a network that is physically isolated from the rest of the world.


TL: DR America! F*** YEAH! estahuh



Because this is Hollywood? rofl


Nicely put. Some of what you say is a bit off, but not so much that there is any need to correct any of it. Nicely put.

Originally posted by Robtard
Dolos' field is super-science. /pwned Omniscience.

I truly believe I have more brain cells than any human being based on introspective analyses on my inherent mega-memory and how it works compared to other peoples'. I don't have the patience to stick to anything, that's why I'd be a terrible scientist, my focus splinters immediately, I can't seem to change that behaviorally, I need chemical re-wiring. If I get this adderall prescribed I'll be able to access my faculties and with enough synaptogenesis I'll have a PhD before any of you, learning will be exponential until I achieve my ognitive peak in 5 years.

If I don't get it, I will be angry.

I have total recall in regards to learned material beyond just photographic or sensual experience. Material is retained from age 4 and up. For instance, I was never in my first house's back yard since before four years old, so I have no memory of that back yard, I've tested the limits of my memory in this way. My mother (IQ of 140) cannot recall buying my first toy boat or quizzing me on spelling in one specific instance, but I can. But I remember learning about the universe from my mom showing me this picture on her computer. I remember everything, even when I've consumed as much alcohol as others, to the brink of incapacitation, I maintain my total recall and only one other person I know out of 6 maintained even fragments of that situation so far. Captain Morgan helps me type and comprehend spelling (I'd assume by blocking dopamine and neropinephrine re-uptake, as my main issue is focus). Yet I kept all of it. I'm aware and still meta-cognizant (thinking about my actions) when extremely drunk, to the point of fluid comprehension and effective communication with someone sober. My issue is short-term memory, in remembering names once I've effectively remembered a name it's never forgotten, but before that point I'll always confuse names.

Originally posted by Stoic
Nicely put. Some of what you say is a bit off, but not so much that there is any need to correct any of it. Nicely put.

Please correct anything that was mistaken. I don't know everything nor am I privy to everything because it is classified well beyond my clearance.

Obviously, if you have some experience in the military that involved nuclear weapons, you could only say so much. So just say what you can to the point it corrects the things I stated. I'm naturally just curious, too.


Originally posted by Dolos
I have total recall in regards to learned material beyond just photographic or sensual experience. Material is retained from age 4 and up. For instance, I was never in my first house's back yard since before four years old, so I have no memory of that back yard, I've tested the limits of my memory in this way. My mother (IQ of 140) cannot recall buying my first toy boat or quizzing me on spelling in one specific instance, but I can. But I remember learning about the universe from my mom showing me this picture on her computer. I remember everything, even when I've consumed as much alcohol as others, to the brink of incapacitation, I maintain my total recall and only one other person I know out of 6 maintained even fragments of that situation so far. Captain Morgan helps me type and comprehend spelling (I'd assume by blocking dopamine and neropinephrine re-uptake, as my main issue is focus). Yet I kept all of it. I'm aware and still meta-cognizant (thinking about my actions) when extremely drunk, to the point of fluid comprehension and effective communication with someone sober. My issue is short-term memory, in remembering names once I've effectively remembered a name it's never forgotten, but before that point I'll always confuse names.

Cool. I sent you a PM.

Oh god, another Vitus.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Please correct anything that was mistaken. I don't know everything nor am I privy to everything because it is classified well beyond my clearance.

Obviously, if you have some experience in the military that involved nuclear weapons, you could only say so much. So just say what you can to the point it corrects the things I stated. I'm naturally just curious, too.




Cool. I sent you a PM.


Nah it wasn't much of anything to get bent out of shape over. You were pretty much on the money, but you described or labeled one attack slightly incorrect. What you described as a brute force attack was really more of an DDOS or Alpha Numeric type of attack, but like I said, I really saw no fault in what you said. It was actually very well put. You were pretty damned right about 99% of everything else, so I have no reason to be pedantic with it. Before you stated that you did not study IT security I was convinced that you had. Perhaps you might want to consider IT security or getting your CCNA (Certified Cisco Network Associate's certification or degree).

Originally posted by Stoic
Nah it wasn't much of anything to get bent out of shape over. You were pretty much on the money, but you described or labeled one attack slightly incorrect. What you described as a brute force attack was really more of an DDOS or Alpha Numeric type of attack, but like I said, I really saw no fault in what you said. It was actually very well put. You were pretty damned right about 99% of everything else, so I have no reason to be pedantic with it. Before you stated that you did not study IT security I was convinced that you had. Perhaps you might want to consider IT security or getting your CCNA (Certified Cisco Network Associate's certification or degree).

I screwed up somewhere in my posts because this is exactly what I am studying. I graduate in the spring. 1 B.I.T. in Information Assurance and Digital Forensics and another B.I.T. in IT Enterprise Management.

And the reason I chose a brute force attack (the one where I referenced the trillions of years thing) was due to the adaptive IDS/IPS blocking pretty much any and all DDoS type attacks (assuming any of the PLCs are actually on any type of network that has an internet facing appliance). But I also disregarded a DDoS type of attack because these would be the systems a nuke would be tied into which would be off of the internet logically and physically making a DDoS with a bot-network literally impossible.


Don't let this dissuade you from correcting any mistakes I make, however: I'd rather know the correct information than assuming I'm right.

Originally posted by Robtard
Oh god, another Vitus. Look at posts I've made on forums 5 years ago and compare them to these. Compare my scribble; my inaccurate spelling, the incoherent sentences I'd write in the third grade - when my language was behind 1st graders. My understanding of language has increased exponentially to this point.

I was far better at mathematics, and I understood that on a subconscious level: Always asking about what words meant as a kid and verbally repeating lines from movies, long after I'd watched them, with perfect recollection. I now know that I was somehow aware of how far behind I was to others, and I wanted to know language without realizing why - subconscious introspection.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's not how it works.

There exists and entire area of Cyber and Physical Security known as "Secure System Controls". These integrate PLCs, VPNs, firewalls, and isolated networks that literally cannot communicate to anything outside their network because it is physically impossible to connect (no Wi-Fi, physical connection points, and a physically isolated network).this is the first time i've seen the term PLC. i'm new to studying IT. i assume this is what you are referring to?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programmable_logic_controller

can you expand a little on the role one of these devices would play in security?

Originally posted by Dolos
My mother (IQ of 140) cannot recall buying my first toy boat or quizzing me on spelling in one specific instance, but I can. But I remember learning about the universe from my mom showing me this picture on her computer.

Oh, so you can recall pivotal, exciting or unique moments of your life and your mom can't recall these very same mundane and inconsequential moments in hers?


That's fascinating.

Originally posted by Dolos
I have total recall in regards to learned material beyond just photographic or sensual experience. Material is retained from age 4 and up. For instance, I was never in my first house's back yard since before four years old, so I have no memory of that back yard, I've tested the limits of my memory in this way. My mother (IQ of 140) cannot recall buying my first toy boat or quizzing me on spelling in one specific instance, but I can. But I remember learning about the universe from my mom showing me this picture on her computer. I remember everything, even when I've consumed as much alcohol as others, to the brink of incapacitation, I maintain my total recall and only one other person I know out of 6 maintained even fragments of that situation so far. Captain Morgan helps me type and comprehend spelling (I'd assume by blocking dopamine and neropinephrine re-uptake, as my main issue is focus). Yet I kept all of it. I'm aware and still meta-cognizant (thinking about my actions) when extremely drunk, to the point of fluid comprehension and effective communication with someone sober. My issue is short-term memory, in remembering names once I've effectively remembered a name it's never forgotten, but before that point I'll always confuse names. I for one welcome you as our new supreme overlord. You have gifts far exceeding normal humans and I'm confident that one day you'll be enforcing paradise upon us all. As a future loyal subject to your benevolence, I give you a pre-Utopia "Hail!"

Originally posted by red g jacks
can you expand a little on the role one of these devices would play in security?

They are designed to be tougher than most other electronics (meaning it takes quite a bit more to cause a failure than regular electronics). They also function as an attack target to cyber terrorists (imagine opening a gate on a sewage plant). But properly isolated PLCs make for pretty dang secure equipment (equipment that requires movement such as, say, braces on an ICBM in a silo). What if your PLC is controlled by a ROM program that is isolated from anything "internet?" You'll have a difficult time doing any "hacking" against a system that doesn't have a network connection, has a physical interface, and cannot be re-programmed (seems like it goes against he P of the PLC, right?...but that's how some PLCs function on sensitive interfaces). Another thing I find hilarious when people start talking about "hacking PLCs"; some PLC types don't even use TCP/IP-IPX-AppleTalke-FDDI-etc. To put it a different way, it would be like a doctor saying she could fix a human's heart valve by clipping her cat's toenails. PERFECT! That should work!

Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh, so you can recall pivotal, exciting or unique moments of your life and your mom can't recall these very same mundane and inconsequential moments in hers?


That's fascinating. YOU intentionally can't comprehend so STOP.

Anyway, nothing could have been more pivotal to me than reading. Lol, I was uninterested in academics, yet anything specifically related to learning information I've retained. I don't recognize visual or "photographic" memories as quickly as learned material. That's why I say, it's the total recall that best indicates high intelligence, more conducive to recollecting information than photographic or sensual eidetic memory.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I for one welcome you as our new supreme overlord. You have gifts far exceeding normal humans and I'm confident that one day you'll be enforcing paradise upon us all. As a future loyal subject to your benevolence, I give you a pre-Utopia "Hail!"

You're jesting. STOP.

Originally posted by Dolos
I have total recall in regards to learned material beyond just photographic or sensual experience. Material is retained from age 4 and up. For instance, I was never in my first house's back yard since before four years old, so I have no memory of that back yard, I've tested the limits of my memory in this way. My mother (IQ of 140) cannot recall buying my first toy boat or quizzing me on spelling in one specific instance, but I can. But I remember learning about the universe from my mom showing me this picture on her computer. I remember everything, even when I've consumed as much alcohol as others, to the brink of incapacitation, I maintain my total recall and only one other person I know out of 6 maintained even fragments of that situation so far. Captain Morgan helps me type and comprehend spelling (I'd assume by blocking dopamine and neropinephrine re-uptake, as my main issue is focus). Yet I kept all of it. I'm aware and still meta-cognizant (thinking about my actions) when extremely drunk, to the point of fluid comprehension and effective communication with someone sober. My issue is short-term memory, in remembering names once I've effectively remembered a name it's never forgotten, but before that point I'll always confuse names.

though it is sort of like shooting fish in a barrel here, let me point out, both memory and attention are systems that are known to work optimally with less neuronal activity; ie: less neurons, better function. The more neurons active during remembering or attending means the more noise in the signal.

Originally posted by Oliver North
though it is sort of like shooting fish in a barrel here, let me point out, both memory and attention are systems that are known to work optimally with less neuronal activity; ie: less neurons, better function. The more neurons active during remembering or attending means the more noise in the signal. Which is exactly why I get random memories when going introspective. Which is why I have no attention or focus to apply to anything, but all my attention can usually be applied to is everything that pops up. It's not all there all the time, I lack focus. I have to narrow and concentrate and focus to pick certain memories out of the mess, but my brain narrows down when I first learned something like what the first lifeforms on earth were (single celled organisms like mitochondria) in a picture at Montessori. Whenever I pick them, they're filed, and I can go back.

That is why I came to the conclusion that I have more to work with, I don't need to use as high a of percentage of my total faculties to do cognitive thinking, or organize these into files the way I do. Which is why I retain more learning-based memories than is typical. I paid more attention to abstract material than to the physical or sensual. I remember concepts like cells and molecules better than names and faces. I don't need notes, writing it down takes away concentration and I end up absorbing less material. My short-term memory is sacrificed for the long term.

Ergh, just read this, it's more liken to what I'm talking about. Neurogenesis, not synaptogensis. Both could be made to feed off of one other in an auto-catalytic cycle given ample attention.

I'm going to be honest with you for one brief second, Oliver: I might potentially have intelligence, but I'm as dumb as a box of rocks.

Originally posted by Dolos
Look at posts I've made on forums 5 years ago and compare them to these. Compare my scribble; my inaccurate spelling, the incoherent sentences I'd write in the third grade - when my language was behind 1st graders. My understanding of language has increased exponentially to this point.

I was far better at mathematics, and I understood that on a subconscious level: Always asking about what words meant as a kid and verbally repeating lines from movies, long after I'd watched them, with perfect recollection. I now know that I was somehow aware of how far behind I was to others, and I wanted to know language without realizing why - subconscious introspection.

I'm going to have to respectfully decline that offer.

Deep.

7 PhDs:

Nanotechnology, biotechnology, cognitive psychology, genetics, robotics, software engineering which will soon become AI engineering, and cyber security which could become cyber espionage if there's an information technological cold-world war between all super powers - which there will be.

These fields work together for a transhumanist, that's the job title. With genetics, cogno psy, and biotech I can make myself smarter; allowing me to create better nanotech, better robotics, better software, and in turn I can use said tech to augment the way I interface with software when micromanaging domestic or attacking foreign infrastructure. Transhumanism will be the most valuable and well-paying career in the next few centuries. It will slow our being outsourced by information tech. Transhumanists will allow for all other people to stay ahead of Strong AI long enough to enjoy the techno-utopia - because if we slip into apathy it becomes survival of the fittest. Either way, eventually, we'll all have to be assimilated, there's no staying ahead of the substrate-free intelligences.

Dolos, you are like 18-20, ya? meaning 5 years ago you would have been 13-15. If your writing and logical thinking hadn't improved to the degree you are describing, that would be a developmental delay. The period you are describing, extending until ~25 years of age, is the period humans typically develop their more nuanced logical brains, personality trends, and in males, unfortunately, psychosis and schizophrenia.

I think you unnecessarily make the jump from "the human brain is incredible" to "my brain is incredible". Nothing you describe is outside standard variation in human behaviour. I'd gladly test your memory abilities, however, I can't actually think of a proper way to do it over the web.

EDIT: wait... 5 years ago you were in 3rd grade?

I have to say, Dolos is like a real life Sheldon Cooper. And I mean that in the best possible way. You're like, either the internet's greatest troll, or the most interesting guy I've ever met online.

Originally posted by Oliver North
Dolos, you are like 18-20, ya? meaning 5 years ago you would have been 13-15. If your writing and logical thinking hadn't improved to the degree you are describing, that would be a developmental delay. The period you are describing, extending until ~25 years of age, is the period humans typically develop their more nuanced logical brains, personality trends, and in males, unfortunately, psychosis and schizophrenia.

I think you unnecessarily make the jump from "the human brain is incredible" to "my brain is incredible". Nothing you describe is outside standard variation in human behaviour. I'd gladly test your memory abilities, however, I can't actually think of a proper way to do it over the web.

EDIT: wait... 5 years ago you were in 3rd grade? I am 20.

I was I think 7 in the third grade. I've never been held back. I'm just saying, how did I go from being wayyyyy far behind in the very subject I'm strongest in now? In fact, in elementary school I was below my grade level, then it wasn't until middle-school, but I had a quantum leap several grades ahead of every body else. I was working that subject more than others, and it was my least favorite subject. Autistics usually lack in language, but I excelled in language once I understood my place as an undesirable social reject: language's value as a social-necessity was understood and my communication improved intentionally, but my grades in English improved unintentionally. Once I make a choice, or am motivated enough (sadly through negative reinforcement habitual bullying and one instance of an attempted lynching by a group of ******* pigs) to focus for a little bit, I excel very quickly.

Originally posted by Oliver North
EDIT: wait... 5 years ago you were in 3rd grade?
The bullsh1t he spews is so...bullsh1tty that he doesn't even realize when he's making a legit slip-up which even people who are gullible enough to buy his crap could see.

I am a pathological liar as is my namesake, but you caught me on the wrong thing. My point was that I was basically suffering from a learning disorder pertaining to English, and in three years time I surpassed my peers. I've been posting on internet forums since aged 15, about 5 years after that random jump in vocabulary (7 + 8 = 15). In this 5 years, the increase has shown signs of speeding up, not plateauing at all. I think my potential in the next 5 years could be expedited tremendously on adderall or stronger neurotransmitter exciting stimulants, this is what I meant to communicate earlier.

Adderall's probably best, I don't know of anything else as controlled and efficient in suppressing my neurotransmitter-inhibitors.

Dolos: your "leap" in language ability between ages 7 and 10 is 100% in line with normal language development. Children, especially boys, have huge variance in their language abilities until about age 10, where everyone is generally the same. Up until age 10, being even 2-4 years behind your peers linguistically is totally normal. If you have discovered techniques that you feel assist in your language comprehension in ways they don't help your peers, great, however, being a couple of years behind at age 7, which corrected itself by age 10, is nothing unexpected given typical language development, especially in boys.

I had a sort-of Dolos esque experience in which, after doing fabulously in English throughout elementary/middle school, I started earning shit marks in the class through 9th and the first semester of 10th grade. Then I catapulted to the top again.

Originally posted by Dolos
I am a pathological liar No! You?!

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
No! You?! I'm possessed by the spirit of guile and trickery. Done terrible and terrific things with it. Capable of greatness, I am.

Anyway, there will be 7,000 transhumanists running 8 billion lives and accounting for the resources they use while they don't even necessarily have to work via network infrastructure manipulation and regulation.

Transhumanists will be humanity's accountability to the AI by pulling our weight, they will stand in the way of an outsourced humanity, they will stop AI from turning us into recyclable goo. I will be the foremost human-based authority on earth, the most gifted transhuman. If a transhumanist attempts to exploit his/her power over the life/lives a free citizens, I will **** his/her day up.

Originally posted by Dolos
I'm possessed by the spirit of guile and trickery.

Here's how my "super polymath" intelligence would work.

I have asperger's, considering my level of functionality despite the disorder, and my memory and past behavior that is indicative of the disorder and all its cognitive advantages and disadvantages: I have some above-average neural plasticity.

Daniel Tammet's arithmetic (within back of left hemisphere) and geometrical perception and understanding of rotation of shapes (spatial area within back of right hemisphere); are transfused. This allows him to calculate like 3^27, as he sees numbers as shapes and can fit two numbers together to see several trillion digits as one geometric shape. He has memorized over a thousand digits of pie with complete accuracy. But also, he can't drive AT ALL.

If I can get my hands on a high dosage of adderall (My physician started me on the lowest dose of focaline due to my erratic behavior on ritalin when I was like 7) and combine it with high levels of nicotine I'll be able to fine tune my brain, before age 25; to use combinatoric transfussion/diffusion of optimized regional brain functions to the extremes of Daniel Tammet's savantism (and diffuse it so I can drive properly). I will be able to do this within hours, and undo it instantly; and my brain will be programmed to do this automatically after the last 5 years of my brain's fine-tuning and development, and ever-after that as a super polymath. PhDs will be easily and expediently obtained.

Originally posted by Dolos
He has memorized over a thousand digits of pie with complete accuracy.

Sounds delicious.

*Pi

AbASOcqc1Ss

And inimalist was saying earlier that too much plasticity reduces how much information a brain can retain??? COME ON, BRO! REALLY!?

And you claim to have a Master's in cognitive psychology. Pfft.

And this is controlled synisthesia I'm talking about. Moreover, meta-cognizance based cominatorics, culminated with mathematical optimization-based introspection, of optimal trans-functionality of particular combinations in regional interactions. When refinement of synaptogeneses makes this process automatic; you get the epitome of human-potential in cognitive performance. Of course, consciously, this process requires a great deal of arousal and plasticity. With a sustained perpetuation of the amount of neurotransmitters, specifically neropinephrine, that can flow into the prefrontal cortex at any given point in time, the neural-plasticity of a potential savant is brought about and this can cause synisthesia. When this process changes from a conscious procedure into a subconscious procedure, the neropinephrine is no longer required and impulses no longer need these unsustainable concentrations of neurotransmitters to activate.

Post strategic clicks-and-mortar benchmark, innovate dynamic infrastructures functionalities drive. Incubate life-hacks addelivery, technologies, bandwidth authentic matrix action-items webservices authentic envisioneer; enable efficient implement convergence e-markets. Enhance, "networking aggregate mesh monetize reintermediate." Folksonomies methodologies sticky, networkeffects disintermediate integrateAJAX-enabled content integrated peer-to-peer; ROI? Dot-com long-tail; next-generation viral synergies communities real-time paradigms leading-edge virtual real-time, create.

Markets e-enable, extensible schemas addelivery implement, long-tail mesh, bricks-and-clicks share share post, "aggregate channels eyeballs; customized; value." Sticky deliver collaborative end-to-end real-time seize enable deploy. Networks, users out-of-the-box revolutionize reintermediate seize, Cluetrain synergize channels applications; streamline partnerships magnetic frictionless widgets syndicate orchestrate.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Post strategic clicks-and-mortar benchmark, innovate dynamic infrastructures functionalities drive. Incubate life-hacks addelivery, technologies, bandwidth authentic matrix action-items webservices authentic envisioneer; enable efficient implement convergence e-markets. Enhance, "networking aggregate mesh monetize reintermediate." Folksonomies methodologies sticky, networkeffects disintermediate integrateAJAX-enabled content integrated peer-to-peer; ROI? Dot-com long-tail; next-generation viral synergies communities real-time paradigms leading-edge virtual real-time, create.

Markets e-enable, extensible schemas addelivery implement, long-tail mesh, bricks-and-clicks share share post, "aggregate channels eyeballs; customized; value." Sticky deliver collaborative end-to-end real-time seize enable deploy. Networks, users out-of-the-box revolutionize reintermediate seize, Cluetrain synergize channels applications; streamline partnerships magnetic frictionless widgets syndicate orchestrate.

I take it you think my use of terminology is erroneous and therefore incoherent?

Or that you can't understand these terms and therefore I'm speaking gibberish? As Omega Vision pointed out, true comprehension is my ability to convey concepts without funky terminologies. I am -- as inimalist pointed out -- a degree-less layman.

I'll try and lay out the concept of synethisthesia for you without terminologies in the future. I can comprehend it.

I believe you obfuscate that you say basically nothing by using jargon. It's not uncommon. I have definitely noticed that you do it regarding topics I know about, and I'm sure if I were determined to ungibber your postings on this I would find the same.

The brain's tasks are separated into regions; one part of the brain works differently from another -- and different parts of the brain rarely interact, but when they do it allows people to do amazing things. For example, one part of the brain is good for understanding language, another part is good for conveying ideas through language. These parts work together and are responsible for our ability to carry out a meaningful conversations. However; many of these tasks don't normally work together in such a way. In Daniel Tammet's case, the area of the brain responsible for registering arithmetic into numbers have somehow become intertwined with the areas responsible for registering arithmetic into geometric shapes and the entire color wheel for that matter. So he perceives numbers and math problems literally as shapes and colors melding together, which allows him to do things other people can't.

There are a crazy amount of possible combinations that have the potential to allow a person to do incredible things. I.E., learn a new language or solve a super-difficult math problem with incredible speed and efficiency. Does that make sense?

Originally posted by Dolos
The brain's tasks are separated into regions; one part of the brain works differently from another -- and different parts of the brain rarely interact, but when they do it allows people to do amazing things. For example, one part of the brain is good for understanding language, another part is good for conveying ideas through language. These parts work together and are responsible for our ability to carry out a meaningful conversations. However; many of these tasks don't normally work together in such a way. In Daniel Tammet's case, the area of the brain responsible for registering arithmetic into numbers have somehow become intertwined with the areas responsible for registering arithmetic into geometric shapes and the entire color wheel for that matter. So he perceives numbers and math problems literally as shapes and colors melding together, which allows him to do things other people can't.

And, there are a crazy amount of possible combinations that can have the potential to allow a person to do things like learn a new language or solve a super-difficult math problem with incredible speed and efficiency. Does that make sense?

Probably not. At any rate you said that before in your pie post, if that's all the meat there are to your posts I think I'm not far off with my assumption.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Probably not.

What do you mean, "probably". You should know whether or not it makes sense to you.



That was condensed into terminologies, and a small part of what I was conveying. My "pie" post covered more content than just synisthesia, it also covered conscious manipulation of synisthesia and the processes at work there.



That's not all there is to it, that's what I decided to decipher for you. You still haven't told me if that part has even been successfully deciphered yet.

If you are asking me whether I, with a very limited knowledge about how the brain works, could possibly see this as an explanation, again, not based on anything at all besides whether it's a plausible story, then yes. If you are asking me whether I believe that it is true, judging from your track record, the answer is no.

-

My point is that that part never needed to be deciphered, it was clear from when you first said it. What looks like absolute gibberish to me is this:

"Moreover, meta-cognizance based cominatorics, culminated with mathematical optimization-based introspection, of optimal trans-functionality of particular combinations in regional interactions."

Assuming you meant "combinatorics", I believe I know and understand these words, at least some usage of them, and to me this seems like the equivalent of "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously"

Translation:




I numbered the sections to make it easier to follow along.

Originally posted by Bardock42
If you are asking me whether I, with a very limited knowledge about how the brain works, could possibly see this as an explanation, again, not based on anything at all besides whether it's a plausible story, then yes. If you are asking me whether I believe that it is true, judging from your track record, the answer is no.

-

My point is that that part never needed to be deciphered, it was clear from when you first said it. What looks like absolute gibberish to me is this:

"Moreover, meta-cognizance based cominatorics, culminated with mathematical optimization-based introspection, of optimal trans-functionality of particular combinations in regional interactions."

Assuming you meant "combinatorics", I believe I know and understand these words, at least some usage of them, and to me this seems like the equivalent of "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously"

That was gibberish but only because it was a hurried summation, let me reiterate that:

If I know what regions do what, there are so many regions with so many specifications that the combinations are nearly endless, so much so that cominatorics are required to lay out the effect of each possible interaction. From that; I'd have to optimize the interactions to get the best results possible, and that takes mathematical optimization. This is all academic, and done before actually causing synisthesia and putting this optimized plasticity to use. In fact, synisthesia would be necessary in order to do this arithmetic, to allow more synisthesia.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Translation:




I numbered the sections to make it easier to follow along.

So, you are with me on the "this says nothing" train?

Originally posted by Bardock42
So, you are with me on the "this says nothing" train?

Not only that, it contradicts itself and says stuff that is rather simple and already known such as the "sensory cortex and the somatosensory cortex"* that he referred to as "regional interactions." But he wants it to mean more.

*I need to be clear that that was an example but not necessarily what he was talking about.

Originally posted by Dolos
The brain's tasks are separated into regions; one part of the brain works differently from another -- and different parts of the brain rarely interact

when did you become a phrenologist?

EDIT: let me blow your mind, there are no tasks the brain performs that do not require a huge network of interconnected brain areas. /fact.

Originally posted by Oliver North
when did you become a phrenologist?

I would have never guessed he was gravitating towards phrenology. I would have assumed something like "neuroepistemology" since that is more mysterious and sexy sounding.

But, in reality, it seems more like he is talking about this.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I would have never guessed he was gravitating towards phrenology. I would have assumed something like "neuroepistemology" since that is more mysterious and sexy sounding.

But, in reality, it seems more like he is talking about this.

sure, it is more often called "localization of function" in what I read, but sure. Most people doing neuro work sort of laugh at the way such regional specificity was embraced in the 90s, because in hindsight, results were all over the map and fMRI is certainly not the perfect tool that early research using it suggested. Additionally, a lot of the localization of function research focused on people who had injuries to various areas, and often conflated ideas of what was necessary for a behaviour versus what was sufficient, ie: simply because you had an injury to area X and saw behaviour change Y, you can't say X is responsible for Y, only that knocking X out has an impact on Y (very similar to the issue of correlation and causation).

In light of modern techniques and theories, this early tendency to label the "parts" of the brain using fMRI technology often gets compared to phrenology and can be seen, at best, as a "pop" understanding of neurological organization. The networks and systems that are interconnected are far more important to information processing than is the functional specificity of various areas. For instance, the visual cortex does process information coming from the eye, however, the processes of "seeing" involves areas ranging from the eye to pre-frontal cortex and several systems and pathways of information processing, many not exclusively related to vision. "Sight" is not localized anywhere in the brain, and every other human behaviour can be described in the same way.

Originally posted by Oliver North
sure, it is more often called "localization of function" in what I read, but sure. Most people doing neuro work sort of laugh at the way such regional specificity was embraced in the 90s, because in hindsight, results were all over the map and fMRI is certainly not the perfect tool that early research using it suggested. Additionally, a lot of the localization of function research focused on people who had injuries to various areas, and often conflated ideas of what was necessary for a behaviour versus what was sufficient, ie: simply because you had an injury to area X and saw behaviour change Y, you can't say X is responsible for Y, only that knocking X out has an impact on Y (very similar to the issue of correlation and causation).

In light of modern techniques and theories, this early tendency to label the "parts" of the brain using fMRI technology often gets compared to phrenology and can be seen, at best, as a "pop" understanding of neurological organization. The networks and systems that are interconnected are far more important to information processing than is the functional specificity of various areas. For instance, the visual cortex does process information coming from the eye, however, the processes of "seeing" involves areas ranging from the eye to pre-frontal cortex and several systems and pathways of information processing, many not exclusively related to vision. "Sight" is not localized anywhere in the brain, and every other human behaviour can be described in the same way.

From all the fMRI images I have seen, lights of pretty little things are going on, all the time, when various tests are done. If I had time, I'd find several images to make your point. Sure, there is a higher level of activity in certain areas depending on the "stimulus", but it is not as though everything shuts down except for one particular area.

Translation: you're right and I could prove veyr simply it if I wasn't lazy.

don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that stuff isn't organized by function in some ways. LOL, get me started on orientation pinwheels in the first layer of V1 some day

The issue is that, the real story about human behaviour is in the connections and the networks. This is why DTI is such an exciting technology. At this point, if only there were a way to know which axonal connections were active at any given time, it would be amazing. However, it is important to remember, each technology we have at the moment comes with a downside:

EEG or other technologies that rely on detecting electrical signals from neurons has the issue of not being able to localize where the electrical signal is coming from (it is getting better, but certainly can't localize activity as well as fMRI). fMRI, while having incredible spatial acuity, has a lag of about 10 seconds (if you want I can explain why, which would also elaborate on a number of other fMRI issues), and because of this, can't get the best "moment by moment" data on processing. Additionally, in both cases, you use what is called "the method of subtraction", where you subtract out activity from a control condition from an experimental condition, ignoring the fact that all the stuff subtracted was clearly necessary for the behaviour.

Basically, the idea of "X area causes X behaviour" is dead, and the modern equivalent of phrenology.

Originally posted by Oliver North
when did you become a phrenologist?

EDIT: let me blow your mind, there are no tasks the brain performs that do not require a huge network of interconnected brain areas. /fact.

Why don't these trans-regional interactions cause sensory pathways to be altered?

Is it that altered perception that gives a savant this sort of pocket intelligence, this superior procedure: I.E. Grapheme-color, Spatial Sequence, Sound to color, number form, personification, lexical, auditory tactile, mirror???

I that what I'd -- through self-experimentation -- try to emulate?

Am I trying to interconnect not just brain areas, but pocket intelligences? Shifting in and out of savant-mode -- and creating new pocket intelligences from this multisensory integration meant for specific tasks?

Here's what I'm trying to convey here, mapping synesthesia-based combinations to tap into areas of the brain, trying to bring about all possible alterations to the senses, to see what the brain is fully capable of. One optimized set of combinations. Think of the movie Limitless. Obviously the brain uses all its energy, but does it use it with 100% efficiency? Obviously not, as savants have more efficient procedures within their pocket intelligences. Accordingly (that is automatically and adaptively) altering senses to make procedures easier, optimizes efficiency, yes?

The brain initiative is a start, mapping the neural-network, every synaptic reaction, is a start.

edit

Originally posted by Dolos
Why don't these trans-regional interactions cause sensory pathways to be altered?

these pathways become non-plastic very early in life. Sensory pathways may only be surpassed by motor pathways in terms of how early they form and how stable their connections are. The clearest example may be in language learning:

I recently started (sort of) learning Arabic. I am an exclusively English speaker, with some French (Canadian law requires it ). In English, vowels generally only have a single sound. In Arabic, the "A", "I" and "U" sound have both long and short versions, denoted by either a standard character or accent, respectively. In fact, in Arabic, there are distinct symbols for roughly 5 sounds that, in English, would be conveyed by the letter "A/a" (Ayn, Hamza, Alif, etc).

An infant, who has yet to learn a dominant language, is sensitive to all of these distinctions. Even if they are exposed to only English in their early life, at first, they would be able to distinguish the "th" sound in "three" and "these" . However, as they learn the language, such distinctions are condensed into single phonemes for that language and become almost impossible to distinguish between. As a primarily English speaker, it will probably take you a few tries to intuitively hear the distinction between different "th" sounds, it certainly did for me.

These pathways are cemented and remain non-plastic from very early in childhood development. For instance, every phoneme is condensed before a child learns a language. The reason for this is simple also: Think about written language. Depending on who is writing, there are thousands of possible shapes the letter "A" could take, yet the brain is sensitive to almost all of them (it takes very poor penmanship for a person to be incapable of reading what is written). The brain learns the dominant form of language and builds its sensitivity to variance from there. All sensory systems are like this, however, built in a much more fundamental way than language is. Activation of certain rods and cones in the eye is genetically associated with various pathways and reflexes. These are entirely insensitive to plasticity. Sensory experience is something that you almost cannot change via plasticity, and you as an organism benefit from that... Imagine if you could "consciously" change things like size-consistency (the idea that objects of the same size appearing farther away look larger), it would be impossible for you to navigate the real world. In fact, optical illusions take advantage of this non-plastic processing. Various illusions take advantage of this, and even knowing the minutia of which neurons are causing what cannot prevent seeing the illusion .

Originally posted by Dolos
synesthesia

There is a conference called VSS (the annual meeting of the Vision Science Society). It is held in Florida every year, and I've been privileged to present research there twice in my career (2009 and 2013 iirc). They have what are called "Symposia" each day, where talks are held on various issues. In 2009 I got to watch a series of talks on issues of synestesia. I don't mean to sound like a broken record, but your concept of what synestesia is seems, again, to be based on something you might have read in "Time" magazine or some other popular publication, and not the actual research being done in the field of synestesia. For instance, there is nobody who suggests that sysestesia may be the cause of "savant"-esque abilities in people with autism, especially given synestesia is primarily an issues with the confusion of sensory signals, not a catch all phrase for neurological cross-talk.

LOL, I've given way too much credit to your troll tactics, so consider this a W if that is all you are looking for...

Troll tactics? This is my topic, if I go on off-topic explorations (that I'm genuinely interested in); I'm trolling myself.

Are you saying I'm attempting to fool people and when that doesn't work I resort to trolling? No, I'm getting thoughts out of my head and into scrutiny, it's just in a very choppy way.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed

Originally posted by Oliver North
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed A little too time-consuming, but I get your point.

09UmufmfSLc

Originally posted by Oliver North
09UmufmfSLc I agree with you comparison.

Do I want to change? Of course. Am I willing to make the sacrifices (taking the time to actually learn) necessary for change, that's more important.

sure thing, Deepak

Originally posted by Oliver North
sure thing, Deepak Deepak didn't know he was in err.

Originally posted by Dolos
Deepak didn't know he was in err.

Err is something you do, not something you are.

Originally posted by Oliver North
09UmufmfSLc

Quite interesting. I had no idea that people used non-locality in such a way.


Edit -I must say, the more I see of Sam Harris, the more I like. For me, the biggest reason I like him is how he is not a douchebag when he disagrees.

Oh, so err is knowing you're at fault in your actions, yet continuing them anyway? Well then, I'm in err.

Originally posted by Dolos
Oh, so err is knowing you're at fault in your actions, yet continuing them anyway? Well then, I'm in err.

Yeah, so, these amazing language skills....yeah....

Originally posted by dadudemon
Quite interesting. I had no idea that people used non-locality in such a way.

It is a really common thing when you debate consciousness with people. Especially because of people like Penrose.... /bleh

Originally posted by dadudemon
Edit -I must say, the more I see of Sam Harris, the more I like. For me, the biggest reason I like him is how he is not a douchebag when he disagrees.

Sam Harris is one of my favorite modern thinkers for exactly that reason. Also because he is of the same opinion as me regarding the personal use of drugs (using MDMA was one of the most relevant experiences in his life as a neuroscientist).

Who is Penrose? The physicist?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, so, these amazing language skills....yeah.... I deserve that.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Who is Penrose? The physicist?

I believe so, yes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind#Roger_Penrose_and_Stuart_Hameroff

Originally posted by Oliver North
I believe so, yes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind#Roger_Penrose_and_Stuart_Hameroff


Well, I'm learning new stuff every day. I got his book Road to Reality, and only thought it was like an introduction to mathematics and physics, apparently it goes into his uncommon views later on...

Originally posted by Oliver North
Sam Harris is one of my favorite modern thinkers for exactly that reason. Also because he is of the same opinion as me regarding the personal use of drugs (using MDMA was one of the most relevant experiences in his life as a neuroscientist).

Slightly off topic but I thought that MDMA was both neurotoxic even at low doses (that's arbitrary) and causes permanent changes and damage* to the brain from a single use.

*detected by GFAP expression, which is one of the absolute best acronyms to be assembled in the medical field...it's how gangster bate, yo.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, I'm learning new stuff every day. I got his book Road to Reality, and only thought it was like an introduction to mathematics and physics, apparently it goes into his uncommon views later on...

he is potentially the person most responsible for my aversion to all things physics

Originally posted by dadudemon
Slightly off topic but I thought that MDMA was both neurotoxic even at low doses (that's arbitrary) and causes permanent changes and damage* to the brain from a single use.

*detected by GFAP expression, which is one of the absolute best acronyms to be assembled in the medical field...it's how gangster bate, yo.

I can't speak specifically about that, but I do know that something like the LD:50 of pure MDMA is physically impossible to achieve (you can't consume the substance fast enough to kill you ).

neurotoxic? lol, no, in fact, most deaths attributed to even the impure version, ecstacy, come from people mismanaging their water intake (too much or too little) during the trip. The "rave scare" of the 90's-2000's saw a massive introduction of what turns out to be 100% inaccurate misinformation being fed to the public by the government, and it seems like what you are talking about would be akin to that.

That being said, even with substances like ketamin, where changes in neurochemistry have been documented after a single dose, behavioural changes are almost never found.

information was the first casualty of the war on drugs /shrug

EDIT:





The most carefully designed study so far, compared the effect on cognitive skills in 52 'ecstasy' users against 59 very closely matched nonusers. The study eliminated potential confounding factors such as the use of other drugs and history of drug use. The study found no short- or long-term differences in cognitive skills in the test group (users) versus the control group (nonusers).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDMA#Harm_assessment

Originally posted by Oliver North
I can't speak specifically about that, but I do know that something like the LD:50 of pure MDMA is physically impossible to achieve (you can't consume the substance fast enough to kill you ).

neurotoxic? lol, no, in fact, most deaths attributed to even the impure version, ecstacy, come from people mismanaging their water intake (too much or too little) during the trip. The "rave scare" of the 90's-2000's saw a massive introduction of what turns out to be 100% inaccurate misinformation being fed to the public by the government, and it seems like what you are talking about would be akin to that.

That being said, even with substances like ketamin, where changes in neurochemistry have been documented after a single dose, behavioural changes are almost never found.

I come from the chemistry and medical side of things, not the neuroscience side of things. So I, as well, know very little. You once told me about that regarding ketamin but I know next to nothing regarding MDMA. The GFAP expression test is used for quite a few things when testing for neurotoxicity (I could not find much in the 10 seconds I spent google searching but enjoy.).

Originally posted by Oliver North
information was the first casualty of the war on drugs /shrug

As I typed my post, I felt this strong feeling of disinformation regurgitation happening on my screen. So, yeah, I'm pretty sure the stuff I read about almost a decade ago was one-sided and probably based on poor science.

Originally posted by Oliver North
09UmufmfSLc It's just a behavioral propensity to be irrational.

I just think about things like, when I grow up, when I'm a math teacher, is it possible that my job will be irrelevant? I just think whatever I do, it will be irrelevant by the time I grow up.

For instance, I just want to be a math professor. Just simple, pure mathematics -- undiluted by all the complexity of the world. But then I hear about transcension, accelerating returns, Moore's law, I think; what use is anything I can get a degree in now? That might be the irrational thinking that led to my current irrational thought process. Or maybe it is a rational cause for irrationality.

This is my new favorite statistic about anything ever.

Originally posted by Dolos
For instance, I just want to be a math professor. Just simple, pure mathematics -- undiluted by all the complexity of the world. But then I hear about transcension, accelerating returns, Moore's law, I think; what use is anything I can get a degree in now? That might be the irrational thinking that led to my current irrational thought process. Or maybe it is a rational cause for irrationality.

So you're Buridan's ass, then, choosing to starve because you think eating might have a downside.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
This is my new favorite statistic about anything ever.



So you're Buridan's ass, then, choosing to starve because you think eating might have a downside. I guess I should start eating.

Originally posted by Dolos
I just think about things like, when I grow up, when I'm a math teacher, is it possible that my job will be irrelevant? I just think whatever I do, it will be irrelevant by the time I grow up. If it's any consolation, it'll be just as irrelevant once you die.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I come from the chemistry and medical side of things, not the neuroscience side of things. So I, as well, know very little. You once told me about that regarding ketamin but I know next to nothing regarding MDMA. The GFAP expression test is used for quite a few things when testing for neurotoxicity (I could not find much in the 10 seconds I spent google searching but enjoy.).

I can't say for sure that MDMA doesn't impact stuff like GFAP, more that the amount of damage, especially if we are talking about pure MDMA, isn't really significant. I'm skeptical about the damage claim anyways, but even then, most research shows no long term detriments.

Originally posted by dadudemon
As I typed my post, I felt this strong feeling of disinformation regurgitation happening on my screen. So, yeah, I'm pretty sure the stuff I read about almost a decade ago was one-sided and probably based on poor science.

not really something you can be faulted for, at this point it is really only Europe or sort of "one-off" labs in America that are doing reputable research on illegal drugs. 5-6 years ago, I remember reading an article where a neuroscientist was advocating the use of drugs in research (especially LSD), because it is a way to consistently alter neurochemical communication. The issue is the cultural understanding of drugs. The war on drugs has sort of tainted even this base level research, in a way saying "it doesn't matter what you could learn from this, RARGH!". Also, if you want a funny story, I gave a lecture to a bunch of 1st year students about how Timothy Leary is a 100% laudable figure and science = anarchy* (ya, my own bias)...

*