Dwayne Bowe arrested for speeding and Marijuana possession

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

dwayne bowe made our forum go into bat**** crazy mode

That's the power of refer madness!

 

[Galeb]

I think it's an argument of semantics to suggest that an intangible, ambiguous construct such as one's "personality" is an illusion. Obviously one's consciousness is ever-changing, gathering new information and entirely subjective to neurological and environmental factors at any given time, but I don't think that means the notions of behavioural and emotional tendencies should be discredited entirely. I believe something like cognitive dissonance utilizes both our viewpoints.

I never tried to discredit the notions emotional and behavioral tendencies and believe the idea of cognitive dissonance can be an extremely useful tool. I generally don't like using analogies, but sometimes they can be helpful to explain something complex, without getting too wordy or technical.

Like an operating system, the mind has many individual components and mechanisms that all interact with each other in vastly complex ways. Although the number of these subsystems can get very large if you start digging deep enough, they can often be effectively categorized into larger logical structures.

Likely you are familiar with Freud's Id, ego and super ego which is essentially the same way Aristotle broke down the human mind, just using different names. Consciousness is the focal point of the interaction between all of these subsystems. The "ego", or "self" that I am referring to is a logical mechanism that this conglomerate of processes uses as a frame of reference. Such a frame of reference is vital in many cognitive processes, especially when dealing with the external world.

Although much more complex, at a basic level, the "self" image is much like a schema. A schema is a logical representation of an idea, object, set of events, behavioral patterns... almost anything. Schemas are vital in dealing with events in the external world quickly and efficiently. For example, if you quickly think about a dog, there is likely a particular breed or specific dog that you picture most of the time. The idea of vacation may instantly make one think of a tropical island etc... Without schemas it would be almost impossible to make any sense of the vast sensory information flowing to our brains every moment from the world around us. Schemas can have a downside, as critical information can be missed when using them, but they are vital in our efficient navigation and understanding of the world around us.

Schemas and the idea of "self" are both logical constructs within the mind. They are both representations of ideas used by the logical mind to quickly make sense of, and interact with, the external world. Perhaps illusion is not a perfect word to describe the "self", but is close in that they are both representations. The word illusion referring to the "self" is not exclusive to the social and neurological sciences.

 

[Joker]

I never tried to discredit the notions emotional and behavioral tendencies and believe the idea of cognitive dissonance can be an extremely useful tool. I generally don't like using analogies, but sometimes they can be helpful to explain something complex, without getting too wordy or technical.

Like an operating system, the mind has many individual components and mechanisms that all interact with each other in vastly complex ways. Although the number of these subsystems can get very large if you start digging deep enough, they can often be effectively categorized into larger logical structures.

Likely you are familiar with Freud's Id, ego and super ego which is essentially the same way Aristotle broke down the human mind, just using different names. Consciousness is the focal point of the interaction between all of these subsystems. The "ego", or "self" that I am referring to is a logical mechanism that this conglomerate of processes uses as a frame of reference. Such a frame of reference is vital in many cognitive processes, especially when dealing with the external world.

Although much more complex, at a basic level, the "self" image is much like a schema. A schema is a logical representation of an idea, object, set of events, behavioral patterns... almost anything. Schemas are vital in dealing with events in the external word quickly and efficiently. For example, if you quickly think about a dog, there is likely a particular breed or specific dog that you picture most of the time. The idea of vacation may instantly make one think of a tropical island etc... Without schemas it would be almost impossible to make any sense of the vast sensory information flowing to our brains every moment from the world around us. Schemas can have a downside, as critical information can be missed when using them, but they are vital in our efficient navigation and understanding of the world around us.

Schemas and the idea of "self" are both logical constructs within the mind. They are both representations of ideas used by the logical mind to quickly make sense of, and interact with, the external world. Perhaps illusion is not a perfect word to describe the "self", but is close in that they are both representations. The word illusion referring to the "self" is not exclusive to the social and neurological sciences.

nice post...please, permit me to carry it one step further, as I am of Irish descent...

Did Freud say of the Irish “This is one race of people for whom psychoanalysis is of no use whatsoever”? – This remark is quoted in the Oscar-winning movie The Departed. There is no evidence Freud said it. The only documentation seems to be Anthony Burgess, in his introduction to a book of Irish short stories: “One of [Freud's] followers split up human psychology into two categories – Irish and non-Irish.”

there...I feel....very much relieved....:madgrin:

 

[larryo]

Wish I could dose some people in this forum with 4 grams of psilocybin. Need some ego crashing around here.

Galeb bringing it.

 

[Galeb]

You claimed that they were both external. That's misleading, because the effects of a pill aren't the same when you stare at it (i.e. sunset) as when you ingest it. You can walk by an oxycontin all day without it doing anything significant to impact your body or mind. It only has its major impact when you actually take it.

And you don't need to point me to anything, thanks.

For the record, I've seen several examples of people "tripping" after taking fake acid. Jumping in the ocean isn't the same as looking at it either. Experiences are extremely varied, but in the end are all experienced as a neurochemical process.

Pavlovs dogs eventually salivated without meat powder. Most peoples heart rates increase when thinking about sex. Some coke heads start to fart just at the idea of getting coke.

You seem to have a mind capable of significant analytical processing. If you ever opened it up, and expanded your range of experiences, you could become quite formidable.

 

[Galeb]

Hope I'm not bringing this too far. I'm really not interested in pissing contests, but I am pretty passionate about the subject of the mind and consciousness. There is so much we don't yet know.

As such a new poster, I should probably have stopped a couple of posts ago.

 

[Joker]

Too late...you've come down with Patsfans Compulsive Posting Disorder...don't worry though, no one will expose you...WE ALL HAVE IT!!!

 

[manxman2601]

As opposed to taking a hit of a joint?

As you say, "Please"...

edit: btw, you referred to having witnessed the effects of weed as a former cop -- did you ever witness any damage resulting from drinking?

and please be honest here -- did the damage from weed really exceed -- or even approach -- the damage from alcohol?

No. Absolutely not. And if you want to argue for the prohibition of alcohol then go right ahead ( I believe it's already been tried)

But because item A is legal and bad for you that doesn't mean you should legalise everything that's bad for you. That makes no logical sense.

 

[manxman2601]

And tonight on Jeopardy, the first answer is:

Wow, you could have used this same ****ing awful argument to defend keeping slavery legal.

Buzzzz.

"Give the best example of a false equivalence."


"We have a winner!"

 

[Deus Irae]

For the record, I've seen several examples of people "tripping" after taking fake acid. Jumping in the ocean isn't the same as looking at it either. Experiences are extremely varied, but in the end are all experienced as a neurochemical process.

Pavlovs dogs eventually salivated without meat powder. Most peoples heart rates increase when thinking about sex. Some coke heads start to fart just at the idea of getting coke.

You seem to have a mind capable of significant analytical processing. If you ever opened it up, and expanded your range of experiences, you could become quite formidable.

Having an underlying baseline with similarities does not necessarily mean that "They are very similar". It's like saying that everything made by human beings is very similar. Since you're talking as if you think you know something, you should surely know that. The irony of your posts is that you called mine condescending, while demonstrating quite the propensity for that yourself. Good comedy.

 

[captain stone]

Usually when I get baked while driving, I start slowing down - not speeding up.

Cheech & Chong: "Up In Smoke" - Am I Driving ok? - YouTube

 

[Galeb]

The irony of your posts is that you called mine condescending, while demonstrating quite the propensity for that yourself.

I agree with this statement and I definitely need to work on that. That's why I should have stopped a couple of posts ago. Sometimes I don't respond well when I am spoken down to, especially from a layman when speaking about a field I have studied for many years. I do feel I was being genuine tho, even when being condescending in that last post. And for the record, my tone can get condescending at times, but it very rarely happens first, and almost never get's both condescending and dismissive.

Part of the reason I was such a longtime lurker is that I don't know enough about football to add much insight on the subject.

There are rare, precious times when we learn that something we once considered absurd is actually the truth. It is in those times that we grow the most. A closed mind is much less likely to experience this phenomenon.

You win. This as far as I can pee.

 

[IcyPatriot]

Hope I'm not bringing this too far. I'm really not interested in pissing contests, but I am pretty passionate about the subject of the mind and consciousness. There is so much we don't yet know.

As such a new poster, I should probably have stopped a couple of posts ago.

Ehhh ...

when I came here in 1999 I was 2 cents short of a dollar ...

now ... about 8 cents short of a buck.

 

[supafly]

For the record, I've seen several examples of people "tripping" after taking fake acid.

As someone who left home during my junior year of high school, I had to resort to many "unique" ways of surviving in my late teen's/early 20's. When you're 17 yrs old you can only make so much money working hard, especially when you start out with absolutely nothing...

Although I am not proud of the fact, I took advantage of this with the average wanna-be stoner many, many times...and yes, it certainly does work.

I can't tell you how many times I took envelopes, sheets of paper, etc and drew some crazy design on it to purchase school books, pay rent, etc. 20 yrs later I have grown up tremendously and would not only frown on the subject of drug use altogether, but also the general trickery that I used to take advantage of the average idiot whose mind was somehow "expanded" by eating the back of my old report card.

People believe what they want to believe. The power of thinking can go an awfully long way.

 

[supafly]

As far as Dwayne Bowe's situation, I can't believe that KC chose to give him that enormous pact (6/66 when you include the franchise tag) and yet refuses to get creative enough to target him.

Eventually, they will have to revisit their decision and try to either trade him or actually throw him the ball more than 5 yds downfield.

I can't say that I'm surprised that he smokes weed though, as the general opinion is that the players usually only get tested once/twice a year for pot and seem to know when the test is coming. I would venture to bet that a good percentage of NFL players smoke pot, although my personal opinion would be lower than some of the numbers that others have thrown out. I would have to guess at about 35-40-45%.

 

[chicowalker]

No. Absolutely not. And if you want to argue for the prohibition of alcohol then go right ahead ( I believe it's already been tried)

But because item A is legal and bad for you that doesn't mean you should legalise everything that's bad for you. That makes no logical sense.

Did you say earlier that you're a libertarian? Because you seem to take a view of government and the law that is directly opposite of being a libertarian.

I don't advocate the prohibition of alcohol because I don't think drinking should be a criminal activity.

Same goes for pot. Smoking weed doesn't hurt another person. It isn't likely to do any noticeable harm to the user. So it shouldn't be illegal.

It's not up to the government to decide what's good or bad for an adult.

I think booze should be legal and so should weed. So should pizza and Big Macs. Yes, there are adults who will do harm to themselves with these things, but that's their own issue.

And if you want to talk logic, please tell me more about how a glass of wine with lunch is fine but a hit of weed is evil...

Personally, I'd like our laws to be fairly limited and to have some consistency. If you find that illogical, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[supafly]

And if you want to talk logic, please tell me more about how a glass of wine with lunch is fine but a hit of weed is evil...

As a criminal justice major in both undergrad and grad school, a former drug user/experimenter, and someone who has lost a close family member to a drug overdose, I tend to agree with you on some levels...

BUT

The reality is that marijuana should be DECRIMINALIZED not outright legalized. One shouldn't have a "record" that prevents them from getting a job 20 years later when they're caught with 25 bucks worth of pot in their late teens/early 20's, and taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for overcrowded/re-building of jails either. It's basically unfair to everyone involved. In some instances, people with mental illness and social anxiety issues; along with outright addiction problems, need to be treated in a more intense fashion. That would be something that I would like to see, and something that would also cut down on the prison/jail rates and save everyone money.

The downside and main concern is that marijuana is indeed a "gateway drug," meaning that it will almost always lead one to experiment with other substances that are more dangerous. The percentages of those who experiment with pot definitely back this up. That is a big worry and can actually be deadly once teens start using prescription pills, cocaine, heroin, etc. And as much as some will roll their eyes at this thought, it happens...in every town, every single day of our lives. Once you legalize marijuana, other windows with substances come into question, and it becomes socially acceptable on a much wider level.

Another concern is that the tar and resin found in marijuana is indeed very dangerous, as the levels amount to that of a cigarette x about 15-20 for the average sized joint. In all reality it isn't entirely "harmless," although I do hear your concerns with the laws being too harsh. That would be something that I would agree with entirely, and is exactly why I firmly agree with decriminalization but not outright legalization. You may feel differently, which makes it one of the more controversial subjects in today's society.

 

[manxman2601]

Did you say earlier that you're a libertarian? Because you seem to take a view of government and the law that is directly opposite of being a libertarian.

I'm philosophically libertarian and conservative as a result of experience and pragmatism. I agree it's a contradiction but one which I navigate reasonably well. It boils down too enforced change usually resulting in negative effects and therefore things should be left as they are.

I don't advocate the prohibition of alcohol because I don't think drinking should be a criminal activity.

Same goes for pot. Smoking weed doesn't hurt another person. It isn't likely to do any noticeable harm to the user. So it shouldn't be illegal.

This is where we disagree. I think that legalising cannabis could be extremely harmful to others for a number of reasons.

It's not up to the government to decide what's good or bad for an adult.

This we'll agree on. And yes I am conflicted on this issue. Which is why the still illegal but largely decriminalised is a compromise I find fairly reasonable.

And if you want to talk logic, please tell me more about how a glass of wine with lunch is fine but a hit of weed is evil...

When you find where I said it was "evil", you will let me know won't you?

Personally, I'd like our laws to be fairly limited and to have some consistency. If you find that illogical, I don't know what to tell you.

But they also have to be pragmatic. And how far would you take this ideological position of yours? Do you legalise cannabis but keep skunk illegal? How about Ecstasy and acid. By your definitions, they should all be legalised. How about Coke, heroin and meth? They all fit the definition of limited laws, govt not interfering in our lives, only harming the user. And that is the logical extension of your argument. If alcohol is legal then cannabis should be too. If cannabis is legal then skunk should be too. Etc, etc.

My belief is rather than start down the slippery slope, this is a less harmful place to fight the battle (and bear in mind I'm in the UK where cannabis use is largely decriminalised).By and large, there is little to prohibit you or anyone else using in your own home. And I'm absolutely fine with that. What you do their is your business. But there is still enough of a prohibition that it tends to keep use in the home, it gives people pause before starting and it doesn't become a culturally accepted norm in all quarters of society. That might change in the future but that doesn't mean I should give up the fight in the present.

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

The downside and main concern is that marijuana is indeed a "gateway drug," meaning that it will almost always lead one to experiment with other substances that are more dangerous. The percentages of those who experiment with pot definitely back this up. That is a big worry and can actually be deadly once teens start using prescription pills, cocaine, heroin, etc. And as much as some will roll their eyes at this thought, it happens...in every town, every single day of our lives. Once you legalize marijuana, other windows with substances come into question, and it becomes socially acceptable on a much wider level.

Marijuana a "Gateway" Drug? Scientists Call Theory Half-Baked - HealthPop - CBS News

I doubt legalizing marijuana would have an impact on the number of people that go on to ruin their lives with drugs. The people that are at risk of such behavior are not letting laws get in their way right now. The people that would start smoking once they aren't forced to jump through hoops, break laws, and/or deal with shady characters are highly unlikely to go "Wow this smoking pot thing kicks ass; I should try meth!!!".

 

[Galeb]

People believe what they want to believe. The power of thinking can go an awfully long way.

In one of our experiments, we concluded that a subject who had previously taken acid was dramatically more likely to "trip" from fake acid if done with a group. The sample size wasn't massive, and there were exceptions, but it became pretty clear that feedback from others who thought they were tripping had a powerful effect.

As expected, groups and individuals who were told it may be a placebo tripped much less often.