Originally posted by Devil King
So should dumb ass straight people who think that it's cool to suck face on the subway and dare to have the audacity to be themeslves in front of a crowd. Perhaps straight couples should be run over or shot or hanged or mutilated because of their audacity of presumption; the same way straights presume. Don't worry, I'm just as bad as you. I see a straight couple holding hands or publically loving each other or praying over their coffee and biscuit and I think they should be doused with acid and murdered. But, where we disagree is that you think simply being straight involves some measure of normality while being gay and doing the exact same thing implies abnormality. As soon as the straight couple doesn't feel a turn in their stomach and get up and leave when they see the exact same behavior for a gay couple, then we'll have no problems. Therein lies the difference. I don't want to see you all go away or burn or die. I just want you to accept that your perspective isn't the only one. Maybe to do that involves setting you on fire or killing your loved ones or pounding you into submission. But it doesn't have to. The choice is yours when it comes down to it.
Perhaps, but thats not how it is, is it?
Originally posted by Bardock42
Does Lycanthrope get disgusted by girls kissing?
Actually I find girls kissing very enjoyable , if they are hot 😄 ,and i guess i would have to agree with your point that its no more disgusting to see men, as seeing two really ugly girls ,kissing but I can not agree with the conditioning part. I was never taught to hate or find homosexuals repulsive. I had a very "Hippie",product of the 60's love everyone, type family. So my conditioning was to tolerate all peoples, of which Im thankful. My argument was of a natural sense because of my personal feeling. But i can understand, objectively, that whats unattractive to the individual is subjective. I still wish they would not through it in my face. "We are here,We are queer, Get used to it" I mean, i dont join Hetero parades and say "Im not a wussy, i like pussy get used to it" 😮💨 🤣
Originally posted by dadudemon
Wow!That's so cool!
for sure, v s ramachandran is one of the most interesting people in psychology/cognitive neuroscience.
http://cbc.ucsd.edu/ramabio.html
http://www.imprint.co.uk/jcs_15_1.html#rama
(can't find a copy of the paper 🙁)
Originally posted by dadudemon
But that makes me think. How much of your brain map is psychological to begin with, if at all? The brain is a very dynamic organ. Is it possible that the individual actually has the ability to change how their brain reacts? I've proposed this before. If the person is so very set on thinking that they are female, is it possible that they could actually facilitate the rapid change in brain reaction to sensory stimuli and even facilitate the transition over from phantom pains?
The "body map" being talked about is called the "somatosensory cortex". It develops very early, probably starting in the womb, and is relatively more plastic to incoming stimuli rather than the other way around. Ummm, like, for instance, if a person "wills" themselves to not feel pain, they aren't affecting the activation of the somatosensory cortex, but rather later, more frontal parts of the brain that are responsible for conscious experience. Its activation precedes consciousness.
To me, at least, it seems that the development of the cortex to the incoming stimuli from a very early age would dictate the later conscious development of a gender identity, rather than the other way around. Otherwise, you are supposing that children are subjectively defining their gender identity before they have developed, say, the concept of object impermanence (the knowledge that something is the same thing if it leaves the child's vision then returns), or before they know that other people have thinking and feeling minds inside of them the same way they do (Theory of Mind).
I get the suspicion you mean, what if someone chose they wanted to be a different gender, which would most likely work like pain. They might be able to try to not feel their penis, and they might be able to to some degree, but think of the mental training it takes someone not to be able to feel intense pain, and their are always limits to that (though the monk who burnt himself alive is a rather extreme case [actually, isn't that more common now, just nobody pays attention, or am I confusing something]). Even then, however, it doesn't seem to be what you might be describing. You wouldn't be molding your "body map".
(also note, the abstract posted above says that 60% of female-to-male transgenders reported having a phantom penis sensation)
Originally posted by dadudemon
Depending on how this data was collected, is it possible that the trans-gender people actually feel the phantom pains but deny them because of their strong belief in their gender identity? Acknowledging the pains would have a psychological influence or origin, in my opinion. Then again, I'm weak on psychology. Maybe you could shed light on this.
Phantom pain is not psychological in origin.
Unless you mean to say people are deliberately lying on the survey, then no, it really isn't likely.
The research is very preliminary, there has been no functional MRI done, just self report stuff that indicates there might be some merit to it. Whether it pans out or not will be interesting, but it certainly points to the idea that a mismatch between body gender and brain gender might underlie people who feel born into the wrong body.
Like, try to make yourself feel like you have breasts?
Originally posted by dadudemon
Very interesting, though. Any time I bring up more science, when it concerns homosexuality, to Christians, they deny it and rationalize it every which way except the correct way. They do it so severely that it is hard for me not to laugh at their stupidity.
it's not a scientific issue to them, and most rational people don't want to admit that they are taking a stance deliberately anti-science, because, well, science has the benefit of working.
Originally posted by dadudemon
On another note, I remember reading about a dude's brain that rewired itself after decades of not having an appendage. I think it was his hand. The brain very quickly rewired itself to accommodate the "new" hand. Could that be related to the topic on hand in any way?
I'd have to look at it more, but that would likely be motor cortex rather than somatosensory. I'm a vision guy, so I can't say too much without reading the research, but I'd hazard that the adaptation was the ability of the "new" hand to respond to motor signals coming from the brain, and not the adaptation of the brain to signals coming from the arm.
(though, there are some REALLY funky studies about hooking up chips that can initiate action potentials in neurons. Without being able to crack the neuro map to some significant degree it is useless in its ability to shape a brain, just very cool)
Originally posted by Robtard
How exactly does "In God We Trust" (This is on US currency) & "OUR Nation UNDER GOD" (are you referring to the pledge of allegiance?) correlate to "homosexuals do not have the right to get married/equal rights"?When answering, please keep in mind that from a legal standpoint, marriage has nothing to do with God or religion. The state issues the marriage certificates and if you want a divorce, it's done through the courts, ie the church really has nothing to do with marriage, legally.
Also, "God" isn't mentioned in the US Constitution, with the exception at the very end in the signatory, ie "in the year of our lord". So you're wrong about that.
My point was this Countries foundation was of Religious fundamentals. I am a proponent of the Constitution which gives the individual States the right to have their own legislature. You can be gay and get married in Massachusetts because the people voted in the people who appointed the State Supreme Courts who voted it legal. The State should be afforded that right. To lobby the Federal Govt. to make it legal is trying to supersede the Constitution.
Originally posted by Lycanthrope
My point was this Countries foundation was of Religious fundamentals. I am a proponent of the Constitution which gives the individual States the right to have their own legislature. You can be gay and get married in Massachusetts because the people voted in the people who appointed the State Supreme Courts who voted it legal. The State should be afforded that right. To lobby the Federal Govt. to make it legal is trying to supersede the Constitution.
Actually, there is various literature that pretty much paints many of the founding fathers as not religious to outright anti-religion. Jefferson wrote his own Bible, where he took out the mysticism, for one. So "America founded on religious fundamentals", just isn't so.
Bush (probably on behalf of the religious Right) tried to amend the Constitution to define marriage, so not sure "the gays" are to blame with trying to rewrite Constitutional law in regards to marriage.
Originally posted by inimalist
for sure, v s ramachandran is one of the most interesting people in psychology/cognitive neuroscience.http://cbc.ucsd.edu/ramabio.html
http://www.imprint.co.uk/jcs_15_1.html#rama
(can't find a copy of the paper 🙁)
First of all. Thanks a bunch for taking the time to find all of this and talk about it with me about it. I know you're busy lately, but I was interested in it.
Originally posted by inimalist
The "body map" being talked about is called the "somatosensory cortex". It develops very early, probably starting in the womb, and is relatively more plastic to incoming stimuli rather than the other way around. Ummm, like, for instance, if a person "wills" themselves to not feel pain, they aren't affecting the activation of the somatosensory cortex, but rather later, more frontal parts of the brain that are responsible for conscious experience. Its activation precedes consciousness.
I am really stabbing in the dark on this. I was seriously dead set on becoming a Neurologist/brain surgeon...but I quit it once I found out the residency is 8 years (at least the neurosurgeons I was looking into doing a residency under). I couldn't wait that long because we were getting very poor (my wife and one kid).
Despite that, I know very little about brain anatomy (relative to other areas of medical study). Seriously. Any information like this stuff is brand new to me and very interesting.
So, anyway, I told you that so you could understand the type of person you were dealing with. I notice that you already did a lot of defining on some of the "jargon" associated with the discussion.
What I was referring to was the brain's ability to remap itself in very drastic ways in relatively short time. Some people do report phantom pain for a decade or more after missing a limb. Still, others who get transplants (like that dude I was talking about who got a new hand) have brains that literally remap themselves to "non-standard" positions meaning different parts of the brain are working to make use of the new limb.
I was thinking that a person (I REALLY believe in holism) could facilitate that transition away from phantom pains faster if they really wanted it. I know that sounds quack and I promise (other than Mormonism lol) that this is one of the very few things I believe that comes off as quack. You seem to have a better grasp on the brain than I do....so I may seem just plain ignorant to you.
Originally posted by inimalist
To me, at least, it seems that the development of the cortex to the incoming stimuli from a very early age would dictate the later conscious development of a gender identity, rather than the other way around. Otherwise, you are supposing that children are subjectively defining their gender identity before they have developed, say, the concept of object impermanence (the knowledge that something is the same thing if it leaves the child's vision then returns), or before they know that other people have thinking and feeling minds inside of them the same way they do (Theory of Mind).
Actually, it is the environment coupled with genetics, I believe, that molds perception of self-gender. I hadn't, as of yet, stated anything about children and gender development. I was referring only to those post trans-gender operation, well after self-gender is quite solid in the mind.
Originally posted by inimalist
I get the suspicion you mean, what if someone chose they wanted to be a different gender, which would most likely work like pain. They might be able to try to not feel their penis, and they might be able to to some degree, but think of the mental training it takes someone not to be able to feel intense pain, and their are always limits to that (though the monk who burnt himself alive is a rather extreme case [actually, isn't that more common now, just nobody pays attention, or am I confusing something]). Even then, however, it doesn't seem to be what you might be describing. You wouldn't be molding your "body map".(also note, the abstract posted above says that 60% of female-to-male transgenders reported having a phantom penis sensation)
I was referring to a state-of-mind or self-identification actually affecting the how the brain interprets "stimuli." (In this instance, I was speculating on how the brain produces(or how the person interprets) phantom pains.)
Originally posted by inimalist
Phantom pain is not psychological in origin.Unless you mean to say people are deliberately lying on the survey, then no, it really isn't likely.
The research is very preliminary, there has been no functional MRI done, just self report stuff that indicates there might be some merit to it. Whether it pans out or not will be interesting, but it certainly points to the idea that a mismatch between body gender and brain gender might underlie people who feel born into the wrong body.
Like, try to make yourself feel like you have breasts?
I fully agree that it is not psychological in origin. My original post to you should indicate as much. I was thinking that the transition away from phantom pain could be facilitated by the person.
Also, yes; spot on. I was referring to the subjects just straight up lying about phantom pain. It makes perfect sense that a trans-gender would feel shame, doubt, frustration, or even be in denial when they've felt so strongly about their gender. Admitting that out loud or on paper, even anonymously would be like admitting to a type of defeat. Feeling a penis that isn't there that they do not believe that should have had in the first place would be very hard, imo, to try and cope with.
Originally posted by inimalist
it's not a scientific issue to them, and most rational people don't want to admit that they are taking a stance deliberately anti-science, because, well, science has the benefit of working.
Indeed. Some times I feel like Galileo Galilei or Copernicus.
Originally posted by inimalist
I'd have to look at it more, but that would likely be motor cortex rather than somatosensory. I'm a vision guy, so I can't say too much without reading the research, but I'd hazard that the adaptation was the ability of the "new" hand to respond to motor signals coming from the brain, and not the adaptation of the brain to signals coming from the arm.
From what I remember, the brain actually rewired itself to use another part of the brain to start making use of the hand. It took place over a few months.
Originally posted by inimalist
(though, there are some REALLY funky studies about hooking up chips that can initiate action potentials in neurons. Without being able to crack the neuro map to some significant degree it is useless in its ability to shape a brain, just very cool)
That was the primary reason I originally got into neuroscience and almost made a career out of it. I was going to study neuroscience (neurosurgeon) and also do medical electronics. (I forgot what the eff that title was called...they are those guys who make electronics for the human body such as pacemakers.) I'm still quite certain that cybernetics will be the future for humanity. (for at least another 50 or so years.)
Originally posted by Robtard
Actually, there is various literature that pretty much paints many of the founding fathers as not religious to outright anti-religion. Jefferson wrote his own Bible, where he took out the mysticism, for one. So "America founded on religious fundamentals", just isn't so.Bush (probably on behalf of the religious Right) tried to amend the Constitution to define marriage, so not sure "the gays" are to blame with trying to rewrite Constitutional law in regards to marriage.
Despite your "Claim" to various literature that "Pretty Much" paints founding fathers as anti-religios. There is no getting around the fact that they believed in Davine Providence to validate our Sovereignty. "ONE NATION UNDER GOD" that's very clear man, So YOU FAIL!!!!
And , for your information , The President does not have the power to amend the Constitution. The Senate has to have a majority vote and in the House of representatives 3/4 of the STATES have to vote in favor as well To advocate an Amendment.
So Again YOU FAIL!!!
Originally posted by Lycanthrope
Despite your "Claim" to various literature that "Pretty Much" paints founding fathers as anti-religios. There is no getting around the fact that they believed in Davine Providence to validate our Sovereignty. "ONE NATION UNDER GOD" that's very clear man, So YOU FAIL!!!!And , for your information , The President does not have the power to amend the Constitution. The Senate has to have a majority vote and in the House of representatives 3/4 of the STATES have to vote in favor as well To advocate an Amendment.
So Again YOU FAIL!!!
Here you go again with this "One Nation Under God" nonsense. That is part of the Pledge of Alligence and it was added in 1952. So attributing it to the founding fathers and to the founding principlies of America is just plain wrong. Reread above, I already told you that "God" really isn't in the Constitution, which should really tell you something about the founding fathers and the religious motives thye had for this country.
I said "Bush tried", which he did; not "Bush amended the Constitution", brush up on your reading comprehension, it's lacking. You don't remember seeing Bush on TV saying "we need to amend the Constitional and make marriage a union for a man and woman only" (not verbatim)?
Do keep trying, maybe you'll get one fact right someday.
Edit: I'll take Red's word, it was added in 1954; not 1952 as I wrote. Either way, that proves you don't know what you're ranting about in regards to America, religion and the founding fathers.
This post was a lot more belligerent than the previous ones. What happened?
Originally posted by Lycanthrope
Despite your "Claim" to various literature that "Pretty Much" paints founding fathers as anti-religios.
Originally posted by Lycanthrope
There is no getting around the fact that they believed in Davine Providence to validate our Sovereignty. "ONE NATION UNDER GOD" that's very clear man
I'm not sure where the added animosity came from, but I suggest that you ease up on your caps lock key, take a deep breath and think about what you intend to say before you write anything. Your performance drops significantly when you are upset. Raise your game.
Edit: Robtard got here first.
Edit 2: The date was 1954, not 1952.
Originally posted by Lycanthrope
Ok Lets say Homosexuality Is not a mental deficiency and, even say its natural to be gay.
Originally posted by Lycanthrope
I don't think you understand what the word deficiency means.
Like i said the only thing that makes someone Gay is what they do in bed. I do the same things with my friends a gay person would , just not in the bed.
You enjoy having man on man sex . . . just never in a bed?
Originally posted by Lycanthrope
So why is there such an aversion to witnessing gay activity to the Majority of the populace ?
Sociology. You're brought up to accept certain things and not others. Religious upbringing plays a very large part when it comes to homosexuality in particular, that's why you don't see me campaigning to "fix" people who eat Sloppy Joes. Just because something disgusts you doesn't mean it's wrong on any level.
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosSociology. You're brought up to accept certain things and not others. Religious upbringing plays a very large part when it comes to homosexuality in particular, that's why you don't see me campaigning to "fix" people who eat Sloppy Joes. Just because something disgusts you doesn't mean it's wrong on any level.
You mean to say wrong on an objective level, I suppose.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You enjoy having man on man sex . . . just never in a bed?
That or he's gay and just won't accept it, because that "I do the same things with my friends a gay person would , just not in the bed", tells me that he may find his male friends sexually attractive, but never has pursued it on a physical level and in his mind that makes it not homosexual, somehow.
I find it laughable when these people that are anti-homosexuals denounce homosexuals raising children for fear of brainwashing and the sort.
Uh...'brainwashing' can happen to any child from any kind of parent (heterosexual, homosexual, white, black, male, female, etc).
And I'd say if a child learns to be tolerant and you know, look at all humans as equal regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation, they will be far better off than the generations of past and present.