Alcohol Consumption Guidelines: Do you care?

[Shootist]

A slight diversion from the topic, but relevant for all that. I have been informed that as a police officer I lived in a 'black and white world'. Not true, but I do see the tendency among others in such discussions as these. The first example is that several people seem to think it is about abstinence versus alcoholism. It isn't, at least as far as the way the thread is going. My query was about why people feel the need to consume alcohol, a drug, in order to enjoy themselves.

There is a very similar argument in the firearms debate. If I was to suggest that licensed concealed carry of firearms for personal protection should be allowed in this country there would be a veritable queue of people suggesting that the country would descend into daily mass gunfights if anybody and everybody can have whatever firearm they want. None of these people are capable of stopping and thinking for a moment about what has been suggested. Instead, for them, they blindly assume that I have suggested that everyone can have guns. That is distinctly not the case. Neither is it with drugs. I am quite certain that I do not live in a 'black and white world'. I am equally certain that there are many who do.

In vino veritas. For me, if I see a normally nice person turn into a complete talking rectum after a few alcoholic drinks then I am well advised that he is of that personality when he is sober, but just hides it well and thus is to be avoided whether drunk or sober. If a person becomes more affable when drunk that is a better arrangement but I pity him because he is unable to be himself when sober and is thus limiting his life.

[Shootist]

You demonstrate without effort the inability to accept your statement 'perception is not reality' contradicts every single post you made previously and the ones you continue to make. This is very interesting to observe...

It would indeed be fascinating to observe if it was true. Have you lost track of things again? For a start, perception can indeed be reality, as you might discover a few milliseconds after you hit the tree.

[SpannerGeek]

Yet you still cannot bear to admit your previous statement 'perception is not reality' contradicts every single post you have made and continue to make.

It is a very poor debater indeed who cannot admit to a recurring, and obvious failure in thinking. Your thinking is in error. And your continued inconsistency absolute proof of concept.

It is interesting to observe though...

[Shootist]

The road is an optical illusion and can be proven by simply freewheeling down in or by placing a spirit level on it.
Colour is a different thing as it be different to different people,so what is the absolute?
If I choose this colour you can match it by choosing a colour from the panel on the right,you may choose the same colour,but how I perceive it may not be how you do.

It's the same when people describe an event they describe the same event but their perception is different.

The equivalent of riding up or down the hill in order to bring perception in line with reality, in respect of the colour can be handled in a parallel manner. You use a colour temperature meter to check the redness. That is the reality. Your perception may be different to mine, especially should you be unfortunate enough to be colour blind. But the red is the colour it is, in reality, whether you see it as green when I see it as red. The chart below may not be scientifically accurate but is intended to help understand the principle.

[Shootist]

Yet you still cannot bear to admit your previous statement 'perception is not reality' contradicts every single you post you made and continue to make.

I will not admit to what I have not done. But if you show me by quoting in context where you believe I have done such a thing then I will explain to you why I haven't.

[SpannerGeek]

Yet you still cannot bear to admit your previous statement 'perception is not reality' contradicts every single you post you made and continue to make.

I will not admit to what I have not done. But if you show me by quoting in context where you believe I have done such a thing then I will explain to you why I haven't.

Your belligerence is matched only by your stunning inconsistency and unreliability as a contributor.

It's your look out if you wish to appear foolish in an public forum.

You clearly stated 'perception is not reality' and therefore everything you continue to say will be judged in that context.

You can't go to jail for being wrong and inconsistent. You're completely safe then.

[Shootist]

Yet you still cannot bear to admit your previous statement 'perception is not reality' contradicts every single you post you made and continue to make.

I will not admit to what I have not done. But if you show me by quoting in context where you believe I have done such a thing then I will explain to you why I haven't.

Your belligerence is matched only by your stunning inconsistency and unreliability as a contributor.

It's your look out if you wish to appear foolish in an public forum.

You clearly stated 'perception is not reality' and therefore everything you continue to say will be judged in that context.

You can't go to jail for being wrong and inconsistent. You're completely safe then.

So, from someone who started out loving statistics and evidence you have descended to name calling and childish rhetoric. I take it you can't find any quotes (in context don't forget) to back up your statement.

[SpannerGeek]

.'For me, if I see a normally nice person turn into a complete talking rectum after a few alcoholic drinks then I am well advised that he is of that personality when he is sober, but just hides it well'

So the perception of reality of this person is unaltered drunk or sober...

Perception is not reality. You contradict your own assertion with every statement made.

Like I said previously, it's impossible to have a reasoned and intelligent debate with someone who quotes a fictional character from 1960's Star Trek as 'proof of concept'.

[reohn2]

The equivalent of riding up or down the hill in order to bring perception in line with reality, in respect of the colour can be handled in a parallel manner. You use a colour temperature meter to check the redness. That is the reality. Your perception may be different to mine, especially should you be unfortunate enough to be colour blind. But the red is the colour it is, in reality, whether you see it as green when I see it as red. The chart below may not be scientifically accurate but is intended to help understand the principle.

The the optical illusion of the hill can be proven by a simple mechanical device,ie; bicycle or spirit level,that's a given because of the law of gravity,which is a constant on earth.
The colour isn't the same because I or you can match the colour to the panel at the side of the posting page,we will both come up with the same colour,even if we're both colour blind because we will match like for like and similarly so with the colour temperature chart.However how we both see that colour could be different to us both but our differences will be the same.
If a third person is asked to verify yours and my(agreed)choice which is this and the third person agrees that our perception is the same,all three of us are in agreement.
But if the third person then goes on the say that the colour is green there's agreement between us but not between us and the third person.So something is wrong(relatively),if a hundred more people are then asked to judge the disagreement,and all say it's green are you and me wrong or do we still perceive it to be red.
The hill can be proven to be an illusion,the colour doesn't change but it's perception can from person to person.

[Vorpal]

The problem is, that to someone who is colour blind, red doesn't exist.

[SpannerGeek]

The above two examples clearly illustrate the difference between perception (mind) and reality (physical).

We perceive the hill to be an illusion BECAUSE it is just an idea in our head. It's property CAN be measured scientifically but it is our perception of it that is wrong and unreliable.

Similarly exact color can be measured by wavelength, but our perception (mind) has no immediate access to this proof. That is why when two people are asked to estimate the difference between colours they invariably get it wrong. The REAL world may be fixed but our perception of it is variable, to say the least.

Einstein was the first person to concede his Theory of Relativity was 'incomplete'. The clue is in the title, it's just an 'idea'. He later went on to concede that a Unifying Theory of Everything may never be achieved because of the limits and unreliability of human perception. In as much as there are certainly facets of the physical universe we just can't determine and may never understand.

Again, Perception is not reality. That is a fundamental truth. Since our perception of reality and the world is so inheritanlyl unreliable it is ludicrous to suggest that alcohol or drugs could make it any more (or indeed less) so. The only scientific truth about alcohol is that it impairs our (body) reflexes. There is the world revealed to us by ideas and the reality of the physical world around us. Unfortunately, as we've seen time and again in this debate, human perception is the only thing we can rely upon, to be unreliable.

[reohn2]

The problem is, that to someone who is colour blind, red doesn't exist.

How do you know?

[SpannerGeek]

http://www.news.com.au/technology/scien ... 6170794531

Apparently the colour PINK doesn't exist AT ALL. It's just an error in human perception, the limits of the human eye. You want more proof that the senses are erratic and unreliable?

[Mick F]

I've just drunk a whole mug of tea whilst catching up with this thread ................ it's enough to drive a chap to drink.

[reohn2]

I've just drunk a whole mug of tea whilst catching up with this thread ................ it's enough to drive a chap to drink.

I hope there wasn't any sugar in it!