5 ms·

> Any increase towards baseline is beneficial throughout the entire affected graph of neural structures, as well as proximate ones. This cannot possibly be ass

> Any increase towards baseline is beneficial throughout the entire affected graph of neural structures, as well as proximate ones. This cannot possibly be assumed when talking about physiology already known to be atypical. And specifically, assuming that reducing blood flow one place, and increasing it in another place, post-development, will predictably be a benefit is ... I have no words. Your whole comment is full of this type of worse than weak reasoning.

wtbdbrrr 1y ago
> assuming that reducing blood flow one place, and increasing it in another place should have made it clear that I did not mean decreasing in one place while increasing in another but increasing throughout all proximate areas. > Your whole comment is full of this type of worse than weak reasoning. Agreed, should have tagged it #sciencephilosophy or something ... I was thinking out loud. But there is merit. I am not uncertain any studies can prove me entirely wrong. But I understand why such a discussion might be a waste of time. > This cannot possibly be assumed when talking about physiology already known to be atypical. I don't understand. If reduced bloodflow is known to be the cause for atypical physiology, then the opposite is certainly also known. I understand that -q doesn't necessarily mean p, but in the case of reduced bloodflow we have proof, don't we? There's a little lump in my lag that causes reduced bloodflow if I don't do certain exercises or movements, which causes a bit of lag. If I do the movements for a bit or several times per hour, no lag. That is true for a considerable percentage of the population.
- Nevermark 1y ago
  > If reduced bloodflow is known to be the cause But it isn't. Correlation isn't causation. There are so many possible relationships between somewhat correlated things like this. The difference in blood flow could reflect less need due to upstream ADHD impact bottlenecking something else. Adding more oxygen there would be no different than the benefits of more oxygen anywhere. That is just one of dozens of alternatives to your - straight from circumstance to explanation - leap of imagination. There is a reason why we value science, despite it being an unnatural and difficult way to think for many. And often frustratingly slow. (Given science is a new idea, we have no specific evolutionary support for it.) In contrast, "Plausible" reasoning is trivially easy, but is a disaster in terms of reliability. (Not being pejorative, but the other word for argument by seeming plausibility is "bullshit". We all have done it. For some people it's habitual, even motivated.)
  - wtbdbrrr 1y ago
    > But it isn't. Correlation isn't causation. I don't understand. If it IS the cause, hypothetically speaking (or in one of the rare cases when it is confirmed to be the cause), then it's not correlated; even though in--let's say, all--other cases, it is just a correlation. > Adding more oxygen there would be no different than the benefits of more oxygen anywhere. More blood flow and oxygen in my leg does add to my overall performance, if my leg had reduced blood flow and oxygen supply before the increase but if my biceps is suffering from low blood flow and low oxygen, increasing both right in biceps increases it's functionality and performance to a much larger degree. > could reflect less need due to upstream ADHD impact bottlenecking something else That is rerouting and reinforcement played out over time. You probably heard how some left-handed kids, to this day, are forced to--or at least rewarded for doing it--learn to write with their right hands. What happens in the brain, given that their genetic baseline dexterity is much better in their right hand and their brain thus prefers using it for writing and other fine work? [I should absolutely cite research here asap. I'm still treating these conversations like a noob, even though I could support arguments using good old Baconic ways. Forgive me.] > That is just one of dozens of alternatives to your - straight from circumstance to explanation - leap of imagination. Most certainly. I always loved it when Dr. House had to test one theory after the other. He and his team didn't fall back on imagination of course but often enough, the connections between symptoms, information and established causes and correlation required logical abduction. > Not being pejorative, but the other word for argument by seeming plausibility is "bullshit". I'm not sensitive and I like being wrong more than I like being right. "We" need more fMRIs, though. On a side note: Your comments did stimulate a desire to properly formulate a hypothesis based on tangential evidence from relevant (fMRI) studies. But there is no one to hold me accountable and once I'm done with PreCalc, I will move on to Biology and Chemistry basics, because I hope that the increased blood flow I achieved in the area around my parietal and temporal lobe will finally let me haul my broke ass back to university ... after, well ... too many years. (I could do the whole "fake it till you make it" being a grown up thing and JUST GET A JOB - but I don't like fake shit and once you get something to do what you want it to do, all the effort was worth it and there is ZERO reason to "adapt")
    - Nevermark 1y ago

wtbdbrrr 1y ago

> assuming that reducing blood flow one place, and increasing it in another place should have made it clear that I did not mean decreasing in one place while increasing in another but increasing throughout all proximate areas. > Your whole comment is full of this type of worse than weak reasoning. Agreed, should have tagged it #sciencephilosophy or something ... I was thinking out loud. But there is merit. I am not uncertain any studies can prove me entirely wrong. But I understand why such a discussion might be a waste of time. > This cannot possibly be assumed when talking about physiology already known to be atypical. I don't understand. If reduced bloodflow is known to be the cause for atypical physiology, then the opposite is certainly also known. I understand that -q doesn't necessarily mean p, but in the case of reduced bloodflow we have proof, don't we? There's a little lump in my lag that causes reduced bloodflow if I don't do certain exercises or movements, which causes a bit of lag. If I do the movements for a bit or several times per hour, no lag. That is true for a considerable percentage of the population.

Nevermark 1y ago
> If reduced bloodflow is known to be the cause But it isn't. Correlation isn't causation. There are so many possible relationships between somewhat correlated things like this. The difference in blood flow could reflect less need due to upstream ADHD impact bottlenecking something else. Adding more oxygen there would be no different than the benefits of more oxygen anywhere. That is just one of dozens of alternatives to your - straight from circumstance to explanation - leap of imagination. There is a reason why we value science, despite it being an unnatural and difficult way to think for many. And often frustratingly slow. (Given science is a new idea, we have no specific evolutionary support for it.) In contrast, "Plausible" reasoning is trivially easy, but is a disaster in terms of reliability. (Not being pejorative, but the other word for argument by seeming plausibility is "bullshit". We all have done it. For some people it's habitual, even motivated.)
- wtbdbrrr 1y ago
  > But it isn't. Correlation isn't causation. I don't understand. If it IS the cause, hypothetically speaking (or in one of the rare cases when it is confirmed to be the cause), then it's not correlated; even though in--let's say, all--other cases, it is just a correlation. > Adding more oxygen there would be no different than the benefits of more oxygen anywhere. More blood flow and oxygen in my leg does add to my overall performance, if my leg had reduced blood flow and oxygen supply before the increase but if my biceps is suffering from low blood flow and low oxygen, increasing both right in biceps increases it's functionality and performance to a much larger degree. > could reflect less need due to upstream ADHD impact bottlenecking something else That is rerouting and reinforcement played out over time. You probably heard how some left-handed kids, to this day, are forced to--or at least rewarded for doing it--learn to write with their right hands. What happens in the brain, given that their genetic baseline dexterity is much better in their right hand and their brain thus prefers using it for writing and other fine work? [I should absolutely cite research here asap. I'm still treating these conversations like a noob, even though I could support arguments using good old Baconic ways. Forgive me.] > That is just one of dozens of alternatives to your - straight from circumstance to explanation - leap of imagination. Most certainly. I always loved it when Dr. House had to test one theory after the other. He and his team didn't fall back on imagination of course but often enough, the connections between symptoms, information and established causes and correlation required logical abduction. > Not being pejorative, but the other word for argument by seeming plausibility is "bullshit". I'm not sensitive and I like being wrong more than I like being right. "We" need more fMRIs, though. On a side note: Your comments did stimulate a desire to properly formulate a hypothesis based on tangential evidence from relevant (fMRI) studies. But there is no one to hold me accountable and once I'm done with PreCalc, I will move on to Biology and Chemistry basics, because I hope that the increased blood flow I achieved in the area around my parietal and temporal lobe will finally let me haul my broke ass back to university ... after, well ... too many years. (I could do the whole "fake it till you make it" being a grown up thing and JUST GET A JOB - but I don't like fake shit and once you get something to do what you want it to do, all the effort was worth it and there is ZERO reason to "adapt")
  - Nevermark 1y ago