364 réponses à ce sujet

[dreamgazer]

David7204 wrote...

'That is just basic science'

Real compelling evidence right there. Is that the best we can do?

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it." - Neil deGrasse Tyson

[Iakus]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Ahem.

Cough

[MassivelyEffective0730]

dreamgazer wrote...

David7204 wrote...

'That is just basic science'

Real compelling evidence right there. Is that the best we can do?

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it." - Neil deGrasse Tyson

Totally have an image for this:

[David7204]

You notice that when I ask for evidence, all the little actual 'scientific' explanations immediately stop? Nobody is talking about the brain anymore. Immediately, the responses I get turn into pictures of burnt paper, irrelevant quotations, and links to youtube videos?

[BaladasDemnevanni]

StreetMagic wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

iakus wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

Here's hoping whoever wrote the Lazarus bit in ME2 comes into this thread and facepalms. I doubt even they believe it. It's ****ing science fiction, people.

Science fiction

I never emphasized the science part myself. It's just fiction. With more lasers and tentacles.

There's a reason why Fiction and Science fiction are two separate things 

I have no interest in segregating the two that much. Just like I don't categorize popular music styles much. Frankenstein, for example, is widely considered both, and not commonly relegated to the science fiction section of a library. Hell, sometimes it gets a third genre (horror).

And that might be fine, for you. But you shouldn't exactly be surprised that you're going to come into resistance on this point.

Fiction is not a carte blanche for crappy writing.

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

You notice that when I ask for evidence, all the little actual 'scientific' explanations immediately stop? Nobody is talking about the brain anymore. Immediately, the responses I get turn into pictures of burnt paper, irrelevant quotations, and links to youtube videos?

.  What about the one I gave you?

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

You notice that when I ask for evidence, all the little actual 'scientific' explanations immediately stop? Nobody is talking about the brain anymore. Immediately, the responses I get turn into pictures of burnt paper, irrelevant quotations, and links to youtube videos?

Are you a neurosurgeon? Are you a brain scientist? I thought you were a physicist?

What college did you go to that grants ever-changing professional degree's in whatever you want it to be by whatever argument you make? I'd totally enroll there in a minute.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 31 juillet 2013 - 03:11 .

[David7204]

All you said was that a neuron 'breaks down.' How does that prove that it's beyond function or replication?

[AresKeith]

Steelcan wrote...

David7204 wrote...

You notice that when I ask for evidence, all the little actual 'scientific' explanations immediately stop? Nobody is talking about the brain anymore. Immediately, the responses I get turn into pictures of burnt paper, irrelevant quotations, and links to youtube videos?

.  What about the one I gave you?

He ignores them and acts like we have no clue

I'm coming to the conclusion that he's very smug or just a very dedicated troll

[dreamgazer]

Steelcan wrote...

David7204 wrote...

You notice that when I ask for evidence, all the little actual 'scientific' explanations immediately stop? Nobody is talking about the brain anymore. Immediately, the responses I get turn into pictures of burnt paper, irrelevant quotations, and links to youtube videos?

.  What about the one I gave you?

"So what?"

[Iakus]

David7204 wrote...

You notice that when I ask for evidence, all the little actual 'scientific' explanations immediately stop? Nobody is talking about the brain anymore. Immediately, the responses I get turn into pictures of burnt paper, irrelevant quotations, and links to youtube videos?

From three pages ago:

Cerebral Hypoxia

relevant passage:

Brain damage can occur both during and after oxygen deprivation. During oxygen deprivation, cells die due to an increasing acidity in the brain tissue (acidosis). Additionally, during the period of oxygen deprivation, materials that can easily createfree radicals build up. When oxygen enters the tissue these materials interact with oxygen to create high levels of oxidants.Oxidants interfere with the normal brain chemistry and cause further damage. This is called reperfusion injury.Techniques for preventing damage to brain cells are an area of on-going research. Hypothermia therapy for neonatal encephalopathy is the only evidence-supported therapy, but anti-oxidant drugs, control of blood glucose levels, and hemodilution (thinning of the blood) coupled with drug-induced hypertension are some treatment techniques currently under investigation.[23] Hyperbaric oxygen therapy is being evaluated with the reduction in total and myocardial creatine phosphokinase levels showing a possible reduction in the overall systemic inflammatory process.[24]In severe cases it is extremely important to act quickly.Brain cells are very sensitive to reduced oxygen levels. Once deprived of oxygen they will begin to die off within five minutes.[23]

Modifié par iakus, 31 juillet 2013 - 03:13 .

[David7204]

Iakis, I'd be amazed if you could explain more than 20% of those terms to me. How does that prove that Shepard's brain cells would be beyond function or replication?

[GreyLycanTrope]

David7204 wrote...

You notice that when I ask for evidence, all the little actual 'scientific' explanations immediately stop? Nobody is talking about the brain anymore. Immediately, the responses I get turn into pictures of burnt paper, irrelevant quotations, and links to youtube videos?

I'm sorry I thought you wanted to include in game tech, you want a real world answer?

"This is a reasonable question. After all, when a car runs out of gas,
the engine stops running, but it doesn't break the engine. If you add
gas or oxygen, the engine can start up again. This is even true for some
cells and some animals.

Why is it different for the brain?

It
turns out that this question has been studied, because loss of oxygen
is what causes brain damage in stroke. If brain damage can be prevented,
the medical outcome from stroke would be much improved.

The
reason for hypoxia-induced brain damage is that the electrochemistry of
the brain requires active stabilization to prevent feedback-induced ion
overloads. When metabolism slows down, the neurons biochemically
short-circuit, analogous to how a nuclear reactor self-destructs if the
water pumps are turned off.

In terms of biochemistry, the main
mechanism is cascading excitatory depolarization, leading to calcium ion
overload, which irreversibly damages the cells biochemical pathways.
[1] This neurochemical cascade is called "excitotoxicity."
Source.

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

Iakis, I'd be amazed if you could explain more than 20% of those terms to me. How does that prove that Shepard's brain cells would be beyond function or replication?

.  For the same reason you cannot undecompose roadkill.  As for replication, adult neural stem cells can be used to treat brain damage, however they do not have the memories the old one have limiting their usefulness.  They are also few in number  but cloning could mitigate that.

And more personal attacks.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

Iakis, I'd be amazed if you could explain more than 20% of those terms to me. How does that prove that Shepard's brain cells would be beyond function or replication?

Argument to Ridicule

Judgemental Language

And, most largely, the Genetic Fallacy: You're saying that a point is flawed because it comes from someone you think isn't credible.

The information is credible. And you've moved the goalposts.

You lose.

[David7204]

Greylycantrope wrote...

The reason for hypoxia-induced brain damage is that the electrochemistry of the brain requires active stabilization to prevent feedback-induced ion overloads. When metabolism slows down, the neurons biochemically
short-circuit, analogous to how a nuclear reactor self-destructs if the water pumps are turned off.

In terms of biochemistry, the main mechanism is cascading excitatory depolarization, leading to calcium ion
overload, which irreversibly damages the cells biochemical pathways. This neurochemical cascade is called "excitotoxicity."

Whoa there Webster. I need you to explain every one of those five dollar terms to me in detail. Obviously you can, because you surely wouldn't be using an argument you don't understand at all?

- feedback-induced ion overloads
- hypoxia
- cascading excitatory depolarization
- calcium ion overload
- short-circuit

Right. So go ahead and get started on that.

Modifié par David7204, 31 juillet 2013 - 03:22 .

[AresKeith]

David7204 wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

The reason for hypoxia-induced brain damage is that the electrochemistry of the brain requires active stabilization to prevent feedback-induced ion overloads. When metabolism slows down, the neurons biochemically
short-circuit, analogous to how a nuclear reactor self-destructs if the water pumps are turned off.

In terms of biochemistry, the main mechanism is cascading excitatory depolarization, leading to calcium ion
overload, which irreversibly damages the cells biochemical pathways. This neurochemical cascade is called "excitotoxicity."

Whoa there Webster. I need you to explain every one of those five dollar terms to me in detail. Obviously you can, because you surely wouldn't be using an argument you don't understand at all?

- feedback-induced ion overloads
- hypoxia
- cascading excitatory depolarization
- calcium ion overload
- short-circuit

Right. So go ahead and get started on that.

So you get your proof but refusing to accept it and try to make them do more work than they need to

Obvious troll

[Steelcan]

1. Feedback is any process that results in either a positive or negative loop
2. Lack of oxygen
3. Depolarization of polarized ions
4. Too many calcium ions
5. Not even going to bother

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

The reason for hypoxia-induced brain damage is that the electrochemistry of the brain requires active stabilization to prevent feedback-induced ion overloads. When metabolism slows down, the neurons biochemically
short-circuit, analogous to how a nuclear reactor self-destructs if the water pumps are turned off.

In terms of biochemistry, the main mechanism is cascading excitatory depolarization, leading to calcium ion
overload, which irreversibly damages the cells biochemical pathways. This neurochemical cascade is called "excitotoxicity."

Whoa there Webster. I need you to explain every one of those five dollar terms to me in detail. Obviously you can, because you surely wouldn't be using an argument you don't understand at all?

- feedback-induced ion overloads
- hypoxia
- cascading excitatory depolarization
- calcium ion overload
- short-circuit

Right. So go ahead and get started on that.

Once again: You made the same fallacies as you did with iakus.

Are you even capable of normal interaction with people? Because people don't reject evidence that completely contradicts their claims (that are absolutely baseless in your case) simply because the person isn't an expert or professional on the subject matter.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 31 juillet 2013 - 03:26 .

[GreyLycanTrope]

Steelcan wrote...
1. Feedback is any process that results in either a positive or negative loop
2. Lack of oxygen
3. Depolarization of polarized ions
4. Too many calcium ions
5. Not even going to bother

Bio major?

[Steelcan]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Steelcan wrote...
1. Feedback is any process that results in either a positive or negative loop
2. Lack of oxygen
3. Depolarization of polarized ions
4. Too many calcium ions
5. Not even going to bother

Bio major?

History, but very interested in biology.

[AresKeith]

Steelcan wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

Steelcan wrote...
1. Feedback is any process that results in either a positive or negative loop
2. Lack of oxygen
3. Depolarization of polarized ions
4. Too many calcium ions
5. Not even going to bother

Bio major?

History, but very interested in biology.

I like biology, I accidently made a powerful flashbang once (chemistry)  

Modifié par AresKeith, 31 juillet 2013 - 03:31 .

[Jorji Costava]

[TL;DR Warning] I'm not much of a nitpicker about plot details myself; I seriously doubt that our enjoyment of most works hinges on the details of cell biology, plot logic or whatever. Quick example: How, in Terminator 2, does the T-1000 go back in time? Answer: He can't, because it was clearly explained in the original film that "nothing dead can go back," and the T-1000, being composed entirely of liquid metal, is certainly not living matter. Did that just make you hate T2? If not, then you have to concede that plot mechanics are not the be-all end-all of storytelling. Having said all of that, I'm not a big fan of Lazarus for a couple of reasons:

1. It just doesn't mean anything. Killing and resurrecting the protagonist is something that can be mined for all sorts of interesting themes and symbolism; any cursory examination of world religion and comparative mythology will reveal that much. For instance, death and resurrection of the protagonist can be a way of signifying that protagonist's ultimate triumph (this is fairly standard within the Hero's Journey, which has always been Bioware's bread and butter); hey, the good guy (or gal) just conquered death. But what is the nature of Shepard's triumph in the Lazarus arc? Shepard dies rescuing a secondary character and then is resurrected by a bunch of scientists. What exactly is the nature of Shep's victory here? Shepard doesn't do anything; stuff just happens to him, almost entirely as a result of the actions of characters we barely know.

2. Lazarus doesn't set up any interesting plotlines that are payed off later, or at least, it doesn't set up any plot lines that couldn't be set up in an alternative way (like Shepard falling into a coma, or spending two years in a Batarian prison camp, etc.). For instance, you might have a running thread whereby Shepard wants revenge on whoever killed him or her, and then Shepard later has the opportunity to take this revenge or not. Maybe not a good example, but the point is that Lazarus should set up a plot or theme that's paid off later.

3. Shepard tells TIM: "You could have trained an army for what you paid to bring me back." My response was, "That's a really good question!" Because Only Shepard Can Do It? That's not a very satisfying answer. I love the original Terminator film, but it always bothered me that a crucial plot point is that only John Connor of all people can save humanity. There's always been an appeal in the idea that even if you kill the leader of a great movement, that leader can be replaced by another, who can be replaced by yet another, because that spark of greatness somehow exists within all of us, or some romantic notion like that. I just didn't need to be beaten over the head with the idea that Shepard is the Only One Who Can Save Us.

4. No one cares: Shepard dies and comes back to life. Death has been solved. This doesn't seem like a big deal to anyone at all. That struck me as a bit odd.

What it comes down to for me is that Lazarus is purely a plot device and little more. It's the difference between the Genesis Device in Star Trek II and Red Matter in Star Trek 2009 (which I actually did enjoy). The Genesis device is bad science, but is operating at a number of symbolic levels. There's the whole business about Spock dying at the same moment the Genesis planet is created, calling to mind familiar ideas about cycles of death, rebirth, etc. The Genesis reference also ties in to the Milton-ian aspects of Khan's story. Red Matter, by contrast, doesn't do any of this stuff. It's a red blob that has whatever properties the writers need it to have to move the story forward. Lazarus falls mostly into that second category for me (despite the obvious religious reference of its name), and I think that's a weakness of the story.