Location: POD (Philosophy Of Disciplines)

Discussion: POD discussionReported This is a featured thread

Category: Discussion Forum / General Discussion
Showing 21 - 37 of 37  |  Show  posts at a time
Previous | 1 2
eagleofnone
eagleofnone
29. This is to pick up from my last point, so no, I'm not spamming.
Mar 5 2008, 7:22 AM EST | Post edited: Mar 5 2008, 7:22 AM EST
Note: six cups of coffee cuts down a man's risk of diabetes by more than half. This is probably subject to the amount of sweet stuff you add to that though. Sorry for the lack of clarity.

However, no-other-name-left's points have some validity. When human beings down coffee, do we like to lace our bitter drinks with milk and sugar? By doing so, we are silently admitting to the fact that we cannot take coffee on its own. We take the stuff so we get perked but we don't even like it! Instead, to help us consume coffee, we continously strive for sweeter blends of coffee and more spoons of sugar to help us take our coffee like bitter medicine. no-other-name-left is right to a certain extent - coffee was never intended, although those who manage to consume it are at a predisposed advantage.

On totalimmortal_wdt's points, I would like to comment that drugs aren't the only things that force foreign substances on the body; poisons do just about the same thing. I think that the most important point that hasn't been touched on by this forum yet is the fact that a drug is only more useful than a poison simply because it doesn't appear to kill you if you take it. Some drugs may have long-term effects but if takes care of the job within a short notice nobody's the wiser when it comes to your general health. Cigarette nicotine gives you a high that is addictive, but the harmful substances in them give you respiratory functions. One takes coffee simply because one needs a perk to get them started, but taking too much sugar in the process can give you diabetes regardless of the surveys that amassed data for nearly two decades. So, the circumstances under which a substance is a drug that will enhance or a poison that will do wondrous damages to your body is totally subject to whether the substance is seen as having more to its good side than to its bad one. Do you find this valuable?    
eagleofnone
eagleofnone
30. the result of misspelling. sorry...
Mar 5 2008, 7:29 AM EST | Post edited: Mar 5 2008, 7:29 AM EST
"Note: six cups of coffee cuts down a man's risk of diabetes by more than half. This is probably subject to the amount of sweet stuff you add to that though. Sorry for the lack of clarity.
When human beings down coffee, do we like to lace our bitter drinks with milk and sugar?

Cigarette nicotine gives you a high that is addictive, but the harmful substances in them give you respiratory functions."
it's "don't we"
respiratory functions = respiratory malfunctions, and i actually meant the harmful substances in the cigarette, the nicotine is but a sedative. 0  out of 4 found this valuable. Do you?    
zyeapp
zyeapp
31. Coffee Monster
Mar 5 2008, 9:07 AM EST | Post edited: Mar 5 2008, 9:07 AM EST
There is a theory which states that the caffeine in coffee improves mental and memory performance because it stimulates areas of the brain related to mental activity. Another further study is that although the caffeine will improve the mental performance, it will last for at the max a few hours, in which those hours the brain will be very alert and active. Also, the brain will degenerate about directly proportionate to the amount that it was enhanced after the brief period of enhanced mental ability. Thus, in the long run, a person who drinks coffee everyday will have a lower mental capacity and duration in which the brain is fully alert. 8  out of 8 found this valuable. Do you?    
eagleofnone
eagleofnone
33. RE: written critique
Mar 7 2008, 9:42 AM EST | Post edited: Mar 7 2008, 9:42 AM EST
"um. nothing to do with coffee, but just a question: those who havent done your term 1 written critique (pg14), how're we gonna do it, if the questions and passage are in our book, and our books are with Mdm!"
no, Gareth gave out our books before we left the classroom 0  out of 5 found this valuable. Do you?    
wapita
wapita
34. coffeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Mar 8 2008, 9:45 PM EST | Post edited: Mar 8 2008, 9:45 PM EST
hi um since I won't be around until after wednesday I figure I might as well post now

The definition of drugs is simply anything that alters normal bodily function, and mostly refers to chemicals produced outside of the body (if they were produced internally they would simply be part of normal body function). So adrenaline could only be considered a drug if it were produced externally and applied to the body (eg epinephrine for anaphylaxis patients). Coffee is indeed a drug as it alters bodily function, making one more alert as well as heightening one's mood, perceptiveness and capacity for mental and physical labour. Coffee is, like most drugs, rather addictive due to this very alteration of mental and physical states. Addictees undergo withdrawal symptoms for one to five days after stopping caffeine dosage, with headaches, stomachaches and distractedness.

So, taking coffee does indeed raise the social issues of addiction and artificially enhancing mental capability. However, are these really problems?

I agree with Jengyang's point that it is ridiculous for the blame for addiction to be laid on either the manufacturer of the product or the actual object of addiction--we all have an element of free will and though temptation lies all around, one must rely on one's own discretion and responsible action to avoid falling into the trap in the first place--the blame for becoming addicted should be laid on the addictee only. Although one can make it easier for those that follow by removing temptation, ultimately, it is up to yourself to decide not to fall into addiction, and manufacturers of coffee cannot be blamed.

um I don't have a lot of space left hopefully I can talk about altering mental function in my next post
Matthew Do you find this valuable?    
wapita
wapita
35. RE: coffeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Mar 8 2008, 10:07 PM EST | Post edited: Mar 8 2008, 10:07 PM EST
right to add on addiction to coffee only becomes a social issue when its effects impinge upon others. As I said the manufacture of coffee does pose a slight ethical issue, but although one can lessen the temptation to become addicted, ultimately the responsibility not to fall into the trap lies with the addictee or end-user. coffee is a mild drug and coffee withdrawal symptoms are not as pronounced as, say, opium or cocaine withdrawal.

However, moving on to the ethics of altering mental function--caffeine does not really enhance one's ability to think, simply quickens one's reflexes, promoting "quick, automatic and well-learned reactions rather than careful thought". Taking caffeine gives one an edge over others only in terms of reflexes and reactions.
The ethics of cognitive-enhancing drugs comes into play mostly when in taking it, one gains an unfair advantage over others. In the case of coffee, it is extremely readily and freely available, and almost everyone has taken it at some point in their life. But in a situation where certain competitors have taken coffee and some have not, those who have do indeed have a slight advantage over the rest. Similarly, different people react differently to caffeine and thus in a situation where everyone has taken coffee, those who are less susceptible to caffeine lose out. The competition is not just over mental power, but also ability to react well to caffeine. Then there are those who have taken coffee all their lives, and to whom coffee has indeed become a part of "normal bodily function", and who would function far worse without coffee than the average person. Ultimately, in such a situation, while it can be argued that the other people could take the initiative to take coffee on their own time, the only truly fair competition is in removing coffee from the picture completely, and having a completely non-coffeedrinker competition. But then again this would be ridiculous.
 Do you find this valuable?    

skphuan
36. RE: written critique
Mar 9 2008, 8:25 PM EDT | Post edited: Mar 9 2008, 8:25 PM EDT
I left a note on the pile of POD books that you should refer to LMS. The soft copy of the rubrics, case study for written critique and questions have been uploaded on LMS. The guidelines for the online discussion are also in "events". 0  out of 4 found this valuable. Do you?    
ianyapxw
ianyapxw
37. Too busy during holidays
Mar 10 2008, 2:11 AM EDT | Post edited: Mar 10 2008, 2:11 AM EDT
Dear Madam,
During this 'holiday', I will spend 5 days and 4 nights at camp, 2 days at CCA and 1 day at church (out of a total of 9 days). In addition to this, I will also have to complete plenty of homework before my camps. Because of this, I won't be able to participate in this discussion as I won't even have time to read through the materials. I hope for your kind understanding.

Ian Yap 4  out of 4 found this valuable. Do you?    
zyeapp
zyeapp
38. Coffee Momster
Mar 10 2008, 9:34 AM EDT | Post edited: Mar 10 2008, 9:34 AM EDT
"But those who received caffeine had significantly greater activation in parts of the prefrontal lobe, known as the anterior cingulate and the anterior cingulate gyrus. These areas are involved in 'executive memory', attention, concentration, planning and monitoring." - Koppelstätter in NewScientist Magazine.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8401

Simply put, this means that coffee improves memory, attention, concentration, planning and monitoring for a period of time. There is a theory which states that the caffeine in coffee improves mental and memory performance because it stimulates areas of the brain related to mental activity. Another further study is that although the caffeine will improve the mental performance, it will last for at the max a few hours, in which those hours the brain will be very alert and active. Also, the brain will degenerate about directly proportionate to the amount that it was enhanced after the brief period of enhanced mental ability. Thus, in the long run, a person who drinks coffee everyday will have a lower mental capacity and duration in which the brain is fully alert. Does this mean that the study is with holding information from the general public?
This is not necessarily true as another study (http://www.abc.net.au/health/minutes/stories/2003/05/01/844417.htm) concludes that coffee prevents Parkinson's disease. Parkinson's disease is "caused by degeneration in the brain, producing a tremor, muscle rigidity and eventually a kind of dementia". The study also states that mice were less damaged by a nerve toxin after being dosed with caffeine. 4  out of 4 found this valuable. Do you?    
samuelanonymous
samuelanonymous
39. RE: coffeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Mar 10 2008, 9:37 AM EDT | Post edited: Mar 10 2008, 9:37 AM EDT
Hi.
I haven't really read the articles, only skimmed through. Firstly, cognitive enhancement. The various definitions of this issue are really interesting. After reading through, I have decided that it is impossible to define cognitive enhancement: there is no such thing at all. It is stated, "normal functioning is the operations of biologically programmed processes, and disease is the failure of normal functioning. Enhancement seeks to improve function beyond the biological program, or change the program." In that case, even learning should be considered a cognitive enhancement. In POD lessons, we learn how to "think critically". Would thinking critically be considered part of the "biological program"? I think not. Being able to bend metal rods is probably not part of the biological program. Yet some people are able to. The same goes for critical thinking. Most people find it difficult to do so. Learning how to do so makes it easier for us to think critically, in the same way that working out at a gym will benefit our ability to bend metal rods. So, the above definition of cognitive enhancement cannot hold water since there is no normal range of basic cognitive ability in the first place.

A further supporting point is that autistic savants are capable of mental feats way beyond that of you and I. These abilities are often the result of abnormal brain development. What if, it were possible to alter one's brain such that it parallels that of a savant? Would that be a cognitive enhancement, since there are people for whom such abilities and brain structure are natural? Of course this is a rather futuristic point, but nonetheless it has to be considered. 2  out of 6 found this valuable. Do you?    
samuelanonymous
samuelanonymous
40. RE: coffeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Mar 10 2008, 9:53 AM EDT | Post edited: Mar 10 2008, 9:53 AM EDT
In my opinion, drugs ought to be ethical AND legal as long as they do not harm the user. For example, steroids can be 1) naturally produced in one's body, 2) used for treatment of medical problems, 3) used to enhance one's capabilities. Everyone is different, and therefore everyone would produce different amounts of such chemicals naturally. Adrenalin is another similar product. So would those people who naturally produce large amounts of adrenalin and steroids be banned from competitions? I read that some olympic athletes would draw blood from their own bodies a few days before the competitions, then inject it back just before it. That would increase the number of red blood cells, thus improving their strength etc. I think that this should not be considered a form of drugs either, since it is produced in the body. But those athletes were still disqualified.

Specifically, coffee. Apparently caffeine is able to benefit people in task-switching in the brain. As mentioned by Matthew, not everyone will react to coffee in this manner. Would it be unfair for people to drink coffee before exams and competitions? I disagree. There are many chemicals which could possibly enhance cognitive ability, such as water. A person who is dehydrated is less likely to perform in any competitions. So there are 2 choices: a) make everyone drink the same amount of water, which is irrelevant since different people require different amounts of water, or b) ban everyone from drinking water for a certain duration, which is also irrelevant since different people require different amounts of water, and people who require less would be benefited. Since it is both impossible and stupid to control the amount of water intake, I believe that the same should go for coffee and any other chemical. Better still, eliminate all competitions and exams. Different people have different abilities, so making any kind of comparison is meaningless, as it is all based on your genes. 2  out of 5 found this valuable. Do you?    
weiyang3j
weiyang3j
41. RE: coffeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Mar 11 2008, 8:41 AM EDT | Post edited: Mar 11 2008, 8:41 AM EDT
I would like to ask Samuel to site the source from which he got the info about the athletes drawing blood and injecting back into their bodies. Also, i would like to redirect everyone's attention to the NEW thread under POD. 3  out of 3 found this valuable. Do you?    

JieJun
42. RE: coffeee
Mar 11 2008, 9:03 AM EDT | Post edited: Mar 11 2008, 9:03 AM EDT
In my opinion, caffeine should be considered a drug, as it is addictive and alters the normal functioning of the body. However, caffeine has been shown to improve mental alertness and decrease the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease in men. I agree with Samuel in the case of drinking coffee before the examinations. Caffeine does not teach you the test topic; it is not a ‘quick fix’ solution to the exams. One still has to put in effort in order to do well, and people who do not drink coffee are still able to compete. Thus, I feel that it is fair to drink coffee before an examination. Although caffeine has some positive effects, most coffee drinkers drink coffee because of its addictive nature. Therefore, I think that, as all other things, coffee should be taken in moderation.

However, I disagree with the notion that steroids and adrenaline should be legalized in sports and games. This is because these create an unsurpassable gap between drug takers and non drug takers. The competitive mentality of sports would soon force every competitive/professional athlete to take drugs, thus defeating the original purpose of taking these drugs: to put one a notch above the rest. I feel that the purpose of sporting events is to test the capabilities of the human body and to push the boundaries to achieve new records. In my opinion, drugs defeat the purpose of sporting events.
1  out of 3 found this valuable. Do you?    
samuelanonymous
samuelanonymous
44. RE: coffeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Mar 12 2008, 12:02 AM EDT | Post edited: Mar 12 2008, 12:02 AM EDT
"I would like to ask Samuel to site the source from which he got the info about the athletes drawing blood and injecting back into their bodies. Also, i would like to redirect everyone's attention to the NEW thread under POD."
Oh i found out that the guy was not disqualified from the race as it was still legal at the time. His name is Lasse Viren, a Finnish athlete who won 4 gold medals. The practice is called blood-boosting, and has been banned by the IOC for the Olympic games as well as many other sports events.

Two websites of note are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lasse_Viren
http://www.uihealthcare.com/topics/sportsmedicine/spor3322.html

The latter site states that "Athletes who do this have an unfair and unnatural advantage over athletes who do not." I would just like to comment that I disagree with this, as high-altitude training for athletes achieves similar effects of producing more red blood cells, but is not considered unethical. 1  out of 3 found this valuable. Do you?    
zyeapp
zyeapp
45. RE:JIEJUN!!!
Mar 12 2008, 2:58 AM EDT | Post edited: Mar 12 2008, 2:58 AM EDT
With reference to Jie Jun's opinion, I agree that caffeine should be considered a drug, as it is "addictive and alters the normal functioning of the body". There is one part in Jie Jun's arguement that I disagree, however, which is that drinking coffee before examinations are fair to those that do not drink coffee. Since caffeine in coffee is a drug, drinking coffee before examinations should not be allowed as it would be as good as an athelete doping him/herself before a competition.
Coffee, like drugs enhance the mental alertness to above normal, as some would say, "superhuman", but that would be exaggerating. Still, in whatever way coffee enhances the mental receptors to process more information, this would be an unfair advantage to the coffee drinker.
As Jie Jun states, "I feel that the purpose of sporting events is to test the capabilities of the human body and to push the boundaries to achieve new records", and I can change that to "I feel that the purpose of taking examinations is to test the capabilities of the human mind and to push the boundaries to achieve better results", and since drugs make you "one notch above the rest", caffeine would make you "one notch above the rest" and therefore give you an unfair advantage. 3  out of 3 found this valuable. Do you?    
weiyang3j
weiyang3j
46. POD written critique
Mar 12 2008, 10:16 AM EDT | Post edited: Mar 12 2008, 10:16 AM EDT
im not sure whether y'all have started on the written critique yet, but i just want to point out that parts a) and c) look the same:
a) Look at Dewey’s definition and decide to what extent Bertha and Cheryl display the type of thinking he is referring to. Again, are they ‘active’, ‘persistent’, etc.?

and

c) Would you say that Bertha or Cheryl was displaying critical thinking skills? Give your reasons.

if they arent identical can anyone tell me how to go about answering them? 2  out of 2 found this valuable. Do you?    
zyeapp
zyeapp
47. RE: POD written critique
Mar 12 2008, 10:43 AM EDT | Post edited: Mar 12 2008, 10:43 AM EDT
shld b different. cos (c) is sorta conclusion.
lolzers!!!!!!
wheeeehooo 2  out of 3 found this valuable. Do you?    
Previous | 1 2