MovieChat Forums > Concussion (2015) Discussion > Do Concussions "Tell The Truth"?

Do Concussions "Tell The Truth"?

posted 9 years ago by msm-07592
33 replies | jump to latest

I enjoyed the movie and its "true story" foundation. However, it crossed the line of being a true story about "the truth". Based on unambiguous empirical evidence, the truth was never discussed in the movie, only its effects, and so a partial truth cannot pose as truth. If truth be told, we would have had an epic movie that challenged the core of how we perceive reality making the science vs religion debate mute. Currently under editorial review, I have written an article titled, Do Concussions "Tell The Truth"? Here is an excerpt:

"In order to have absolute truth as he postulates, there can be no bias whatsoever. In other words, speculation cannot pose as a substitute for truth. This means that since Dr. Omalu is using deductive analysis, the cause of the effects of CTE needs to be singular and thus absolute in order for his findings to be of "one truth". Herein lies the problem of using effects as a substitute for cause. The logic of effects causing effects, which I call second cause logic by placing cause second to effect, is a violation of temporal precedence yet is fundamental to the current methodologies and theories of the art of science. As the findings from my experiment have revealed there are two origin variables that cause the existence of effects in Nature. This means that without including both origin variables, second cause logic is incomplete and therefore flawed because it is based on omitted-variable bias (ignorance of cause) which leads to false-positive conclusions as illustrated in the "A Flawed Scientific Method" document." https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283515988_A_Flawed_Scientific_Method_-_Mechanics_Of_The_Two_Acts_Of_Selection

[–] yahko_kun 9 years ago

I dont think I fully understand what you are trying to say. Can you take that example and apply it to the movie as far as Player/The Action/The Hit/The Result.

I'm trying to understand the document you posted and I dont understand why the X is negative at the bottom left under No Act and the X is negative at the bottom middle and is labeled Act.

EDIT: The NFL commissioner or whoever said that the player got his brain damage from swimming. Do you mean that Omalu essentially is eliminating all the other possible causes to their brain damage ?

Edit #2: Omalu mentions that people dont get Alzheimer's at the age of 40-50, its way too young. Is it possible, yes, but its too much of a coincidence that football players get it more than any other sector of the population.

[–] msm-07592 9 years ago

The document illustrates how there are only two types of selection mechanisms in Nature. It also shows that they do not preexist and that they can only come to exist. For example, where was the selection you used to read these words located prior to you using them?

"I dont understand why the X is negative at the bottom left under No Act"

In the first column of examples, X represents act and Y represents act potential. An act needs to pair with its potential in order to be an act X as confirmed in the Tempt Destiny experiment: http://temptdestiny.com

"...and the X is negative at the bottom middle and is labeled Act."

The basketball selecting the backboard (potential) then selecting the hoop (potential) is a negative direct selection -X, i.e., indirect selection.

"Can you take that example and apply it to the movie as far as Player/The Action/The Hit/The Result."

Yes, I get into all of that in the soon to be published article. I apologize for not getting into details at this time. However, I can link you to a related article: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263084150_Without_Knowledge_Of_First_Cause_Can_Science_Correctly_Predict_Effect

In an NPR radio interview Dr. Bennet Omalu stated, "The NFL excluded CTE diagnosis as a qualifying disease for settlement." He also stated, "If you do not accept the truth, because there can only be one truth, you will have problem." These are his words, not mine. http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=460870529&m=461206250&live=1

"one truth" based on effects without "direct" knowledge of cause? My findings show otherwise and since they are unambiguous, opinions - including my own, are not allowed.

[–] yahko_kun 9 years ago

I still dont fully understand the basketball model.

What I understand (maybe i'm wrong) is that Omalu claims that if you bang your head you will get sick with depression, early Alzheimer's, CTE. I'm following the causation vs. correlation theory. If you have depression and early Alzheimer's doesn't mean you will bang your head.

If there is another element that causes the illnesses that Omalu is missing, lets say the damn Gatorade that they drink all the time is causing depression and CTE.

From what I understand that a brain of a 40 year old football player looks much different from the one of a person that never played football. So there must be something there that is related to the game.

[–] CheshireCatsGrin 9 years ago

Agreed. And it's not likely Gatorade, any other sports such as baseball where there is large quantities of the drink. Pre-NFL players show early signs of CTE. Scans of the general population do not show even the slightest percentage close in number to players in contact sports (including hockey).

[–] msm-07592 9 years ago

"Scans of the general population do not show even the slightest percentage close in number to players in contact sports (including hockey)."

Interesting point. What sample size from what research are you referring to?

[–] msm-07592 9 years ago

The basketball examples serve to illustrate that what we think of as causal, the effect of something causing the effect of something else, is incorrect because such logic places cause secondary to effect. Acts are causal of effects, not the other way around, and so acts cannot preexist as an effect before they come to exist to cause an effect.

Case in point, in order to have the effect of a concussion we know that it is caused by the effect of a collision. In order to have a collision a selection event, direct or indirect, needs to first take place. What this means is that, fundamentally, the effect we call concussions are not origin variables of cause.

"From what I understand that a brain of a 40 year old football player looks much different from the one of a person that never played football. So there must be something there that is related to the game."

What is not known is which type of selection event, direct or indirect, causes CTE? If both, then how many of one or the other are needed to cause the CTE effect? If only one then which one?

Dr. Omalu's conclusion uses effects as a substitute for cause and since there are two origin variables in Nature it is necessary to know which one caused which effect in order to have "the truth".

[–] yahko_kun 9 years ago

I'm sorry but your explanations are still bit too technical for me to wrap my head around (your first paragraph especially). I think i'll get it later on but for now this is what I think I understand.

From my understanding is that there is direct selection with 2 outcomes and indirect selection with 2 outcomes. According to your theory there is a direct selection with single potential, yet it had happened once out of twelve selection attempts. From my understanding it can not be called a single potential because there was a dual potential.

There are always two options - in our case of the players, They either choose to hit head to head or not. The outcome can be is that they connect or miss. One of the two options can cause a concussion. We know that not colliding doesn't cause a concussion thus its a collision causes a concussion.

[–] msm-07592 9 years ago

Thanks for trying to understand the findings from the Tempt Destiny experiment and its results. The acts of selection consists of two dichotomies. In essence this is what makes them nonlocal variables because they cannot exist in order to come to exist. This subtle distinction is fundamental to our perception of reality. We use the acts of selection (cause) in order to observe the existence of its effects. By doing this, we naturally ignore these acts and then assume that the effect of something that exist causes the effect of something else to exist, i.e., effect causing effect, which is not cause and effect.

"From my understanding is that there is direct selection with 2 outcomes"

A direct selection is an act that pairs with one potential and that is why it can only have one effect.

"indirect selection with 2 outcomes"

An indirect selection is an act that pairs with more-than-one potential and that is why it can have more-than-one effects.

"According to your theory"

Destiny is a notion that events or series of events are predetermined. However, in order for this particular notion to be reflective of reality, i.e., nature, it cannot be a theory. It is necessary for it to be a law of Nature. If it is a law of Nature, it necessary for it to be absolute and provable by all. If it is not absolute or provable, we call such notions a theory. Case in point, try to read these words without first making a selection. You cannot get more absolute than this.

"There are always two options - in our case of the players, They either choose to hit head to head or not. The outcome can be is that they connect or miss."

When you assume that there are "always" two options, it is necessary that all such options exist. As the findings from the Tempt Destiny experiment has shown, this fundamental assumption is incorrect. Football fans thought they could choose to support their team's Super Bowl quest and only once out of twelve attempts was such an assumption correct. However, if the TD experiment used indirect selection as the exclusive mechanism of selection, there would have been twelve out of twelve selections made one of which would have been a direct selection. See the results: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275274627_Tempt_Destiny_Experiment_Results?ev=prf_pub

[–] yahko_kun 9 years ago

I agree that there are actions that are simply the only action (gravity) its not picking to gravitate over float. Its a one unique selection and outcome. Same with the example of reading - while I'm reading there is no other selection.

I'm not aware of the laws of nature and how it applies here and destiny and predetermination.

Theoretically I understand that you have two existing channels and that you need to pick one as the truth, Omalu is picking "both" and puts them under the Only one truth umbrella.

But in reality, I guess him combining both channels into one actually does work. I think that as with any logical fallacy, identifying that the reasoning behind an argument is flawed does not imply that the resulting conclusion is false. (according to Wikipedia).

So now if there is a research out there that can prove him wrong, take 4 football players (what he said in the movie is a good sample) with history of head concussions and that after their death their brain looks like mashed up brain, yet they never had any sickness symptoms of the diseases mentioned then he is proven wrong.

[–] msm-07592 9 years ago

"Theoretically I understand that you have two existing channels and that you need to pick one as the truth, Omalu is picking "both" and puts them under the Only one truth umbrella."

As the findings from the Tempt Destiny experiment has shown, selecting more-than-one potential hides a selection of only one potential. See the results, Table 3: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275274627_Tempt_Destiny_Experiment_Results

In Nature, there are two mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive acts of selection. Since the acts of selection are mutually exclusive they cannot be combined. This means that in Nature there are two truths, not one.

[–] yahko_kun 9 years ago

I guess there is nothing natural in banging your head a hundred times as far as humans go. Omalu suggested about animals/birds that have a different brain protection for those kind of actions.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] msm-07592 9 years ago

Some will understand my findings others will not: http://TemptDestiny.com

On that note, in March my article titled, Do Concussions "Tell The Truth"? will be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] msm-07592 9 years ago

Wow, you really are what you say you are. Congratulations!

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] msm-07592 9 years ago

"No, he isn't using 'deductive analysis'"

Really? What causes a concussion? If he is using inductive reasoning as you state, then concussions are self caused. Think about it. Such logic implies existence is not created because it always existed. So going by your logic you were never born. I wonder how your parents would think of such logic... hold on, you do not have parents because you were never born.

"Dr Omalu observed an effect, and tried to discern a cause - this is inductive logic."

Effect causing effect begins with the existence of effect, not its cause. It is common to think this way and that is why we do not understand that we perceive reality ass backwards.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] msm-07592 9 years ago

And what created God? If we begin with the existence of an effect, i.e., God, as being self causal then God himself cannot create what has been already created, i.e., the universe and everything in it.

[–] Mehki_Girl 9 years ago

Oh shut up and watch the actual documentary streaming on netflix. For some reality,they show Mike's tal dead body and feature the real doctors.

[–] jmbwithcats 9 years ago

Oddly not on Netflix anymore.

www.jmberman.com
Online Mews, Reviews, Poetry, Music, and Ideas

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] msm-07592 9 years ago

"For some reality"

Please feel free to shut me up by conducting the Final Selection Thought Experiment in real life - http://temptdestiny.com/#finalselection. If you can continue your existence then you will have succeeded in shutting me up. So the question is, do you have the integrity to support your opinions or not? Only the nature of our reality has the final say, not man.

[–] Jazznme2 9 years ago

I'm with you! Just watch the d___ movie and think about it.
Try RedBox!

[–] Jazznme2 9 years ago

That's what I say! Or try RedBox. Think what you will. It's fairly clear, not needing this annoying debate!

[–] Prismark10 9 years ago

'Only a clinically certifiable idiot needs laboratory evidence to tell them that bashing their brain will have deleterious offshoots for one's cognitive faculties.'

Certifiable Idiot you say. I wonder if I can get that job with the NFL task force looking at head injuries!

It's that man again!!

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gene4752 9 years ago

Answer to the concussion problem: DON'T PLAY! Case closed!

[–] Nick_667 9 years ago

Allright. Now go bang your head againts a wall and then tell us if you have an injury and the imdb commitee will analyse the cause of the injury.