If you leave a message for me here, I'll respond here. If I leave a message on your talk page, I'll look there for a response (but of course you can respond here if you want to).
Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
- please help translate this message into the local language
|The Cure Award|
|In 2013 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you so much for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date medical information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do!|
We are wondering about the educational background of our top medical editors. Would you please complete a quick 5-question survey? (please only fill this out if you received the award)
A hypothesis and more...
There is a common fallacy in regards to LSD residing in the spinal cord The myth as I heard it: "LSD resides in the spinal cord. When someone 'pops' or 'cracks' their back some of the residing LSD is released into the blood stream causing a hallucinogenic experience" (once the LSD tainted blood reaches the brain). However flashbacks are a real thing Some people get them others do not. Since you are a scientist I wanted your expert opinion about my opinion Although a specific scientist would be nifty. I have this (crazy) idea that when someone has an experience the "wiring of synapses" in the brain physically changes. So if you have tried coffee your brain is physically different than the brain of a person who has never tried coffee (only in the context of that part of the brain from experiencing coffee). So is it possible to have the psychoactive experience of coffee consumption when you are not under the influence of coffee? Like the memory of coffee experience being "triggered"? So if that isn't complete nonsense (I await your judgement) is it at least moderately probable that the same could be applied to LSD use? Once you have tried LSD the memory of that experience could be triggered causing someone to have an unexpected psychedelic experience? If this is all claptrap (i just like using that word in a facecious manner) what are your thoughts about this? I am hesitant to ask about the "more" part as you might not want to. If you do reply I am forever in your service. Post Scriptum: I have been trying to find scientists of various disciplines and ask them about their opinions. I know scientific consensus has nothing to do with the actual validity of things, but scientists seem to have their act together (mostly) Agent of the nine (talk) 17:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- The difficulty, if I understand what you are saying, is that remembering something is not the same as experiencing it. The two events clearly are related, but they aren't the same. Philosophers and neuroscientists have been struggling since the 1600s to describe the relationship between memory/imagination and experience, but it's hard. One of the early theories was that remembering something causes the same type of brain activity as experiencing it, except weaker -- but there are all kinds of objections to that idea. So the answer, I think, is that the memory of coffee or LSD has some relationship with the actual experience of them, but we don't yet understand exactly what that relationship is. I hope this helps; I'm sure it's confusing. Looie496 (talk) 18:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Also have you heard of Sam harris he is a very controversial person. He is a neuroscientist and has made many claims in regards to the human brain. An example would be the statement that "free will" is an illusion and so is the ego or idea of self. There is a lot of evidence and information about these subjects and it is very exciting! When questioned if other scientific bodies shared his views or not he mainly expressed "i dont know". Which makes sense because if neuroscientists started talking about free will being an illusion etc (assuming that that is true) there would be huge social uproars (like with biological evolution) and I don't blame scientists for not wanting to be involved in hot button topics. They just want to be involved in science without any drama. I have also seen a few other neuroscientists speak about new research/experiments and they talk about the evidence, results, and then they fail to draw a conclusion (or express one) with their final statement being "well you'll have to draw your own conclusions about this". An example would be when studies showed that when most people thought deeply about themselves area "x" of the brain lit up. Then when people thought about god deeply area "x" of the bain would light up. And there you have it folks! no explanation... What are your thoughts about this?Agent of the nine (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- This isn't really the place for a deep discussion -- I don't mind taking a bit of liberty, but I want to keep my talk page here focused mainly on Wikipedia-related topics. Anyway, to briefly reply: (1) I have no idea what causes LSD flashbacks, and I'm not 100% convinced that they really exist; (2) Yes, I know about Sam Harris -- also our article neuroscience of free will deals with some of those issues. Harris is not the only neuroscientist willing to talk about them. (3) Lots of times we simply don't know why an area lights up. Our understanding of brain function is still very primitive. Best regards, Looie496 (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I would appreciate your opinion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus .thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Arbitration case opening
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Technical 13. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Technical 13/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 30, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Technical 13/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz Read! Talk! 01:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Sir, thank you for your quick edit after my changes to my BCI page. Please clarify how some of the new references that I added violated policy. They are journal publications (and one conf proceeding) from reputable sources referenced in PubMed. They are relevant to the use of high gamma activity for functional brain mapping.
Thanks, Brendan Allison, PhD
- @Bzallison: Thanks for asking. The basic policy is embodied in WP:MEDRS, which says that we should rely as much as possible on secondary sources, meaning mainly review articles. There are several reasons for that: First, review papers give guidance on how material should be weighted -- it's difficult to tell the difference between an important research paper and one that is trivial or dubious. Second, review papers present a more consistent picture of the state of the field. Third, using review papers improves maintainability of the article. Best regards, Looie496 (talk) 14:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
RE thanks for input
|RE thanks for input|
Just wanted to thank you for your input re my MCT article a few months ago. Sorry I didn't reply earlier. I am just starting out with the Wiki and getting the hang of creating/editing as well as the general acceptable tone of articles is taking me some time! Your comments and corrections were helpful in this process. Regards Wiki_Djinn42 Wiki Djinn42 (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)