Multiple Intelligences [Archive]

BiologyForums

Aug22-03, 04:26 PM

Kerrie...

Probably over 99% of the population uses the word intelligence as the wrong type of word.

For instance you cannot say "Hi Kerrie, I've got some jumping to share with you." It's the wrong type of word.

Intelligence is a processing ability that is defined in only mathematical and physic(al) equations.

You can't say intelligence is the ability to.........

Just like you can't say Newton's second law is the ability to......

Do you see what I mean? Humans think intelligence is a human ability to "do something". Intelligence is a process like respiration, digestion, photosynthesis.

With that said it becomes obvious music talent can't be a form of intelligence just like a piece of apple pie can't be a forum of newton's law. It isn't a sensical sentence. I know it's difficult for some people to relearn the fact that intelligence is a physical process and not an ability...

This can be made more evident in attempts to createo artificial intelligence.The goal is merely to use computer programms to mimic the process - just like a computer program that can mimic an ecological system to determin what excess fishing will do to the reef etc...

It's a hard thing for people to understand and to accept. I find this in classes I teach - but in a student environment they are much more likely to feel good about knowing what intelligence really is.

For instance Kerrie, let's say I smoke and you don't. Your respiratory capacity would probably be much stronger than mine.

In just the same way, someone who was fetal alcohol syndrome might have a less strong intelligence.

I can say more on this if anyone wants - don't want to bore you all :)

megashawn

Aug22-03, 05:58 PM

What exactly do you think music is? Do you play any instruments?

I mean, if intelligence is as you define it the ability to process information, well, music is nothing but math.

That being said, some people have a particular knack for music. I know a guy that is dumb as a brick, would probably struggle with a simple problem like 15x10. Infact, the only thing I've ever known him to be incredibly good at was playing guitar. Let him listen to a song he's never heard before, maybe twice, and the third time around he'll play right along with the music.

Now, seeing as how music is nothing more then a different form of mathematics, and there are more ppl in the world then my friend with that described ability, what exactly would you call it?

Not arguing your point about peoples misuse of words though. Musical ability is a form of intelligence though. You do process info, either by hearing it, or reading it from a sheet. So, you have input of info, and the music is the results of the processing.

BiologyForums

Aug22-03, 06:08 PM

MegaShawn - I have played music for 23 years, and am currently the CEO of a record label in California. I've taught music for 6 years, and written 4 scores for orchestra.

Originally posted by megashawn
What exactly do you think music is? Do you play any instruments?
{/quote]

Music is the progression through time of pitches of a chosen set.

Originally posted by megashawn
[B]
I mean, if intelligence is as you define it the ability to process information, well, music is nothing but math.

What intelligence is has nothing to do with what music is. I see no logical connection between these two withouts assumptions.

Originally posted by megashawn
[B]
That being said, some people have a particular knack for music. I know a guy that is dumb as a brick, would probably struggle with a simple problem like 15x10. Infact, the only thing I've ever known him to be incredibly good at was playing guitar. Let him listen to a song he's never heard before, maybe twice, and the third time around he'll play right along with the music.

So what? This has nothing to do with the topic. Some people who have no legs can lift 500 pounds with their arms - so what?

Originally posted by megashawn
[B]
Now, seeing as how music is nothing more then a different form of mathematics, and there are more ppl in the world then my friend with that described ability, what exactly would you call it?

How you gather that music is "nothing more than a different form of mathematics" does not compute.

There is no forms of math - and there is no claim by anyone that music has anything to do with math. Again, there's no logical connection between your friend and this situation. It's a random point you've posted but has nothing to do with this.

Originally posted by megashawn
[B]
Not arguing your point about peoples misuse of words though. Musical ability is a form of intelligence though. You do process info, either by hearing it, or reading it from a sheet. So, you have input of info, and the music is the results of the processing.

And here you conclude from 4 false premises that music is a form of intelligence.

I thought I stated above the scientific definition of intelligence.

Apparently you missed one (well many) important points.

The definition I gave is the scientific definition. I was not displaying a personal opinion.

This is what scientists have designated as being intelligence - it's not up for debate unless you have an enormously overwhelming amount of evidence.

I'll be focusing on others responses......

Kerrie

Aug22-03, 06:54 PM

Biology~

You offer an interesting insight into the definition of intelligence...I began this thread because I believe IQ tests only measure a minor amount of one's abilities...as stated in the link:

The idea of multiple intelligences is important because it allows for educators to identify differing strengths and weaknesses in students and also contradicts the idea that intelligence can be measured through IQ. In researching about genius, we found that Howard Gardner's theory of Multiple Intelligences provides a great alternative to the popular measurable IQ method.

I get annoyed when the IQ of a person is glorified but other abilities are not, such as musical ability...

consider this blurb regarding autistic savants from the same website:
Savant skills occur within a narrow but constant range of human mental functions, generally in six areas: calendar calculating; lightening calculating & mathematical ability; art (drawing or sculpting); music (usually piano with perfect pitch); mechanical abilities; and spatial skills.

how do we explain situations like these with an IQ test?

BiologyForums

Aug22-03, 06:56 PM

Kerrie - gonna grab a bite to eat, anxious to answer your question with some science info brb!!!

BiologyForums

Aug22-03, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by Kerrie
You offer an interesting insight into the definition of intelligence...I began this thread because I believe IQ tests only measure a minor amount of one's abilities...as stated in the link:

Thanks! It comes from lots o' research. Intelligence is one of those topics, the information of which seems to not leak out into the public.

Originally posted by Kerrie
I get annoyed when the IQ of a person is glorified but other abilities are not, such as musical ability...

Yeah - Having a high IQ can be a good quality for sure, but it doesn't really seem to lead to any special circumstances in life. Poor people have high IQs, so do rich people. Although it does correlate to some things.

Originally posted by Kerrie
how do we explain situations like these with an IQ test?

Some of them IQ does test, like calculating. Some of them it does not test.

The big problem we have here is Gardners misuse of the word intelligence. It means what I stated earlier, in the field of science which deal with the part of the animal body that contains this process.

And so in using this word he's attempting to say that these abilities are some how more important on the hierarchy of all a human can do.

They are not. They are merely things a person can do, just like singing, dancing, writing a story etc....

I'm speaking particularly of his mention of musical ability.

To be frank, I've played music at all ends, and taught and wrote, for 23 years.

Claiming someone can replicate piano pitches of a song from hearing it once has 100% nothing to do with musical ability.

Music is taught - it is not innate. That's like saying reading is innate. An ability which may assist this process may be innate, but musical knowledge is learned.

So we have alot of issues here - colleagues in my fields have big issues with this kind of imporper terminology and generalizations.

BiologyForums

Aug22-03, 08:01 PM

You got me on a roll here, this is a topic I often speak on so it's on the tip of my tongue.

Once we replace this misuse of the word intelligence in Gardners work with another word, we notice that, for example if we use the word "ability", that all he is doing is talking about a few of the literally billions of abilities humans have.

(mis)Using the intelligence makes it seem like he is talking about some kind of hierarchical dictator of humans ultimate abilities - and that someone who can caculuate quickly, play perfect pitch songs with one listen, and has excellent spatial skills is anymore "intelligent" or anymoreo "anything" for that matter, than a person who can balance a spoon on there nose, belch out jingle bells, and or dribble four basketballs at once.

See what I mean?

I understand that his attempt appears, based on the webpage, to be to single out the "true" abilities that designate what he calls intelligence, or desginate the tip of the hierarchy from which all abilities progress downward from.

It's just that he is not doing that, but it would appear he is since he uses this word intelligence.

(You might be able to see that we in these fields take a bit of an issue with this!).

Keep this going, ask me more :)

Zantra

Aug22-03, 08:33 PM

I have to agree with Biology on this. Music can be "taught" people can improve thier music ability by practicing. It's true some people learn music more rapidly than others. But this could be due to other improved abilities such as accute pitch, etc that help them master this quicker. Intelligence isn't something that can be improved through any amount of practice. It's static(allbeit on a curve through early adulthood). Mentat and I had an extensive discussion about this before. Intelligence and musical ability through practice are two different things. I play guitar and piano. When I started I sucked.I was no virtuoso. But I've grudually improved over the yeaars. I can't say that I'm more intelligent that I was when I began. Perhaps more knowledgable, but as it has been stated and confirmed before, intelligence and knowledge are two separate things.

As For Autism, Asperger's Syndrome and other disorders associated with "rainman syndrome". First you should know that only 10 percent of autistic patients exhibit savant syndrome. It's been theorized that these types people are compensating for damage- in much the same way a blind man tends to have an increase sense of smell and hearing ability.

The brain's right hemisphere
Autistic savant behaviour is so far unexplained. However, researchers think it might have something to do with the right hemisphere of the brain.

The brain is divided into two hemispheres, left and right, bridged by a thick band of nerve fibres called the corpus callosum. While left hemisphere skills are involved with symbolism and interpretation (such as understanding words and body language), the skills of the right hemisphere are much more concrete and direct (such as memory).

CT and MRI scans of the brains of autistic savants suggest that the right hemisphere is compensating for damage in the left hemisphere. It seems that the right hemisphere of an autistic savant focuses its attention on one of the five senses - for example, if it concentrates on hearing, then the autistic savant may have a special skill in music. Research is ongoing.

You can read the entire article
Here (http://www.disability.vic.gov.au/dsonline/dsarticles.nsf/pages/Autistic_savant?opendocument)

Les Sleeth

Aug22-03, 08:36 PM

Originally posted by BiologyForums
This list provides absolutely nothing new at all. Except one catagory which is absurd.

"Musical". This person has seriously overstepped the boundaries of what intelligence is. Intelligence is a physical process clearly understood by specialists in the field. This person is not in the field. It sounds like he might be that type of person that use the term "emotional intelligence" which is scientifically absurd. There is only one mental process which is designated as being intelligence.

This person is WAY out of their league and way out of their education. This is the type of broken boundaries which damage the research of us who take this pursuit seriously. Horrible horrible work on this "professors" part.

The problem for me is, I don't think you took enough time to understood Kerrie's position because your refutation is so uncompromisingly and instantly negating.

I think she sees something even if she hasn't expressed it precisely . . . do you know what it is?

BiologyForums

Aug22-03, 08:42 PM

I didn't see anything where Kerrie was displaying much of an opinion. Everything she said was quoted from other sources....and she asked me "what I thought". I wasn't agreeing or disagreeing with her - I didn't think she made a claim of her own....

Zantra

Aug22-03, 08:53 PM

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I think she sees something even if she hasn't expressed it precisely . . . do you know what it is?

I don't know what Kerrie sees, but you seem to know. Very interested to hear your take on this.

Les Sleeth

Aug22-03, 09:58 PM

Originally posted by Zantra
I don't know what Kerrie sees, but you seem to know. Very interested to hear your take on this.

Well, in a way this is related to the my recent thread on "rightness."

Who gets to define what is valuable? Let's say you have the responsiblity for developing the IQ test all the world will use, and you are firmly convinced that intelligence is best when it produces products/services useful to society.

Guess what sorts of problems are going to show up on the test?

Dominance prevails and IQ values reflect the values of those dominating. I realize the argument can be made that if something is dominating, it must be superior. But in actuality that is not always or even mostly true.

If one dumps cayenne in the soup, it will dominate, but does it make the best soup? Quality is very often (maybe MOST often) found in subtlty. As a music listener, my tastes have steadily moved toward subtlty; and the same is true for me with food, wine, sex, art . . .

So the big guys who are in power can define "best" how they please. Might makes right, doesn't it? And who, speaking from the more subtle place, dares question that?

Zantra

Aug22-03, 11:31 PM

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Well, in a way this is related to the my recent thread on "rightness."

Who gets to define what is valuable? Let's say you have the responsiblity for developing the IQ test all the world will use, and you are firmly convinced that intelligence is best when it produces products/services useful to society.

Guess what sorts of problems are going to show up on the test?

Dominance prevails and IQ values reflect the values of those dominating. I realize the argument can be made that if something is dominating, it must be superior. But in actuality that is not always or even mostly true.

If one dumps cayenne in the soup, it will dominate, but does it make the best soup? Quality is very often (maybe MOST often) found in subtlty. As a music listener, my tastes have steadily moved toward subtlty; and the same is true for me with food, wine, sex, art . . .

So the big guys who are in power can define "best" how they please. Might makes right, doesn't it? And who, speaking from the more subtle place, dares question that?

Conspiracy theory? Not biting

hypnagogue

Aug23-03, 02:54 AM

BiologyForums,

I don't know if what you're saying is entirely consistent, so I would appreciate it if you clarified your stance a little. You say that the 'ability to' do something does not constitute intelligence-- but you also seem to think that mathematical aptitude is a genuine form of intelligence. So how precisely can the ability to do quick calculations in your head be a form of intelligence, while the ability to pick up a song after a couple of lessons not be?

You also say that intelligence is best seen as a process. Exactly what kind of process do you mean? It must be something more specific than 'neural information processing,' because then any activity in the brain can be seen as a form of intelligence. So what exactly is it about the process of intelligence, as you define it, that delineates it from other neural processes in the brain?

You also seem to imply the criterion that that which can be taught does not constitute a form of intelligence. But if mathematical aptitude constitutes a form of intelligence, then clearly this intelligence depends on some kind of formal teaching. For instance, if I had never taken math beyond the grade school level, I would have much greater difficulty performing calculations in my head. Now there is a distinction to be made; is this the case because of the math I was taught, or was the continual experience of doing calculations honing some innate mathematical ability of mine? I think you would say the latter, and I would (mostly) agree. But can't we then also look at the process of formally learning music as, on some level, honing some innate musical ability? Would it then be incorrect to denote this innate musical ability as musical intelligence?

As an aside, I think you overstate your case when you talk about the firm grasp the scientific community has on the concept of intelligence. If we understood intelligence that well, the field of artificial intelligence might have lived up to some of its bold predictions by now. Even some of the more successful applications, such as Deep Blue, rely more on a priori knowledge and brute force than actual intelligence. Deep Blue has beaten the best chess player in the world because it was programmed to give each chess piece a particular value as determined by human chess masters and because the breadth and depth of its analysis of future moves was much, much greater than is humanly possible. The ratio of the quality of strategy to computational resources is still much higher in the human than in the computer; I would argue that this efficiency of information processing is part of what constitutes true intelligence. Classical AI has run into countless theoretical objections, and more importantly, its progress as a field has continually run into one brick wall after another. Simulated neural networks are a better approach, but even the results here have been relatively modest thus far.

hypnagogue

Aug23-03, 03:10 AM

Originally posted by Zantra
Conspiracy theory? Not biting

How did this post constitute a conspiracy theory? I think it is a valid point. The scientific community may have formulated specific criteria for what constitutes intelligence, but that does not make it an open and shut case. It may be that, for the scientific purposes, the definition is overly narrow and does not capture what we usually mean when we say 'intelligence' (still waiting for BiologyForums to get back to me on this one)-- in which case I would argue that it is the scientific community that is misusing the word by essentially redefining it. Now this would not be a malicious action on their part, so it wouldn't constitute a 'conspiracy'-- it's not like the scientists are all getting together plotting ways to keep the lowly people down-- but the simple fact is that the scientific stance on the matter will have a sociological impact, especially if it is used to guage the value of human beings.

Zantra

Aug23-03, 03:13 AM

Not to sidetrack, but you bring up some very good points. How close are we to formulating algorythms that closely parallel human thought? Obviously this would go beyond simply learning from your mistakes. or am I looking too deep and it is as simple as that? Was deep blue indeed capable of learning from trial and error? I would certainly think so. Otherwise we did nothing more than immensely scale up the EMACS. I guess a more humanistic approach would be "reading your opponent"? Sensing his posture, attitude, body signs, etc, and figuring that into the equation? Then you would have to figure in emotions such as anxiety, arrogance, fear,or any other psychological aspects that might figure into it. unfortunately those things can't at this point be fully integrated into a machine, so replication of realistic AI is still decades away. At least it seems to me. Maybe someone could talk about this more ?

Zero

Aug23-03, 03:17 AM

I'm smarter than all of you.[g)]

Zantra

Aug23-03, 03:50 AM

Originally posted by hypnagogue
How did this post constitute a conspiracy theory? I think it is a valid point. The scientific community may have formulated specific criteria for what constitutes intelligence, but that does not make it an open and shut case. It may be that, for the scientific purposes, the definition is overly narrow and does not capture what we usually mean when we say 'intelligence' (still waiting for BiologyForums to get back to me on this one)-- in which case I would argue that it is the scientific community that is misusing the word by essentially redefining it. Now this would not be a malicious action on their part, so it wouldn't constitute a 'conspiracy'-- it's not like the scientists are all getting together plotting ways to keep the lowly people down-- but the simple fact is that the scientific stance on the matter will have a sociological impact, especially if it is used to guage the value of human beings.

The problem is that you're categorizing ALL intelligence as subject to the whims of our fancy. Does that mean we should throw up the entire system? You say that the factors for intelligence may have been determined by the needs of society, but if that is the case, it has failed miserably. Mensa is a testament to that. Look at all the high IQ people who are unsucessful. Success isn't something that can be measured as a function of intelligence. Certainly it would have a bearing, but there's not accounting for sheer willpower and determination. That's the test we need to develop in order to single out sucessful people. Not spatial and mathmatical reasoning. Sucessful self-made persons generally all have one single characteristic, and it's not logical facilities, or creativity, or social skills as much as it is Tenacity. It's the single characteristic that can compensate for the lack of other abilities sucessfully. You can't mkake yourself smarter, but you can make yourself more knowledgeable, more experienced, and more determined than the next person. Quite simply, raw intelligence rating still doesn't account for good old free human will. I know some pretty intelligent people, who are also some of the laziest people you could ever hope to meet. If there's an easier way to do it, they'll take it, if only to make thier lives easier.

If the scientists were hoping to use the modern Intelligence Quotient as a measure of sucess, they sure fell way way short of the bar.

hypnagogue

Aug23-03, 04:39 AM

Originally posted by Zantra
You say that the factors for intelligence may have been determined by the needs of society, but if that is the case, it has failed miserably.

Actually, I was saying something more like the inverse of that: the deigned concepts of what constitutes intelligence partially influence the values, motives, and actions of society at large as well as specific societal structures, such as the education system. Thus a person may be judged and valued by himself, by society at large, and by specific societal structures on the basis of these values, motives, and actions.

hypnagogue

Aug23-03, 05:05 AM

Originally posted by Zantra
Not to sidetrack, but you bring up some very good points. How close are we to formulating algorythms that closely parallel human thought? Obviously this would go beyond simply learning from your mistakes. or am I looking too deep and it is as simple as that? Was deep blue indeed capable of learning from trial and error? I would certainly think so. Otherwise we did nothing more than immensely scale up the EMACS. I guess a more humanistic approach would be "reading your opponent"? Sensing his posture, attitude, body signs, etc, and figuring that into the equation? Then you would have to figure in emotions such as anxiety, arrogance, fear,or any other psychological aspects that might figure into it. unfortunately those things can't at this point be fully integrated into a machine, so replication of realistic AI is still decades away. At least it seems to me. Maybe someone could talk about this more ?

If I'm not mistaken, Deep Blue did include a learning algorithm, but it was only used for fidgeting with the values assigned to the various chess pieces. Other, more subtle changes in its strategy were hard-wired in by its programmers. For instance, there is something called the horizon effect-- initially, Deep Blue would only look forward on each branch of potential future moves by a predetermined maximum amount. This lead to an inevitable 'horizon' that it could not see past, and the results could be disasterous-- for instance, if the maximum search depth was 20 moves ahead, Deep Blue may have determined that its best chain of moves in a particular game results in taking the opponent's queen 20 moves from now, but it could not see that the 21st move would result in a checkmate and a loss. Thus the designers programmed in a caveat to maximum depth rule, allowing deeper searches for certain sequences of moves that were 'most promising.' Deep Blue would not have been able to learn this strategy unless the programmers explicitly programmed in some kind of learning algorithm functioning on the breadth and depth of its board searches. This is another weakness of classical AI-- the program cannot learn what it is not explicitly instructed to learn about. This obviously is not a very good grasp on the actual human learning process.

As far as reading the opponent, I believe there has been some progress on recognizing facial characteristics using simulated neural networks-- for example, face recognition. I don't think that reading emotions through subtle changes in facial expression or body posture is something that is beyond the potential of neural networks. But more salient with regards to playing a good game of chess is how the game itself is actually approached. Deep Blue uses a brute force method-- it checks millions of sequences of moves and determines which is the best next move to make. A human obviously cannot check millions of different permutations in a reasonable amount of time-- the approach is fundamentally different, in that a good human chess player uses pattern recognition as his principle computational tool. Good pattern recognition is essential to what we consider to be human intelligence. In this respect, neural networks appear to be much more promising than classical AI approaches in constituting what we think of as intelligence, in that they computationally mimic the functional characteristics of the human brain and thus theoretically have the power to perform complex pattern recognition.

BiologyForums

Aug23-03, 06:29 AM

Ok, let's of stuff to respond to here:

Originally posted by hypnagogue
BiologyForums,
I don't know if what you're saying is entirely consistent, so I would appreciate it if you clarified your stance a little. You say that the 'ability to' do something does not constitute intelligence-- but you also seem to think that mathematical aptitude is a genuine form of intelligence. So how precisely can the ability to do quick calculations in your head be a form of intelligence, while the ability to pick up a song after a couple of lessons not be?

I am unsure why I stated something seeming to say mathematical aptitude is a genuine form of intelligence. Show me, perhaps it doesn't communicate what I meant or I made a mistake.

Intelligence is a process of a biological system. For instance the Respiratory System, is fo course a biological system. One process this system performs is called breathing: inhaling oxygen and exhaling CO2.

The endorcrine system performs processes of releasing hormones into the body or onto the outter skin.

The nervous system, or more specifically the brain system, performs a process called intelligence.

One might define some important parameters of breathing as the capacity of the lungs, the possible exhaling and inhaling pressure, and how well oxygen is pumped in - and CO2 "sucked" out, of the internal to lung chamber barrier.

The process of intelligence has two important parameters. Notice they are identical to those of the computer processor.

1. Speed
2. Bandwidth (in a computer)

Speed can be inhibited, such of that in a mentally retarded person, or someone consuming inhibitory medications.

Bandwidth would be determined by the number of neurons in a given area, or in the brain in general if comparins cross-species.

Originally posted by hypnagogue

You also say that intelligence is best seen as a process. Exactly what kind of process do you mean? It must be something more specific than 'neural information processing,' because then any activity in the brain can be seen as a form of intelligence. So what exactly is it about the process of intelligence, as you define it, that delineates it from other neural processes in the brain?

Your wording here is slightly out of scew. You say that "activity in the brain is a form of intelligence". But a correct phrase would be more like "acitivity in the brain uses the process of intelligence."

Your question of what delineates it from other processes in the brain... Mainly that it's normal called intelligence in areas of the brain that, throughout evolution, have grown to be what we refer to as "higher processing" areas. For instance neural processes in the medula, or the cerebellum, are not refered to as intelligence.

This is because, general speaking, the changes in lineage of the brain stem sections do not greatly vary in size in a brain/body weight comparison - however the areas of the brain which touch the outter skull - all the lobes, are greatly enhanced in some creatures.

So what is refered to as intelligence are the neural processes in areas which are considered variable in humans and in some other species.

Originally posted by hypnagogue

You also seem to imply the criterion that that which can be taught does not constitute a form of intelligence. But if mathematical aptitude constitutes a form of intelligence, then clearly this intelligence depends on some kind of formal teaching. For instance, if I had never taken math beyond the grade school level, I would have much greater difficulty performing calculations in my head. Now there is a distinction to be made; is this the case because of the math I was taught, or was the continual experience of doing calculations honing some innate mathematical ability of mine? I think you would say the latter, and I would (mostly) agree. But can't we then also look at the process of formally learning music as, on some level, honing some innate musical ability? Would it then be incorrect to denote this innate musical ability as musical intelligence?

I think this is based on an earlier comment, I may have mistated something. But math aptitude is certainly a function of intelligence no doubt. But it's also a function of teaching skills, of attention span and ability, of interest etc. See below for some good info on this...

Originally posted by hypnagogue

As an aside, I think you overstate your case when you talk about the firm grasp the scientific community has on the concept of intelligence. If we understood intelligence that well, the field of artificial intelligence might have lived up to some of its bold predictions by now. Even some of the more successful applications, such as Deep Blue, rely more on a priori knowledge and brute force than actual intelligence. Deep Blue has beaten the best chess player in the world because it was programmed to give each chess piece a particular value as determined by human chess masters and because the breadth and depth of its analysis of future moves was much, much greater than is humanly possible. The ratio of the quality of strategy to computational resources is still much higher in the human than in the computer; I would argue that this efficiency of information processing is part of what constitutes true intelligence. Classical AI has run into countless theoretical objections, and more importantly, its progress as a field has continually run into one brick wall after another. Simulated neural networks are a better approach, but even the results here have been relatively modest thus far.

Earlier I believe I stated that indeed even in the scientific community Intelligence is not well understood, as far as what is known, and how it is defined, in the specific fields. In that small niche of fields it is understood.

Lemme give a comparison here. An evolutionary biologists understands evolution well, no doubt. When teaching to a class the biology may make a comment like the following:

"There is a mechanism in predators known as the risk of ruin. It's an observation that a creature such as a lion, will attack a small rabbit with the same sneak and attack skills, the same speed, and the same srength as it does an Elk or a Zebra. It does this because it knows that it needs to be as sure as possible that each hunting attempt is a success, for itself and for it's children."

Now this evolutionary biology knows that the lion does not "know" this. The lion isn't conscious about this at all. It's a personification to simplify to students.

In reality what occurs is this:

"The lions which attack all of their prey will full force are more likely to have greater number of successes, whcih provide the young with more food to grow stronger and thus they are selected FOR."

But the teacher often chooses to use the personification to simplify the conversation.

This occurs as well when scientists attempt to communicate information regarding intelligence - for the sake of making it easier on others.

One might say - the ability to process math equations is a form of intelligence.

But in reality what occurs is someone who has a greater "bandwidth" and "speed" of processes would likely be able to "deal with" any input information better than the average person.

But again, a greater number of neural connection can be specific to one area of the brain, and be normal in another.

Regarding the latter comments. You made the comment that intelligence is not well understood. This is kind of a yes and a no. What scientists have chosen to define as intelligence is well chosen - and the process itself, on the level of a neuron is very well understood.

But what's the challenge is going from the single neuron to understanding entire embedded tissue layers of neurons, and bring this outward towards the entire processing human. It's an enormous step from small to big - and we are most certainly in an infancy, perhaps not even born yet!

The AI shows this - some of the best ways to understand are to copy. AI has run into issues, and forced to be "rethought" as they say. AI started more as an attempt to fake intelligence rather than to copy it. Whereas neural networks attempt to copy it.

It's definetely something that, if only showing us one thing, has shown us we have a hell of a long way to go.

I hope that makes a bit of sense - it's early/late!

BiologyForums

Aug23-03, 06:46 AM

One of the main concerns, if I may call it that, with the entire genre of Intelligence is the publics popularity to complicate what is really much more simple than they would thin, or perhaps want to think.

For some reason we find in many facets of culture - or society I should say, that when something becomes extremely complex, humans have a tendency to begin to think there is some extraordinary, or even some supernatural occurence.

Apparently when some seems to be so monumental, either a massive natural event or the massive processes of the brain, humans dislike having to deal with it part by part (through the billions) and instead want to make it easier on themselves by attributing some other event or even entitity to this.

We find this most certainly with "intelligence". Hypnagogue commented on the societal understanding of intelligence versus the scientific one.

In fact they tend to be more similiar. It's nothing more than the compilations of millions of neurons in a particular facet of the brain (and billions in total) the create some sort of "intelligence" in the full on human experience.

Biology's fundamental unit is the cell, of which a neuron is. Thus Biology looks at this issue from this level, and attempts to build from it. Here we have less accumuluation of error since we know the unit from which are working.

The societal approach is to see the experience of inteligence in your friend or a classmate, and attempts - with no tools and probably no knowledge - to work downwards....

...what we come up with is the want to think that there is "something more" than neurons firing.

It may seem like scientist is almost using the same word for something totally different - like society calls what science calls cars, cows - and science vice versa.

But it's sciences approach to the issue "from the ground up".

BiologyForums

Aug23-03, 06:48 AM

You guys really got me going. I'll leave you with one last comment.

On the issue you mentioned of the societal verse scientific intelligence concepts.

We see a kind of metaphor for this in AI versus ANN (artifical Neural networks).

AI (partiularly that of the 60s through 80s) disregards the actual physical processes and focuses on using any means to produce a physical object which has the illusion of the SOCIETAL intelligence.

An ANN focuses on the physica processes of the SCIENTIFIC intelligence, and yet currently can not currently full anyone of having the societal level if intellect.

So the tables have turned!

Zantra

Aug23-03, 07:17 AM

Just one facet I wanted to comment on, which is the oversimplification that society places on complexed topics. Of course the reason for that is the group mentality that all need to understand, so a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link. What is one man's light reading is another's complexed theory. That is why newspapers are printed at an average 5th grade reading level. If the general population with an average IQ of 100 cannot comprehend something, then we must simply.

Also you have to account for niching. The total sum of human knowlege is impossible to contain in a single human mind, therefore most people(even the intelligent ones) niche, or specialize themselves. For the knowledge outside of thier specialization, it's impossible to have all but a percursory knowledge on a broad range of topics. Even someone with a photographic memory could spend his entire life learning consistently at a college level pace or above, and never encompass the sum of knowledge. So therefore simplification exists at all levels of intelligence both for the sake of brevity, and due to limitations of the human mind(not to mention a social life..ahem). For instance, i'm sure you're an expert in Biology, but what can you tell me about 18th century Russian poetry? Probably not much more than I could tell you, but it's an example, so humor me. So you see my point.

One interesting factoid I've heard was that the entire sum of a person's memories, knowledge, and experiences, the neural pathways, etc could be summed up in approximately 3 Petabytes(10^15 bytes). And we're fast approaching that level. Definitely the technology will be there in our lifetime to duplicate a human mind. How that is implemented remains to be seen. For you non-techies that's 3 million gigabytes I believe.

But I'm interrupting.. continue[:D]

Kerrie

Aug23-03, 11:10 AM

http://www.sciencenet.emory.edu/mismeasure/genius/research05.html

within the website i provided, there is a page on Albert Einstein regarding his brain, as he is the most classic case of genius and intelligence...

i think a higher intelligence has to do with the capacity to learn quickly and process...for example, with the musical ability, sure anyone can learn how to play an instrument, but to write the music that is considered a true form of beauty to other people does require a capacity that not all have...

BiologyForums

Aug23-03, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by Kerrie
http://www.sciencenet.emory.edu/mismeasure/genius/research05.html

within the website i provided, there is a page on Albert Einstein regarding his brain, as he is the most classic case of genius and intelligence...

i think a higher intelligence has to do with the capacity to learn quickly and process...for example, with the musical ability, sure anyone can learn how to play an instrument, but to write the music that is considered a true form of beauty to other people does require a capacity that not all have...

It's a capacity not all have yet, but that doesn't mean it has anything in a relation to intelligence. That's also a comment sentiment, that unique ability involving the brain are intellect.

Intelligence definetely has to do with a capacity to learn quickly. And learning quickly is a function of the second measurement of intelligence, the bandwidth. One who has more neural connection in a particular part of the brain has a greater ability to reproduce knowledge they were given!

Another facet of it is memory. One comment I find myself givin, a quote I should say is that:

"Nothing occurs, it only HAS occured."

This comment stems from something that needs explaining. Reflex archs are pathways of information passed through the nervous system.

An innate reflex arch is one that does not involve the brain. for instance if you step on something flaming hot or extremely sharp - you remove your foot. This reflex to move your foot never went to your brain - it went up your leg and immedately back down - never left the leg.

The memory of the event was a completely different neural communicatin that did go to the brain - but by the time the memory was saved you had alredy pulled your leg back.

So what happens is that there is no memory of the action of pulling away from the object! Then there are learned reflex arches which of course include the brain.

If I tell you I'm going to say a word to you and I want you to repeat it back to me as soon as I finish the word, what occurs is that the auditory information is transfered to an electrochemical communication that is saved in memory. Then you immediately access this information and say it.

So in fact there is no real moment at which you experienced this word - the only reason you "knew" what the word was because you asked your memory what it was, just like you might as what it was your friend said to you yesterday.

THus the phrase.....anyway that was of topic.

Intelligence in its cellular form combines to make some very complex processes. Conscious mental abilities all adhere to intelligence. Those that have more intelligence can handle greater mental challenges with greater ease, and thus are more likely to puruse these activities.

BiologyForums

Aug23-03, 11:30 AM

Take From Kerries Link:
Findings: Compared to the ratios of the brains of the 11 normal men, the ratios of neurons to glial cells in Einstein's brain were smaller in the left area 30. In this area, there were more glial cells for every neuron in his brain.

Conclusion: The Scientists concluded that the greater number of glial cells per neuron indicates that he neurons had an increased metabolic need - they needed and used more energy, causing Einstein to have better thinking abilities and conceptual skills.

I'm not sure if this was generalized, but I have a problem with this.
In fact I have a serious problem with this. They conclude that his neurons needed more energy, fine. But then they conclude that it caused him to have better abilities.

This is a poor assertion.

The neurons would need more glial cells because Einstein USED THE NEURONS more, which is obvious because his work take strong mental use.

To conclude that this was because of his abilities rather than because of his actions is truly poor science on their part.

Les Sleeth

Aug23-03, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by Zantra
Conspiracy theory? Not biting

Others are making points I might, and probably better than I would. But I have to say I did not suggest a conspiracy theory. I suggested a tinted-lense or filter theory; and not that it's deception, but simply that it results from what people value and methods they use to test.

To me, part of the problem is that the word "intelligence" has more than one meaning. If we limit it strictly to what IQ tests reveal, then what else should we expect IQ tests to reveal other than what they are designed to do?

But others generalize the term "intelligence" to mean skills with consciousness of any variety, whether the IQ tests reveal them or not. Maybe there should be a consciousness quotient too, though I doubt a test could be devised that would reveal all there is to consicousness.

We've had the debate here many times, where I challenge materialists who offer as evidence the fact that empirical studies have never, ever revealed anything other than material processes at work behind and within reality. I ask "but how is that to be interpreted?" Does it mean, as they imply, there is nothing but material processes? Or does it merely prove empiricism is only capable of discovering material processes?

So the infatuation with IQ may be justified for what it really does indicate, but it may also be true that what doesn't show up on such tests still exists and contributes significantly to overall intelligence (or should we say, consciousness).

hypnagogue

Aug23-03, 02:03 PM

Biology Forums, thanks for your replies. I believe I have a better grasp on what you're trying to say now. But I still have some problems with the definitions of intelligence, as you have defined it.

You say that two factors of intelligence are processing speed and bandwidth. I would agree with that, but stopping there is a very limited perspective that still does not capture the essence of what we mean by 'intelligence.' Bandwidth accounts for the amount of information that can be stored, and speed the rate at which it can be processed-- but who is more intelligent, the guy with the photographic memory who is very quick on his feet, or the guy who redefines his field by reconceptualizing old problems and making profound and novel connections between them, even though his memory is poorer, he has a slight lower concentration of neurons in his brain, and he's not as 'quick'? To continue your computer analogy, you are pointing to the physical capacity of the hardware to account for intelligence, but I am arguing that it doesn't matter how fast and big your system is if it has lousy software. Thus, I would argue that more than speed and bandwidth, the quality of connections between sets of neurons is what is most important for intelligence. By quality of interconnections, I mean the capacity for a given set of interconnections to process information in highly meaningful, relevent, and novel ways. Clearly intelligence is really encoded in these connections-- speed and bandwidth are limiting factors, but what is really important once you have a sufficiently powerful representational system is how it processes the information it is given. It is not at all a trivial problem to determine what types of interconnections between neurons account for true intelligence in this sense. I contend that we won't have a good understanding of the biological basis of intelligence until we can determine what, if any, common characteristics of interconnections between sets of neurons seperate a genius from a bright guy, a bright guy from an average guy, etc. In other words, to get a good grasp on intelligence, we need to determine what kind of information processing (software) ultimately underlies intelligence in action.

Also, I find the identification of the cerebral cortex with intelligence to be kind of an unsatisfying a priori assumption. Why should we limit ourselves to the cerebral cortex? What if we find what looks like intelligence operated somewhere else in the brain? Is this not intelligence simply because we have already rather arbitrarily defined that intelligence can only be situated in the cerebral cortex?

For instance, work in robotics has found that simply automating the process of navigating around an environment is an extremely complex and subtle operation, no matter how simple it seems to us. If intelligence is the ability to process information in an effective way with respect to the goal of solving some problem, then it would appear that even navigating around an environment coherently and safely requires some form of intelligence.

zoobyshoe

Aug23-03, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by Kerrie
I have to completely agree with his theory because IQ tests are very selective in the intelligences it measures. Read this quick page, and I would like to hear any comments...

I also agree with him. I.Q. tests
are limited to intelligence in
certain areas that themselves are
limited in application to a person's life. The true measure of
an individual's intelligence ought
to take much more into account.

-zoob

Zantra

Aug23-03, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Others are making points I might, and probably better than I would. But I have to say I did not suggest a conspiracy theory. I suggested a tinted-lense or filter theory; and not that it's deception, but simply that it results from what people value and methods they use to test.

To me, part of the problem is that the word "intelligence" has more than one meaning. If we limit it strictly to what IQ tests reveal, then what else should we expect IQ tests to reveal other than what they are designed to do?

But others generalize the term "intelligence" to mean skills with consciousness of any variety, whether the IQ tests reveal them or not. Maybe there should be a consciousness quotient too, though I doubt a test could be devised that would reveal all there is to consicousness.

We've had the debate here many times, where I challenge materialists who offer as evidence the fact that empirical studies have never, ever revealed anything other than material processes at work behind and within reality. I ask "but how is that to be interpreted?" Does it mean, as they imply, there is nothing but material processes? Or does it merely prove empiricism is only capable of discovering material processes?

So the infatuation with IQ may be justified for what it really does indicate, but it may also be true that what doesn't show up on such tests still exists and contributes significantly to overall intelligence (or should we say, consciousness).

OK hopefully you'll read this as it's now an old post. Basically everything is definable and measurable. If it warrants signficance, then science has found a way to define it. I believe that there are aspects of intelligence that are just now beginning to be better defined. Things like social intelligence are known, but have not yet been put up against a measurable standard. As I allude to a few posts down, I believe that some intelligences are a result of other larger intelligence factors. If someone is gifted in linguistics, and also in processing information, that may as a by-product, make them more socially adept. However social intelligence isn't defined because it's not it's own seperate category, but what could be looked at as a subcategory, or a by-producted of a combination of other measurable intelligences. Does this mean it can't be measured? No. Does this mean it's not worthy of measurement? No. I'm not an expert, but that's how it would seem to be, to me.

jammieg

Aug24-03, 03:31 PM

A simple activity such as playing chess for a few months has been proven to increase performance on I.Q. tests by an average of 5 points. Chess exercises certain areas of the brain and although there is no chess section on an I.Q. test it improves test performance anyway. Chess is learned and fun to play. The brain is not a static piece of computer hardware because the software changes the hardware in mice studies at least of young and old. If there is an area for it in the brain then it is a form of intelligence although some areas seem more practical than others. I like Gardner's broader ideas of intelligence because it seems more realistic than reducing it all to some mystical quantity called Q that is supposedly unchanging and predictive of one's life, I call that constant, the human constant of needing to feel in control of others by imposing our ideas on them either good or bad- it feels good to control things and especially others as it also feels good to be controlled by an authority that we believe will lead us to good.

Royce

Aug25-03, 02:10 PM

I Want to point out to all that Biology is a scientist. As a scientist he studies the biology of the brain, the physical and physics of the brain.
To study something one must define it to limit the study to manageble size and content. For the purpose of his study of the brain he defines intelligence as speed and bandwidth. This forms a tool by which comparisons and measurements can be made. This is meaningful and useful but is only a specific tool, definition, for a specofic study.
He does not mention mind or ability to solve prolems or think abstractly but simply in speed and bandwidth as a process just as we compare the ability of computers as processor speed and RAM size. It is this and nothing more and is no more a comprehensive definition of human intelligence than is the ability to play a musical instrument.

It is valid and useful in his limited view point: but, his view point is limited to one specific area of study. A psychologist does and would have a completely different definition, as would a socieologist or musician. While his study may be his entire world, the entire world is not his study.

Les Sleeth

Aug26-03, 08:19 PM

I wanted to see if I could think of examples of sorts of intelligence, or mental processes that contribute to intelligence, that aren’t tested for on IQ tests. It had been so long since I took a test so I decided to do that first. I found the Emode website where they offered a test they claim is, “the most thorough and scientifically accurate IQ Test on the Web. Previously offered only to corporations, schools, and certified professionals — it's now available to you directly from Emode.” I don’t know how it measures up to the state of the art (. . . er, science) of IQ testing, but it seemed comprehensive if short (40 questions).

In terms of categories tested, they listed four: mathematical intelligence, visual-spatial intelligence, linguistic intelligence and logic intelligence. After all but acing that sucker, I was pretty sure I can cite two types of intelligence not tested for (someone please tell me why I missed this one . . . John likes 400 but not 300; he likes 100 but not 99; he likes 2500 but not 2400. Which does he like? 900, 1000, 1100 or 1200? The only relationship I could see to John’s likes was that he consistently chose a higher number, so I answered 1200; but the answer is 900).

Here are the two categories not tested I believe contribute to intelligence.

Heightened Sensitivity

I know someone who is the most incredibly sensitive person I have ever met. I don’t mean emotional; that he is definitely not because he is also one of the most logical people I know. He can, for instance, walk into a room full of interacting people and sense the “feel” of the group. Many times I have seen him accurately sum up a number of things going on in a group by just feeling it, and without asking a single question.

If you talk to him, and your feeling doesn’t match what you are saying, he will completely ignore what you are trying to project and ask about what he feels from you . . . and he is almost never wrong. This feeling thing isn’t the touchy-feely sort . . . he uses it quite neutrally, very much in the service of objectivity and understanding, and not to sentimentalize things either. So he (and others I’ve noticed it in) uses this ability in conjunction with logic and reason, to help him intelligently deal with reality.

Holistic Contemplation

A second type of intelligence I don’t believe anyone ever tests for is an ability that can be developed by individuals who can see “big.” In my experience, few people have this skill, but rather are much more focused on minutia. And even among those who can see big, too often they’ve not developed sufficient analytical skill to take practical advantage of what they see.

I would explain holistic contemplation this way. If one is able to keep one’s mind relatively still and focused on an area of reality (or potential of reality) indefinitely, one gradually acquires an “impression” of the whole situation. The “whole” is always huge really, because nothing ultimately is isolated from anything. Some people realize this and keep looking bigger and bigger, and as that impression of the whole grows, they continue to improve in their ability to understand some “part” which is within the whole. The process is always one of looking first for the presence of universal principles in “parts” they’ve discerned in their holistic contemplation, and then evaluating the part in terms of its particular variation on those principles. This skill is especially useful in recognizing patterns, both deductive and inductive reasoning, and predicting outcomes.

So I believe I have observed in both heightened sensitivity and holistic contemplation important contributions to an individual’s intelligence not tested for in IQ tests.

hypnagogue

Aug26-03, 10:01 PM

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
(someone please tell me why I missed this one . . . John likes 400 but not 300; he likes 100 but not 99; he likes 2500 but not 2400. Which does he like? 900, 1000, 1100 or 1200? The only relationship I could see to John’s likes was that he consistently chose a higher number, so I answered 1200; but the answer is 900).

John likes perfect squares; 20^2, 10^2, 50^2, and so also 30^2.
This is another flaw with IQ tests, not in what they test for but their methodology... I also took that Emode test a while ago, and I remember I got that question right because I knew (somehow) to look for perfect squares as a typical mathematical relationship they might use. A better test for intelligence would ask questions that the test taker should be able to solve using basic mathematical and linquistic skills, but which also made the test taker apply these skills in completely novel, unexpected ways. I guess it's easier said than done, but.

BiologyForums

Aug26-03, 10:13 PM

Originally posted by hypnagogue

You say that two factors of intelligence are processing speed and bandwidth. I would agree with that, but stopping there is a very limited perspective that still does not capture the essence of what we mean by 'intelligence.' Bandwidth accounts for the amount of information that can be stored, and speed the rate at which it can be processed-- but who is more intelligent, the guy with the photographic memory who is very quick on his feet, or the guy who redefines his field by reconceptualizing old problems and making profound and novel connections between them, even though his memory is poorer, he has a slight lower concentration of neurons in his brain, and he's not as 'quick'?

Your mistake here is that bandwidth has nothing to do with memory. Memory is completely not a part of intelligence. The process of memory is a different neural process. Bandwidth is the amount of information able to be processed at one time. So your analogy breaks because of the wrong definition.

Originally posted by hypnagogue

To continue your computer analogy, you are pointing to the physical capacity of the hardware to account for intelligence, but I am arguing that it doesn't matter how fast and big your system is if it has lousy software. Thus, I would argue that more than speed and bandwidth, the quality of connections between sets of neurons is what is most important for intelligence. By quality of interconnections, I mean the capacity for a given set of interconnections to process information in highly meaningful, relevent, and novel ways.

"highly meaningful", "relevant" and "novel" are not measurable terms. Science, and the study of intelligence relies on measurable values.

Originally posted by hypnagogue

Clearly intelligence is really encoded in these connections-- speed and bandwidth are limiting factors, but what is really important once you have a sufficiently powerful representational system is how it processes the information it is given. It is not at all a trivial problem to determine what types of interconnections between neurons account for true intelligence in this sense. I contend that we won't have a good understanding of the biological basis of intelligence until we can determine what, if any, common characteristics of interconnections between sets of neurons seperate a genius from a bright guy, a bright guy from an average guy, etc.

I think based on your comment and above information that you may be unaware how much is known about brain processes and intelligence. I often here people think the brain is a mystery, and nearly no one seems to understand factual information on the study of brain processessing. There truly is not nearly as much unknown and mysterious as people think. The brain is very well understood. There are unanswered questions but not so many as people seem to think because of the pop-science idea of the brain being some sort of "mystery". It's just tissue!

Originally posted by hypnagogue

In other words, to get a good grasp on intelligence, we need to determine what kind of information processing (software) ultimately underlies intelligence in action.

It sounds like you may be thinking there is something extra when there isn't anything needed. If you are indeed an atheist you may get the analogy that some people find the world so "awesome" that there must be something extra to explain it. This idea of "software" I think is similiar - the hardware is explaining all answers so far, that we have the mechanical and technological ability to study.

Originally posted by hypnagogue

Also, I find the identification of the cerebral cortex with intelligence to be kind of an unsatisfying a priori assumption. Why should we limit ourselves to the cerebral cortex? What if we find what looks like intelligence operated somewhere else in the brain? Is this not intelligence simply because we have already rather arbitrarily defined that intelligence can only be situated in the cerebral cortex?

These areas of the brain have been much more understood than the C.C. It's not like they were neglected - these are the most understood and studied parts of the brain (brain stem, and center brain) in humans and all other animals. Intelligence is not defined as being only in those areas.

Originally posted by hypnagogue

For instance, work in robotics has found that simply automating the process of navigating around an environment is an extremely complex and subtle operation, no matter how simple it seems to us. If intelligence is the ability to process information in an effective way with respect to the goal of solving some problem, then it would appear that even navigating around an environment coherently and safely requires some form of intelligence.

Yes, navigating around a room requires intelligence. These are not however levels of intelligence that challenge humans, or other animals.

There is no species that has some subjects which can do this very well, some horribly, and some in between. It is not a fluctuating representation of intelligence.

It's when one focuses on other processes that we begin to see a variance in a population - and this is the place to study.

....:)

BiologyForums

Aug26-03, 10:18 PM

Originally posted by Royce
I Want to point out to all that Biology is a scientist. As a scientist he studies the biology of the brain, the physical and physics of the brain.
To study something one must define it to limit the study to manageble size and content. For the purpose of his study of the brain he defines intelligence as speed and bandwidth. This forms a tool by which comparisons and measurements can be made. This is meaningful and useful but is only a specific tool, definition, for a specofic study.
He does not mention mind or ability to solve prolems or think abstractly but simply in speed and bandwidth as a process just as we compare the ability of computers as processor speed and RAM size. It is this and nothing more and is no more a comprehensive definition of human intelligence than is the ability to play a musical instrument.

It is valid and useful in his limited view point: but, his view point is limited to one specific area of study. A psychologist does and would have a completely different definition, as would a socieologist or musician. While his study may be his entire world, the entire world is not his study.

Psychology is a result of attempting to reach a goal without ever understanding what is causing the positive results.

The neurological view is not limited at all. It looks at processes as simple as the sodium threshold in a single neuron to something as advanced as singing, dreaming, and juggling.

A science is only as valid as it does deal with the small to explain the small and the big.

Psychology generalizes in one sentence that which a neuologist would requires 800 pages to explain. Psychology is a simple science. Neurology takes the time to speak at the level of the fundamental unit of life, the cell.

Neuroscience applies to everything that psychology attempts to be and more. Yet Psychology applies to very little.

Speaking of a "mind" is a sign of lack of understanding of the physical. Any proper definition of intelligence can be rewritten to the cellular level.

BiologyForums

Aug26-03, 10:25 PM

Originally posted by LW Sleeth

Heightened Sensitivity

I know someone who is the most incredibly sensitive person I have ever met. I don’t mean emotional; that he is definitely not because he is also one of the most logical people I know. He can, for instance, walk into a room full of interacting people and sense the “feel” of the group. Many times I have seen him accurately sum up a number of things going on in a group by just feeling it, and without asking a single question.

Without this being scientifically tested there are certain rows and columns of perfectly valid (thus far) reasoning other than him having any sort of different sense ability. And one would find it is simple and a ratherboring answer.

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Holistic Contemplation

I just used the title to save space. Again you use undefinable and immeasurable values. These are results of this pop-psych that spread starting in the 80's (or 70's).

These are merely things that you and other observe about a person - but they're not measurable and when analyzed always turn out to be merely a subjective observation of ones personality.

Intelligence occurs in the brain and is a physical process. Psychology is a science which was born because of an interest without an ability. Psychology is a science that died before it was born because now the physical processes that cause the completely subjective concepts of psychology are easily available!

[:D]

hypnagogue

Aug26-03, 11:22 PM

Originally posted by BiologyForums
Speaking of a "mind" is a sign of lack of understanding of the physical. Any proper definition of intelligence can be rewritten to the cellular level.

Brushing off the existence of the "mind" is a sign of lack of understanding of the mental. A system is not always best understood in all circumstances by a recourse to reductionism.

hypnagogue

Aug26-03, 11:55 PM

Originally posted by BiologyForums
Your mistake here is that bandwidth has nothing to do with memory. Memory is completely not a part of intelligence. The process of memory is a different neural process. Bandwidth is the amount of information able to be processed at one time. So your analogy breaks because of the wrong definition.

Actually, this observation isn't relevant to my analogy, since it didn't hinge on the concept of memory. Strike the record on that little 'photographic memory' part if you wish; the analogy still stands.

"highly meaningful", "relevant" and "novel" are not measurable terms. Science, and the study of intelligence relies on measurable values.

No, they are not measurable, but this does not mean they are not relevant to what we mean by the term "intelligence." If this is not what YOU mean when you speak of intelligence, in a scientific context, that is fine. In that case, I would suggest you find a different word for what you are studying than "intelligence," because you have already made the admission that science cannot study "intelligence" as it is conventionally used in the English language.

I think based on your comment and above information that you may be unaware how much is known about brain processes and intelligence. I often here people think the brain is a mystery, and nearly no one seems to understand factual information on the study of brain processessing. There truly is not nearly as much unknown and mysterious as people think. The brain is very well understood. There are unanswered questions but not so many as people seem to think because of the pop-science idea of the brain being some sort of "mystery". It's just tissue!

I think based on your comments that you are missing my point. Sure, we know a lot about the brain, but do we know, for instance, the exact neural algorithms that are used to solve a math problem? We may know the area in the brain where the computation takes place, but what is the precise form this computation takes in terms of neural interconnections? Do we know theoretically how we could rewire a set of neurons so that they could solve this problem more efficiently?

It sounds like you may be thinking there is something extra when there isn't anything needed. If you are indeed an atheist you may get the analogy that some people find the world so "awesome" that there must be something extra to explain it. This idea of "software" I think is similiar - the hardware is explaining all answers so far, that we have the mechanical and technological ability to study.

The idea of software is not 'something extra.' It is integral to the question at hand. Hardware roughly translates into the speed and capacity of a computational system; software roughly translates into how the system computes information. Surely when we speak of intelligence, we must speak of how information is processed, not just how much at what speed? In the brain, the software is encoded in the neural connections. Thus, to understand precisely how the brain processes information (and thus its 'software' driving intelligent behavior), we must acquire a much more precise and sophisticated understanding on the neural level than we currently possess.

Yes, navigating around a room requires intelligence. These are not however levels of intelligence that challenge humans, or other animals.

There is no species that has some subjects which can do this very well, some horribly, and some in between. It is not a fluctuating representation of intelligence.

It's when one focuses on other processes that we begin to see a variance in a population - and this is the place to study.

....:)

Again, I understand if you must limit your study to certain aspects of what we call intelligence. Just so long as you realize that this scientific paradigm itself is a very limited aspect of what we call 'intelligence,' and more specifically that you should not use this limited scientific definition as a criterion for stating definitively what intelligence is and is not. For instance, I do not necessarily find the phrase "musical intelligence" to misuse the term 'intelligence,' even if what is meant by musical intelligence is not easily comprehensible to a neuroscientific paradigm.

Zantra

Aug27-03, 12:22 AM

Zantra

Aug27-03, 12:30 AM

Les Sleeth

Aug27-03, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by BiologyForums
Without this being scientifically tested there are certain rows and columns of perfectly valid (thus far) reasoning other than him having any sort of different sense ability. And one would find it is simple and a rather boring answer.

First of all, you weren’t listening. I didn’t say anything about a “different sense ability.” I spoke about someone who had developed heightened sensitivity, and employed it to help him be more intelligent. Are you trying to say heightened sensitivity doesn’t happen when, for instance, someone who’s blind learns to rely more on other senses? If one can accentuate senses for that, then why couldn’t one could do it in general to allow one to pick up various signals (e.g., body language, voice tones, etc.) that normally people miss?

You can certainly redefine my example in your own terms, but then you may not understand what I am saying. Of course, if you are the only person you want to listen to, then I guess that is a good idea. A creationist could redefine the idea of heightened sensitivity too, saying it is the Lord's presence in the man. But what difference does it make to my observation that there are people who are intelligent in ways not tested for?

Originally posted by BiologyForums
I just used the title to save space. Again you use indefinable and immeasurable values. These are results of this pop-psych that spread starting in the 80's (or 70's). . . . Psychology is a science which was born because of an interest without an ability. Psychology is a science that died before it was born because now the physical processes that cause the completely subjective concepts of psychology are easily available!

Could you manage to be a little more condescending? And why are you talking to me about psychology, what did I say that brought that response? Explain to me what the concept of holistic contemplation has to do with psychology please. Seems like you are just preaching without caring to respond to what was said.

I know for a fact that the example of holistic contemplation is valid because I rely on it all the time. It has taken a greater part of my 56 years of living to acquire skill with it, and I value it more than most of the mental processes I rely on. And what difference does it make whether you can measure it or not? How can you possibly know that all which exists is measurable? Let’s hear you argue and prove that obvious a priori assumption.

Originally posted by BiologyForums
These are merely things that you and other observe about a person - but they're not measurable and when analyzed always turn out to be merely a subjective observation of ones personality.

Thanks for granting my request for more condescension.

Originally posted by BiologyForums Intelligence occurs in the brain and is a physical process.

So? It tells us we have a bio-computer, but that doesn’t tell us who or what is using it does it? I can get myself to operate purely as a computer quite well, and when I do it my consciousness loses touch with all sorts of information that had been at my disposal before I decided I’d rather be a machine than human. And this site has its share of such mechanistic analogs, usually aspiring to be the perfect computer. . . you can tell because every word out of their mouth is programmed by empirical software. Yet it wouldn’t bother me one bit if they weren’t also trying to insist we all accept what I personally consider lacking model of consciousness (not to mention wanting it in textbooks so they can teach it to our children too).

Originally posted by BiologyForums
The neurological view is not limited at all. It looks at processes as simple as the sodium threshold in a single neuron to something as advanced as singing, dreaming, and juggling.

So let’s see, I build a device that that achieves cold fusion. You come for a demonstration. I push the button that starts the process, and cold fusion is demonstrated. You conclude my achievement can be explained by the resistance threshold of that button and the force with which I pushed.

I know there is a very physical aspect to intelligence, but the question is bigger than that. Is physicalness ALL there is? Also, I have to repeat, if the discipline you utilize to look at reality only reveals physical processes, then what else should you expect to find? It is your personal choice to look only the physical, but it isn’t mine or many others either. That you can’t see anything else I will not accept as anything more than how you are looking at things.

Originally posted by BiologyForums
Speaking of a "mind" is a sign of lack of understanding of the physical. Any proper definition of intelligence can be rewritten to the cellular level.

Some scientist you are. You are speaking like the issue of mind has been settled; that neuroscience has proven the materialist theory of mind. What a bunch of baloney. This is like the materialist version of creationists so anxious to have the “truth” they can’t wait until they can make their case properly before spouting off they’ve got it. Not everybody rejects materialism because they are creationists, or even theists you know . . . some of us just don’t think the materialist case has been made, and/or we feel there is “something more.”

In any case, you ain’t got it, so why not have a little integrity and stop pretending you do, and stop treating others like they are children because they aren’t ready to buy materialist propaganda?

Royce

Aug27-03, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by BiologyForums
Psychology is a result of attempting to reach a goal without ever understanding what is causing the positive results.

The neurological view is not limited at all. It looks at processes as simple as the sodium threshold in a single neuron to something as advanced as singing, dreaming, and juggling.

A science is only as valid as it does deal with the small to explain the small and the big.

Psychology generalizes in one sentence that which a neuologist would requires 800 pages to explain. Psychology is a simple science. Neurology takes the time to speak at the level of the fundamental unit of life, the cell.

Neuroscience applies to everything that psychology attempts to be and more. Yet Psychology applies to very little.

Speaking of a "mind" is a sign of lack of understanding of the physical. Any proper definition of intelligence can be rewritten to the cellular level.

This is a perfect example of Aristolean thinking vs Platonic thinking.
It is also a typical example of the ongoing discussions of objectivity vs subjectivity.

You study the cell and learn all about the cell and say you know alot about the way the brain works. You do not study the mind, youcannot studythe mind because you cann't find it in the cell. so you say the mind does not exist or is explained by the workings of a cell. Does anybody here recognize this type of thinking in relationship to the existence of subjectivity or God.

I do not in any way mean to be insulting or belittling. The work you and others are doing is great and adds greatly to our knowlege and understanding. We are greatful. Having said that I realize that your view is limit and must be to that which can be measured. This is the very definition of objective science. There is however more to the world and reality than objective science and the mind is one of them as well as the soul. You discount psychology for studying the very thing you cannot study or find.
When you find the mind the soul and human behavior in a neuron give me a call. Until then keep up the good work and thanks for the information.

We cannot know a mouse by studying mouse cells. We can know a lot about mouse cells and the physiology of a mouse but in the end we have a dead disected mouse body that we throw away. Where did that mouse, the essence of mousehood and the life of the mouse go? Where and when did we so carlessly throw those things away in our zeal to study the mouse cell so that we may know about mice. I am and will forever remain a staunch Platoist and anti-Aristotlean, the advances of Science be damned. Until we learn to study and see the forest and the trees at the same time without destroying one or the other we are still nothing but children playing with matches.

BiologyForums

Aug27-03, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by Zantra
I'm very interested in this area, as I've been contemplating weather to follow neurology or psychiatry as a career path. Perhaps this is the defining difference between a psychologist and a psychiatrist? Meaning that You're saying that psychologists are highly unqualified to make recommendations based on the fact that they do not have the "entire picture" so to speak. And not to get off topic, but this being the case, does that mean a psychiatrist is below a neurologist in the "food chain"? It would seem from your statements that an order of magnitude seperates the two. If that is the case, then are psychiatrists looked down upon by other medical professions simply because they do no have the in-depth physical understanding of the functions of the mind? I'll keep it short and stop there.

Yes. There is a very good reason psychologists are not allowed to prescriptions. It's because a medication is a physical material, and a psychologist is not trained in the physicalities of the body.

They do recieve a small amount of education in the physical aspects, but it's more limited than a second year bachelors degree in biology.

For instance I know 5 psychologists I speak with regularly who are professors on and off. They know the 3 main parts of a neuron, but they don't even know what types of channels a neuron can have. This information is so elementary it's on a one page "study guide" sheet in anatomy you can buy in university bookstores.

The field of psychology works by merely observing the human action and reaction. They are not trained in knowing what is occuring within the brain. And they will admit this. It's not a bad thing - it's a different thing.

Regarding neurologists and psychiatrists.

Absolutely. A psychiatrist examines DSM conditions based on physical abnormalities in neurotransmitters, and a few other examinations but mostly this. They then give medications to correct this biologically.

A neurologist is a master of the entire nervous system. Not just the behavioral (subjective) focuses of psychiatry and psychology.

A neurologist must deal with the whole of the nervous system and it's connections with other systems. A neurologist sees patience with nervous disorders such as parkinsons, brain cancer, neck cancer (if near brain stem), spinal disorders causing problems in the nerve cords.

Understand that it's not a matter of more or less necessarily. A psychologist is trained to merely observe a humans behavior and the concept a human has of their own behavior.

A psychiatrist is trained to oberve the same behaviors and a few more, and to understand how medicine can adjust this problem.

A neurologist is trained to understand any possible malfunctions of the entire nervous system. A neurologist would not see a patient who had depression, he would see a child who was born with brain cancer.

And remember, a neurologist can perform surgery.

If you want to know more about the differences in career and lives of neurologists and psychiatrist ask - I can provide quite a bit of information mostly because medicine is in the family, and a correspond with a few of each fields monthly.

BiologyForums

Aug27-03, 04:07 PM

Originally posted by Zantra
I submit that just because something has not be measured yet, does not invalidate it. It simply means that we haven't figured out how to best meausure things of this nature yet. We must use other criteria when defining relationship of different types of intelligence to the overall picture. If someone has extremely gifted "social intelligence", can we discount that as a factor? Certainly it's can be interconnected with other more recognized forms of intelligence such as linguistics ability, adaptability, and improvisation. So in a way, these types of intelligence may be defined by elements of other intelligences that are measured. The question is weather it is significant enough to warrant it's own seperate measure.

You're misunderstanding that all human ability and cause comes from a communication of neural tissues.

The neurological understanding of intelligence is values of these communications and therefore encompasses all these observed forms of "intelligence".

social, emotional, strict, musical, etc... all these are merely human input, storage, manipulation, and output and they all occur with the same type of cells.

The understanding of the physical intellect encompasses all these. And understands them much better.

BiologyForums

Aug27-03, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Some scientist you are. You are speaking like the issue of mind has been settled; that neuroscience has proven the materialist theory of mind. What a bunch of baloney. This is like the materialist version of creationists so anxious to have the “truth” they can’t wait until they can make their case properly before spouting off they’ve got it. Not everybody rejects materialism because they are creationists, or even theists you know . . . some of us just don’t think the materialist case has been made, and/or we feel there is “something more.”

In any case, you ain’t got it, so why not have a little integrity and stop pretending you do, and stop treating others like they are children because they aren’t ready to buy materialist propaganda?

I find myself disinterests in speaking with you. You seem hostile without knowledge.

Let me ask you, you who seems to know exactly what is known and not known about the mind:

1. What is the average length of a neuron in the Pons?
2. If a sodium channel opens and 25mV and is 1mm from the hillock will the hillock reach threshold?
3. Name one brain location where axons are not myelinated?
4. In a patient with epilepsy, before split-brain surgery, which isde of their brain customarily begins a seizure?
5. What are the two major ways the blood-brain barrier are sealed?
6. What is the function which properly describes the uptake of norepenephrin of the central nerves of the pre-frontal lobe?

You won't find the answers to ANY of these questions on the internet (without database searching) and you won't find the answers to any of these in the average bookstore.

The signals two thinks: One is you are attacking an issue you are totally unaware of. And two is that like I stated earlier, the public and most of the scientific community are unaware of the information gathered in brain science.

Everyone else here has asked questions and had some excellent points. You're just attacking and claiming you know what is known about "the mind" when you cannot answer the above questions.

"The Mind" (which means the totality of the brain functions) is a term used because it takes an enormous wealth of understanding to explain a simple behavior on the level of neural networking.

There is mounds of knowledge on the mind and the gap between mental processes, human behavior, and neural activity.

If anyone wants to some good book recommendations I can suggest a few I reference daily.

BiologyForums

Aug27-03, 04:29 PM

Originally posted by Royce
This is a perfect example of Aristolean thinking vs Platonic thinking.
It is also a typical example of the ongoing discussions of objectivity vs subjectivity.

You study the cell and learn all about the cell and say you know alot about the way the brain works. You do not study the mind, youcannot studythe mind because you cann't find it in the cell. so you say the mind does not exist or is explained by the workings of a cell. Does anybody here recognize this type of thinking in relationship to the existence of subjectivity or God.

I do not in any way mean to be insulting or belittling. The work you and others are doing is great and adds greatly to our knowlege and understanding. We are greatful. Having said that I realize that your view is limit and must be to that which can be measured. This is the very definition of objective science. There is however more to the world and reality than objective science and the mind is one of them as well as the soul. You discount psychology for studying the very thing you cannot study or find.
When you find the mind the soul and human behavior in a neuron give me a call. Until then keep up the good work and thanks for the information.

We cannot know a mouse by studying mouse cells. We can know a lot about mouse cells and the physiology of a mouse but in the end we have a dead disected mouse body that we throw away. Where did that mouse, the essence of mousehood and the life of the mouse go? Where and when did we so carlessly throw those things away in our zeal to study the mouse cell so that we may know about mice. I am and will forever remain a staunch Platoist and anti-Aristotlean, the advances of Science be damned. Until we learn to study and see the forest and the trees at the same time without destroying one or the other we are still nothing but children playing with matches.

Hi Rocye. I should clarify I don't "study the cell". I'm not a cellular biologist by any means - in fact I wouldn't be able to tell you a whole lot about the cell, the knowledge has been replaced with speciality!

I study the brain from the level of neural functioning (yes it's a cell) all the way to full on behaviors such as feelings and solving methods.

The mind is not found in the cell you are right. The mind is the inverse of the totality of ones behavior and of the human experience. I did not mean the mind does not exist in a non-physical sense. I meant that what we refer to as the mind is a product of being unable to breach the physical neural system with this billions-of-years-complex experience as a human.

But the focus should be that this gap exists, it's not a misconnected attempt! And it's more understood all the time. I don't have a problem with people refering to the mind, because the task of being physical would take more text sometimes than could fit on a hosting service! But It is important for one to recognize that the mind is referenced because of an ease of communication, and not because it's a magical mystery.

Seeing the forest and the trees is only a matter of time. I'm not discounting psychology for approaching one over the other. In 2003 it makes no sense to address a condition of the mind (depression, post-trauamtic stress etc..) from a physical level completely. The goal is to treat the individual and not waste time connecting the two.

But it's merely important to know they can be connected. Identifying where something is, and identifying what something is are different. "The mind" and all "behaviors" are known in location without a doubt. For one to suggest some sort of soul as a non-physical thing is absurd because nothing relies on it, and nothing supports it.

That is why we have pscyhology. It comes from a need for a means, but without this massive level of understanding. It's a functional science which serves the public, but it's clear that physical neurology is creating specifics where psychology is general.

hypnagogue

Aug27-03, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by BiologyForums
You're misunderstanding that all human ability and cause comes from a communication of neural tissues.

The neurological understanding of intelligence is values of these communications and therefore encompasses all these observed forms of "intelligence".

social, emotional, strict, musical, etc... all these are merely human input, storage, manipulation, and output and they all occur with the same type of cells.

The understanding of the physical intellect encompasses all these. And understands them much better.

You seem here to have relapsed again to the idea that 'intelligence' is simply the neural activity of the brain. However, consider for example that language is processed in one area of the brain, and visual-spatial abilities in another. Now these are both forms of intelligence. You seem to be claiming that the same 'intelligence' drives linguistic computation and spatial computation. What I see here is a misuse of wording. The same physical principles certainly drive both processes-- namely, the neurobiological computational principles of the human brain; neurons exciting and inhibiting eachother, and so on. But clearly there are different algorithms involved in linguistic intelligence and visual-spatial intelligence; these algorithms are embodied in the specific connections between neurons and their tendencies to excite and inhibit eachother. The term "intelligence" is characterized much better in terms of these specific information processing algorithms than the general physical principle of neurobiological computation. Thus, since the algorithms are distinct, I believe it is incorrect to say the intelligent processes involved (linguistic intelligence and visual-spatial intelligence) are not distinct.

BiologyForums

Aug27-03, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by hypnagogue
You seem here to have relapsed again to the idea that 'intelligence' is simply the neural activity of the brain. However, consider for example that language is processed in one area of the brain, and visual-spatial abilities in another. Now these are both forms of intelligence. You seem to be claiming that the same 'intelligence' drives linguistic computation and spatial computation. What I see here is a misuse of wording. The same physical principles certainly drive both processes-- namely, the neurobiological computational principles of the human brain; neurons exciting and inhibiting eachother, and so on. But clearly there are different algorithms involved in linguistic intelligence and visual-spatial intelligence; these algorithms are embodied in the specific connections between neurons and their tendencies to excite and inhibit eachother. The term "intelligence" is characterized much better in terms of these specific information processing algorithms than the general physical principle of neurobiological computation. Thus, since the algorithms are distinct, I believe it is incorrect to say the intelligent processes involved (linguistic intelligence and visual-spatial intelligence) are not distinct.

The algorithms are different. This does not stop them from both and all being intelligence. Intelligence is not an algorithm, it's the processes of algorithms - all of them combined make intelligence. Like all evolutionary agents make evolution. Agents = algorithms, evolution = intelligence.

I am not relapsing to any idea. I am in the field of BNN and am well aware of the definition of intelligence, no less than any person in the field since there are so very few.

Intelligence is intelligence. Algorithms for neural processes can number in the billions, they are all intelligence.

hypnagogue

Aug27-03, 06:30 PM

Originally posted by BiologyForums
The algorithms are different. This does not stop them from both and all being intelligence. Intelligence is not an algorithm, it's the processes of algorithms - all of them combined make intelligence. Like all evolutionary agents make evolution. Agents = algorithms, evolution = intelligence.

I am not relapsing to any idea. I am in the field of BNN and am well aware of the definition of intelligence, no less than any person in the field since there are so very few.

Intelligence is intelligence. Algorithms for neural processes can number in the billions, they are all intelligence.

So you are saying that the totality of all intelligent processes is what we call 'intelligence.' But I see no reason why we can only speak of intelligence in such a general way and cannot distinguish between types of intelligence. For instance, it is easy to conceive of person A, who is very linguistically intelligent but not very spatially intelligent, and person B, who is very spatially intelligent but not very linguistically intelligent. Clearly there is a categorical distinction to be made between their respective capacities for intelligence, so why is it by definition invalid to speak of linguistic intelligence as opposed to spatial intelligence? Because you have decided to define intelligence as such and because your opinion is obviously priveleged because you identify yourself with a restricted scientific community and its paradigms?

BiologyForums

Aug27-03, 07:06 PM

Originally posted by hypnagogue
So you are saying that the totality of all intelligent processes is what we call 'intelligence.' But I see no reason why we can only speak of intelligence in such a general way and cannot distinguish between types of intelligence. For instance, it is easy to conceive of person A, who is very linguistically intelligent but not very spatially intelligent, and person B, who is very spatially intelligent but not very linguistically intelligent. Clearly there is a categorical distinction to be made between their respective capacities for intelligence, so why is it by definition invalid to speak of linguistic intelligence as opposed to spatial intelligence? Because you have decided to define intelligence as such and because your opinion is obviously priveleged because you identify yourself with a restricted scientific community and its paradigms?

This is in no way my definition of intelligence. I do not have "my own" definition of intelligence. This is how science communicates, through accepted definitions, which usuall are different from the general publics because the general public has not a single clue what they are talking about or refering to.

Speaking of types of intelligence is like speaking of types of evolution. It's not possible - Evolution does not have types. It does have evolutionary agents. And the equal, in the area of intelligence, can be considered - if you want - algorithms, solving methods.

But "types of intelligence" isn't a proper usage just like "types of evolution" isn't.

As I said before, the values which constitute a measure of intelligence are measured at any level - the level of a whole brain, the level of a brain focus, or of a sub-focus.

That is fine - you can speak on intelligence capacitance of the temporal love having a different value than the parietal lobe for example.

Les Sleeth

Aug27-03, 08:14 PM

Originally posted by BiologyForums
I find myself disinterests in speaking with you. You seem hostile without knowledge.

Of course you feel disinterested (hmmmmm, I thought you were about to say you were going to put me on your "ignore" list) . . . I am challenging you to properly participate in a debate, and to be honest. Think about your statement “You seem hostile without knowledge.” How did you come to that conclusion? There is only one way, and that is you already assume you are correct and so anyone who disagrees must lack knowledge. Well, my previous statements are still posted for everyone to see, so why don’t you go back and pick out those statements of mine which exhibit lack of knowledge?

You, however don’t hesitate to claim you know something that no one else knows. For example:

Originally posted by BiologyForums
"The Mind" (which means the totality of the brain functions) is a term used because it takes an enormous wealth of understanding to explain a simple behavior on the level of neural networking. There is mounds of knowledge on the mind and the gap between mental processes, human behavior, and neural activity.

So the mind is the “totality of the brain functions”? Prove it. You are here stating as fact that which is still a raging debate. Don’t you think you should have said, “some of us believe. . .” and thereby acknowledge the issue is still unproven?

But undaunted you go on to say:

Originally posted by BiologyForums
Everyone else here has asked questions and had some excellent points. You're just attacking and claiming you know what is known about "the mind" when you cannot answer the above questions

Well, maybe the others have more patience because they haven’t seen this as much as I have. You seem to think you are unique, but here, and at the old PF, I have seen this approach of yours so (too) many times. People come here thinking they are the geniuses of the world, and the rest of us should be on our knees awaiting any tiny tidbit of wisdom they may wish to toss our way. Like this gem, “If anyone wants to some good book recommendations I can suggest a few I reference daily.” Of course! That’s the reason your eminence has been confronted -- we ignorant little nitwits are too stupid to study a prevalent and important subject like neuroscience.

Proof you believe that is demonstrated in the following:

Originally posted by BiologyForums
Let me ask you, you who seems to know exactly what is known and not known about the mind:

1. What is the average length of a neuron in the Pons?
2. If a sodium channel opens and 25mV and is 1mm from the hillock will the hillock reach threshold?
3. Name one brain location where axons are not myelinated?
4. In a patient with epilepsy, before split-brain surgery, which isde of their brain customarily begins a seizure?
5. What are the two major ways the blood-brain barrier are sealed?
6. What is the function which properly describes the uptake of norepenephrin of the central nerves of the pre-frontal lobe?

You won't find the answers to ANY of these questions on the internet (without database searching) and you won't find the answers to any of these in the average bookstore.

Truly, unbelievably, incredibly arrogant – maybe a new height for this site (and I have seem some real champs). Okay, I will take your little test if you first take mine to prove to me you are worthy of even being listened to.

Naaa . . . I wouldn’t ask that of anyone, it is just too embarrassingly egocentric. But, you obviously don’t seem to think so because you continue:

Originally posted by BiologyForums
The signals two thinks: One is you are attacking an issue you are totally unaware of. And two is that like I stated earlier, the public and most of the scientific community are unaware of the information gathered in brain science.

Why, how utterly scientific. How do you know what I am aware of and what I am not? I will pit my education against your narrow perspective any day of the week. From what I can see, you’ve studied what supports your position, and that’s it. Ever wonder about what you might have overlooked?

Look, I have nothing against the materialist position. It may be the correct one. But a debate is supposed to be about trading reason and evidence. It’s not the “issue” that I am attacking, it is your dubious debating techniques . . . they are arrogant, condescending and deceitful.

Here’s the objective truth: empirical materialism has explained only the physical processes associated with life and consciousness. They have NOT demonstrated that that “association” is actually causing life and consciousness. That’s why it is so easy to spot a scientism zealot, because every single time they talk about theory like it’s an established fact; they accuse others of ignorance of this “truth”; and they offer their enlightened guidance to help point the Way out of our delusions and into the radiance of their materialist deity.

Frankly, I don’t see a damn bit of difference between a scientism fanatic or a religious one. Both want to jump ahead (and way ahead) of what evidence supports.

Zantra

Aug27-03, 08:29 PM

Originally posted by BiologyForums
Yes. There is a very good reason psychologists are not allowed to prescriptions. It's because a medication is a physical material, and a psychologist is not trained in the physicalities of the body.

They do recieve a small amount of education in the physical aspects, but it's more limited than a second year bachelors degree in biology.

For instance I know 5 psychologists I speak with regularly who are professors on and off. They know the 3 main parts of a neuron, but they don't even know what types of channels a neuron can have. This information is so elementary it's on a one page "study guide" sheet in anatomy you can buy in university bookstores.

The field of psychology works by merely observing the human action and reaction. They are not trained in knowing what is occuring within the brain. And they will admit this. It's not a bad thing - it's a different thing.

I've been reading a bit on the psychologist/psychotherapist vs psychiatrist debate, and it would seem that both are valuable, but some feel that psychiatry is being threatened by counseling psychotherapists who are pushing for the ability to prescribe meds, which I feel is a mistake, as they do not have the in-depth training and knowledge, as you said, of the human mind. So for me that puts clinical/counseling psychology out of the running. I've also heard mentioned as a recurring theme that psychiatry is looked down upon by the other professions due to it's lesser requirements, and thusly it pays the least. True/false?

Regarding neurologists and psychiatrists.

Absolutely. A psychiatrist examines DSM conditions based on physical abnormalities in neurotransmitters, and a few other examinations but mostly this. They then give medications to correct this biologically.

A neurologist is a master of the entire nervous system. Not just the behavioral (subjective) focuses of psychiatry and psychology.

A neurologist must deal with the whole of the nervous system and it's connections with other systems. A neurologist sees patience with nervous disorders such as parkinsons, brain cancer, neck cancer (if near brain stem), spinal disorders causing problems in the nerve cords.

Understand that it's not a matter of more or less necessarily. A psychologist is trained to merely observe a humans behavior and the concept a human has of their own behavior.

A psychiatrist is trained to oberve the same behaviors and a few more, and to understand how medicine can adjust this problem.

A neurologist is trained to understand any possible malfunctions of the entire nervous system. A neurologist would not see a patient who had depression, he would see a child who was born with brain cancer.

And remember, a neurologist can perform surgery.

If you want to know more about the differences in career and lives of neurologists and psychiatrist ask - I can provide quite a bit of information mostly because medicine is in the family, and a correspond with a few of each fields monthly. [/B]

Regarding Neurology, I've heard that neurology is an underpaid profession- which is not a preferred thing when you have to rack up 150-200k in debt to do it. I'm not doing this for the money, all things being equal I'd choose the one of these 3 that I wouldn't be paying off the rest of my life. I've also heard that neurology is not in high demand due to psychiatrists, but I may be off.

Then there are the other sub-specialties such as neuropsychology, neuropsychiatry,forensic psychiatry, etc. Hard to know what's what except for the fact that one set requires a medical degree and the other does not. I do know I'm going for that, so that narrows the field down a bit.

Ok let's sum all that up with 1, two pronged question. Of the 3, if you had to choose one profession, which would it be, and why?

(I realize it's a loaded question as you're already in the field, but maybe you can give me some insight)

BiologyForums

Aug27-03, 09:13 PM

Originally posted by Zantra
I've been reading a bit on the psychologist/psychotherapist vs psychiatrist debate, and it would seem that both are valuable, but some feel that psychiatry is being threatened by counseling psychotherapists who are pushing for the ability to prescribe meds, which I feel is a mistake, as they do not have the in-depth training and knowledge, as you said, of the human mind. So for me that puts clinical/counseling psychology out of the running. I've also heard mentioned as a recurring theme that psychiatry is looked down upon by the other professions due to it's lesser requirements, and thusly it pays the least. True/false?

They can push all they want - no one who does not complete medical school will likely ever get the ability to prescribe medicine.

Both are valuable merely because psychologist and the other variety of "therapists" are cheaper, and so people without money can attempt to get something that might help them. Medication is cheaper than therapy, but it takes fees from a physician to get a prescription.

I have never ever heard of or experienced anyone "looking down" on psychiatrists. It is absolutely one of the most upheld medical positions, and psychiatrists often work hand in hand with neurologists for research, training, and helping the individual.

In fact I've never heard of any medical field being insulted over any other, physicians have a bond no matter of it's a foot doctor to a brain doctor - they're united.

Psychiatry doesn't have any lesser requirements than any other medical field. SOme programs are 5 years some may go to 8 but it's the training needed to master the field.

Originally posted by Zantra

Regarding Neurology, I've heard that neurology is an underpaid profession- which is not a preferred thing when you have to rack up 150-200k in debt to do it. I'm not doing this for the money, all things being equal I'd choose the one of these 3 that I wouldn't be paying off the rest of my life. I've also heard that neurology is not in high demand due to psychiatrists, but I may be off.

Neurology has one of the longest medical training programs, if not the longest. It can vary from school to school but still it remains intense.

I'm not particularly familiar with an issue of being underpaid. Although of course there are issues with ALL medical positions being underpaid in comparison to fees met and to malpractice claims.

What are the stats you've gotten on entry level and ten year career incomes for a neurologist? It really is a function of area as well, as is with all medical positions.

Remember neurology focuses on MANY issues psychiatry does not. Psychiatry is just as psychology, a focus on the person and the personality.

Neurologists and psychiatrists are barely in competition if at all. Neurologists deal with so many diseases, malfunctions, and complications requiring surgery that (a) exist outside the brain and (b) do not affect the personality

They're two very different fields alltogether.

Originally posted by Zantra

Then there are the other sub-specialties such as neuropsychology, neuropsychiatry,forensic psychiatry, etc. Hard to know what's what except for the fact that one set requires a medical degree and the other does not. I do know I'm going for that, so that narrows the field down a bit.
Ok let's sum all that up with 1, two pronged question. Of the 3, if you had to choose one profession, which would it be, and why?

(I realize it's a loaded question as you're already in the field, but maybe you can give me some insight)

I have a love for the nervous system. I do not care for much else about the science of life - but the nervous system gets me.

If I was to choose to have the knowledge and degree to practice under any of these areas I would choose to be a neurologist - and specifically a neurosurgeon.

I do not, and probably will never, treat patients in my career. I pursue science through research for the sake of knowledge and do not "cure" humans.

But I would love to perform this most delicate, difficult, and challenging task of brain surgery and spine surgery!

BiologyForums

Aug27-03, 09:17 PM

Sleeth - Please respond with answers to my previous questions. You make claims that would require you to have the knowledge of a graduate or medical degree, and yet they go against the fundamentals of such degrees.

This makes it more likely you do not have these degrees than that you do, because it's rare one with such a degree to have been taught this knowledge would go against it.

So please show me that you can understand the questions above, and this will allow me to explain the problems with your assumptions in medical equations and processes.

Until then, I don't want to take the time to type the medical information from which these fundamentals are shown.

Awaiting....

1. What is the average length of a neuron in the Pons?
2. If a sodium channel opens and 25mV and is 1mm from the hillock will the hillock reach threshold?
3. Name one brain location where axons are not myelinated?
4. In a patient with epilepsy, before split-brain surgery, which isde of their brain customarily begins a seizure?
5. What are the two major ways the blood-brain barrier are sealed?
6. What is the function which properly describes the uptake of norepenephrin of the central nerves of the pre-frontal lobe?

Les Sleeth

Aug27-03, 10:30 PM

Originally posted by BiologyForums
Sleeth - Please respond with answers to my previous questions. You make claims that would require you to have the knowledge of a graduate or medical degree, and yet they go against the fundamentals of such degrees.

This makes it more likely you do not have these degrees than that you do, because it's rare one with such a degree to have been taught this knowledge would go against it.

So please show me that you can understand the questions above, and this will allow me to explain the problems with your assumptions in medical equations and processes.

Until then, I don't want to take the time to type the medical information from which these fundamentals are shown.

Awaiting....

1. What is the average length of a neuron in the Pons?
2. If a sodium channel opens and 25mV and is 1mm from the hillock will the hillock reach threshold?
3. Name one brain location where axons are not myelinated?
4. In a patient with epilepsy, before split-brain surgery, which isde of their brain customarily begins a seizure?
5. What are the two major ways the blood-brain barrier are sealed?
6. What is the function which properly describes the uptake of norepenephrin of the central nerves of the pre-frontal lobe?

I suggest you are a sophist who is afraid to make your case without falling back on degrees, tests or status. If you are so smart, then why are you asking for credentials instead of showing us all your willingness to stand on your education, understanding and reasoning abilities as you explain yourself? I've always thought it cowardly to resort to authority status when the cards are down -- are you afraid to stand up and expose yourself?

How about this: let's fight it out right here, in front of everyone.

I will suggest what I believe are fair rules. Disagree with the debate rules if you want, and if you are honest, I will adjust.

My suggestion for the rules are:

Proof is that which has been demonstrated to be true, not by inference, but by direct observation and by multiple researchers.

We make our case by evidence and logic . . . no "I am the expert and so my opinion must be accepted" bullsh*t allowed . . .from either of us.

Each contestant must respond to each of the other's points, conscientiously, and especially after carefully researching what is brought up that one is unfamiliar with.

Finally, sincerity. An open heart and mind, a willingness to change one's views at every single point along the way. A commitment to knowing the truth over and above what we personally suspect is true.

If you agree to that, then I say you cannot prove material processes are solely responsible for human consciousness. I also say you have been talking here as though it has been proven. I am ready to back that claim up with your quotes. That is the debate I am interested in. I do not want to debate whether or not something other that material processes are at work in consciousness, and I should not have to because I have not asserted that is true. My objection is purely to your absolute position of certainty, and pretending (I claim) you have more evidence than you do to prove material processes can account for consciousness.

If don't want to debate that, then let's skip it.

BiologyForums

Aug27-03, 10:59 PM

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I say you are a sophist who is unable to make your case without falling back on degrees, tests or status. If you are so smart, then why are you asking for credentials instead of showing us all your willingness to stand on your education, understanding and reasoning abilities as you explain yourself? I've always thought only slimeball cowards resort to authority status when the cards are down because they are afraid to stand up and expose themselves.

How about this: let's fight it out right here, in front of everyone.

I will suggest what I believe are fair rules. Disagree with the debate rules if you want, and if you are honest, I will adjust.

My suggestion for the rules are:

Proof is that which has been demonstrated to be true, not by inference, but by direct observation and by multiple researchers.

We make our case by evidence and logic . . . no "I am the expert and so my opinion must be accepted" bullsh*t allowed . . .from either of us.

Each contestant must respond to each of the other's points, conscientiously, and especially after carefully researching what is brought up that one is unfamiliar with.

Finally, sincerity. An open heart and mind, a willingness to change one's views at every single point along the way. A commitment to knowing the truth over and above what we personally suspect is true.

If you agree to that, then I say you cannot prove material processes are solely responsible for human consciousness. I also say you have been talking here as though it has been proven. I am ready to back that claim up with your quotes. That is the debate I am interested in. I do not want to debate whether or not something other that material processes are at work in consciousness, and I should not have to because I have not asserted that is true. My objection is purely to your absolute position of certainty, and pretending (I claim) you have more evidence than you do to prove material processes can account for consciousness.

If don't want to debate that, then let's skip it.

Wow, this is not a very mature way to go about things. Fighting it out? I am truly grateful you are not in the scientific community, if we used this method for supplying truths we'd be a disgrace!

Of course I want to "skip it". I'm not interested in hearing a debate from someone who is not knowledgable on the subject - why would I? What could you possible have to offer to a community skilled to the highest degree in such a specific field?

The others who have posted here have ask good questions are had minor debates that held there own. There is no debate available!

hypnagogue

Aug27-03, 11:11 PM

Originally posted by BiologyForums
Wow, this is not a very mature way to go about things. Fighting it out? I am truly grateful you are not in the scientific community, if we used this method for supplying truths we'd be a disgrace!

Of course I want to "skip it". I'm not interested in hearing a debate from someone who is not knowledgable on the subject - why would I? What could you possible have to offer to a community skilled to the highest degree in such a specific field?

The others who have posted here have ask good questions are had minor debates that held there own. There is no debate available!

Actually, Les doesn't require a degree in neurology to put forth the argument he is putting forth. I don't have to know the rest mass of an electron to question science's assumuptions about the nature of reality. Similarly, Les doesn't need to know the average length of an axon to call into question the ultimate relationship between brain and mind. This is a metaphysical question that has no bearing on the minutiae of brain processes.

BiologyForums

Aug27-03, 11:18 PM

Originally posted by hypnagogue
Actually, Les doesn't require a degree in neurology to put forth the argument he is putting forth. I don't have to know the rest mass of an electron to question science's assumuptions about the nature of reality. Similarly, Les doesn't need to know the average length of an axon to call into question the ultimate relationship between brain and mind. This is a metaphysical question that has no bearing on the minutiae of brain processes.

Regardless, I'm not going to take the time to "fight it out" with someone who is unfamiliar with even the most elementary aspects of the brain. If he wants to make a claim and/or ask a question fine but attempting some sort of shoutmatch isn't necessary - I have nothing to gain from it!

Les Sleeth

Aug27-03, 11:38 PM

Originally posted by BiologyForums
Wow, this is not a very mature way to go about things. Fighting it out? I am truly grateful you are not in the scientific community, if we used this method for supplying truths we'd be a disgrace!

Of course I want to "skip it". I'm not interested in hearing a debate from someone who is not knowledgable on the subject - why would I? What could you possible have to offer to a community skilled to the highest degree in such a specific field?

The others who have posted here have ask good questions are had minor debates that held there own. There is no debate available!

You know, I would be totally supportive of you if you hadn't behaved so unconcerned of other's views. So, I cannot apologize for your angst over me demanding you stand up and defend statements you claim are the truth.

Zantra

Aug27-03, 11:56 PM

Neurology has one of the longest medical training programs, if not the longest. It can vary from school to school but still it remains intense.

I'm not particularly familiar with an issue of being underpaid. Although of course there are issues with ALL medical positions being underpaid in comparison to fees met and to malpractice claims.

What are the stats you've gotten on entry level and ten year career incomes for a neurologist? It really is a function of area as well, as is with all medical positions.

Remember neurology focuses on MANY issues psychiatry does not. Psychiatry is just as psychology, a focus on the person and the personality.

Neurologists and psychiatrists are barely in competition if at all. Neurologists deal with so many diseases, malfunctions, and complications requiring surgery that (a) exist outside the brain and (b) do not affect the personality

They're two very different fields alltogether.

I have a love for the nervous system. I do not care for much else about the science of life - but the nervous system gets me.

If I was to choose to have the knowledge and degree to practice under any of these areas I would choose to be a neurologist - and specifically a neurosurgeon.

I do not, and probably will never, treat patients in my career. I pursue science through research for the sake of knowledge and do not "cure" humans.

But I would love to perform this most delicate, difficult, and challenging task of brain surgery and spine surgery! [/B]

One of the sources I've found is the student doctor network:
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/

As for the salaries, the following sites have been a good source:
http://www.allied-physicians.com/sa...an-salaries.htm

http://www.physicianssearch.com/physician/salary1.html

http://www.physicianssearch.com/physician/salary2.html

http://www.uoworks.com/pdfs/charts/salary2000.pdf

If I were in it for the money I'd be pursuing Anesthesiology or Radiology, but I'm not in it (solely) for the money. Neurology is middle of the road when compared to other specialization's salaries.
My reasons for choosing these fields are simple. There are still a lot of questions about the mind when contrasted with other areas of medicine, where everything is static, and once the formuala for treatment is mastered(no to minimalize that, because it's no small task) There's no room left for growth. Neurosciences are still growing and I like to be challenged.

Incidentally, I don't know if you've mentioned this elsewhere, but what area of research are you in? I'm assuming it's some field related to neuroscience, but I was just wondering.

hypnagogue

Aug28-03, 12:11 AM

Originally posted by BiologyForums
This is in no way my definition of intelligence. I do not have "my own" definition of intelligence. This is how science communicates, through accepted definitions, which usuall are different from the general publics because the general public has not a single clue what they are talking about or refering to.

I have more than a clue what I am talking about, and I disagree with your definition of intelligence (it is YOUR opinion of intelligence; regardless of whether you formulated it or not, you have chosen to accept it). Science is not the end-all of knowledge; it is a process of continual correction and revision. And thing we are discussing is not an objective fact; it's not like you can poke and prod your way through brain tissue and magically find intelligence. Intelligence is a subtle concept, and the way you have chosen to define it is not the final definitive word on the subject.

Speaking of types of intelligence is like speaking of types of evolution. It's not possible - Evolution does not have types. It does have evolutionary agents. And the equal, in the area of intelligence, can be considered - if you want - algorithms, solving methods.

But "types of intelligence" isn't a proper usage just like "types of evolution" isn't.

As I said before, the values which constitute a measure of intelligence are measured at any level - the level of a whole brain, the level of a brain focus, or of a sub-focus.

You have not given me sufficient reason to accept your stance that 'intelligence is like evolution,' an entity without types. Your reasoning seems to rest on your position that intelligence depends on speed and bandwidth, and that these qualities can be found throughout the brain. When I have proposed that intelligence is more than that (specifically, something which hinges on how information is processed), and thus can be expressed through specific and more or less independent applications, you have rebutted me by saying: no, by definition, intelligence is a global phenomenon of the brain. But this is the exact premise I have been trying to get you to logically support! So we have a circular argument here: you are assuming the very notion you are trying to prove. I do not accept your position that intelligence is without types, since I do not accept your position that intelligence is measured only (or even primarily) by speed and bandwidth.

Les Sleeth

Aug28-03, 07:44 PM

Originally posted by Zantra
OK hopefully you'll read this as it's now an old post. Basically everything is definable and measurable. If it warrants signficance, then science has found a way to define it. I believe that there are aspects of intelligence that are just now beginning to be better defined. Things like social intelligence are known, but have not yet been put up against a measurable standard. As I allude to a few posts down, I believe that some intelligences are a result of other larger intelligence factors. If someone is gifted in linguistics, and also in processing information, that may as a by-product, make them more socially adept. However social intelligence isn't defined because it's not it's own seperate category, but what could be looked at as a subcategory, or a by-producted of a combination of other measurable intelligences. Does this mean it can't be measured? No. Does this mean it's not worthy of measurement? No. I'm not an expert, but that's how it would seem to be, to me.

Ok, define consciousness. Measure love or appreciation or joy.

There are aspects of we humans which seem only truly known when they are directly experienced/felt; and other aspects, such as computing skills, which really do lend themselves to indirect knowledge processes such as measurement and definition.

What I object to is trying to imprison the human being in a single, all-defining box. That is exactly what the "measure-only" advocates are out to achieve. What is the problem with allowing that human may have both structural and indivisible (and therefore undefinable/unmeasurable) aspects?

I will give you my little theory of why some people want to create a box. It is because they are lacking in abilities with either the structural side or the feeling/sensitivity side of the human. So they come out with philosophies and models that allow them to be strong with what they can do. They do not realize they are projecting their own underdevelopment onto reality.

Zantra

Aug28-03, 09:38 PM

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Ok, define consciousness. Measure love or appreciation or joy.

There are aspects of we humans which seem only truly known when they are directly experienced/felt; and other aspects, such as computing skills, which really do lend themselves to indirect knowledge processes such as measurement and definition.

What I object to is trying to imprison the human being in a single, all-defining box. That is exactly what the "measure-only" advocates are out to achieve. What is the problem with allowing that human may have both structural and indivisible (and therefore undefinable/unmeasurable) aspects?

I find myself on the opposite side of the coin. Time to play devil's advocate, as I've always supported what you're saying about some things such as love being immeasurable. If we truly wished to define something we could using the scientific method. We would simply take a sampling of people in love, then establish a range of how much they were in love, then finally break it down into a scale based on the degrees of thier love. Would I ever wish to do that? No. I'm a firm believer in the undefined aspects of human nature, and that even though it COULD be defined, from a subjective, humanistic side, it shouldn't.

Again I'm not arguing the value of religion at all. It brings meaning to many people's lives, weather it's real or not. Some people define thier very existence based around religion. I don't disparage them for that. Religion has it's place in society. But we're not talking about the value that it adds, we're talking about it's definable reality. It's all subjective as the reality of it is in the eye of the believer. Belief in religion is what makes it real, scientific data aside. But as for me, I choose not to accept something based on something that can't be psysically defined or accounted for.

I will give you my little theory of why some people want to create a box. It is because they are lacking in abilities with either the structural side or the feeling/sensitivity side of the human. So they come out with philosophies and models that allow them to be strong with what they can do. They do not realize they are projecting their own underdevelopment onto reality.

Well that's an interesting assessment, and it may be true in some cases, but I can't say I believe it's true in my case. I do not accept religion at face value. However I am spiritual in other, more humanistic ways. I believe in, and uphold the beliefs that religion preaches. I enjoy humanistic experieces as much as the next guy, and interaction with people close to me, as many others do. I many ways I'm no different than a christian, islam, or buddhist follower. It's just that my believes that I uphold come more from a human perspective and value of how I treat and interact with others.

If the message is the same, than the messanger becomes unimportant.

Les Sleeth

Aug28-03, 10:46 PM

Originally posted by Zantra
I find myself on the opposite side of the coin. Time to play devil's advocate, as I've always supported what you're saying about some things such as love being immeasurable. If we truly wished to define something we could using the scientific method. We would simply take a sampling of people in love, then establish a range of how much they were in love, then finally break it down into a scale based on the degrees of thier love.

You are, of course, correct to say that one could devise a way to measure love, or at least some aspects of it such, for instance, physiological reactions to it. I should have expressed myself more accurately.

There are things which by measuring them, one gains valuable insights into their nature and also how to untilize them. Love is not one of those things. Whatever measurement you might come up with, it is not going to tell you much about the experience of love. In that case, the direct experience is really the only way to make it valuable, and only to oneself.

On the other hand, you could measure the ideal hormonal balance in humans that leads to mating. If an Eskimo tribe in some remote area of the North Pole were having trouble mating because the ozone layer was upsetting their hormonal balance, you could use that information to get them going.

So what I meant was, there are things which give us practical benefits to measure, and there are things which only give us benefit when we directly experience them.

Originally posted by Zantra
Would I ever wish to do that? No. I'm a firm believer in the undefined aspects of human nature, and that even though it COULD be defined, from a subjective, humanistic side, it shouldn't.

And see. . . you agree!

Originally posted by Zantra
Again I'm not arguing the value of religion at all. It brings meaning to many people's lives, weather it's real or not. Some people define thier very existence based around religion. I don't disparage them for that. Religion has it's place in society. But we're not talking about the value that it adds, we're talking about it's definable reality. It's all subjective as the reality of it is in the eye of the believer. Belief in religion is what makes it real, scientific data aside. But as for me, I choose not to accept something based on something that can't be psysically defined or accounted for.

I don't understand why you are talking about religion in response to anything I said.

Originally posted by Zantra Well that's an interesting assessment, and it may be true in some cases, but I can't say I believe it's true in my case.

Right . . . but if what I say is correct, such individuals wouldn't be able assess their own underdevelopment because they would be lacking the precise skills they need to recognize that.

Originally posted by Zantra I do not accept religion at face value. However I am spiritual in other, more humanistic ways. I believe in, and uphold the beliefs that religion preaches. I enjoy humanistic experieces as much as the next guy, and interaction with people close to me, as many others do

Just so you know, I am not religious. I also do not think the idea that some sort of consciousness is at work behind creation is best represented by religion. If you could trash everyone else's concepts about God, and just contemplate totally neutrally about "something" going on besides mechanics and complexity, then is there anything reasonably possible in that regard?

Just being logical . . . It is obvious that consciousness exists, so there is no question that the potential for consciousness exists. Which is first, the potential for consciousness or consciousness? It has to be that the potential for a development precedes the actual development. So the question isn’t whether consciousness exists but rather: does the development of consciousness require the central nervous system of biology?

Most people acknowledge they have only experienced or observed consciousness which is alive in biology; this is the exact reason why materialists propose it is biology’s specialized assembly of physics and chemistry, along with its neuronal complexity, that causes consciousness to emerge from matter. Yet might not those biological beings who insist (the only beings known who can insist) on a biological cause for consciousness be viewing things anthropomorphically? In fact, isn’t it natural that the biological system would prioritize, orient perception toward, and even limit perception to, experiences of the physical environment in which biology evolved and within which biological beings now attempt to survive?

If an entire universe can seemingly emerge from out of nowhere why couldn't consciousness also spontaneously arise from some light-energy-oscillatory dynamic? I am not saying that happened, but because the potential for consciousness existed before its manifestation anywhere, what I don't see is the materialist's automatic assumptions.

If we know the potential for consciousness exists prior to biology, and that our own perception is likely colored by its biological and physical environment, how confidently can one assume that consciousness is created by biology alone?

Royce

Aug29-03, 09:42 AM

The scientific method is limited and flawed in that it can only study that which it can measure. It is a falicy to think that everything can be measured and thus science can study everything.
To attempt to measure love, beauty, life, consciousness or even intelligence, all things that are known to exist and have characteristic qualities and quantities, is to put arttificial limits, steps or definitions on something that is a continuum without steps or limits and thus is inherently indefinable.

We can say that something is more or less beautiful in our opinion but there is no way that we can measure the quality or quality of beauty that an object or person may have or contain. We can say that we love ice cream - we love chocolate more that vanilla ice cream - but not more than we love our children - but we love Jack more or less than we love Jill. Love cannot be measured limited or catagorized with any real meaningful sucess.

Science therefore cannot realistically study such qualities as beauty love or intelligence because it cannot be isolated limited and measured without destroying the very thing that gives it value, worth and reality. Yet, just as Biology does, when they do attempt to study such qualities they ,out of necessity, limit it and define to one measureable aspect whether real or not and say that they are measuring and studying for instance all intelligence and nothing that can be concidered intelligence is outside of those limits and definitions and get indignant when we tell them that they aren't and only fooling themselves if they really think that they are.

Zandra, you say that you cannot accept the existence of God because he cannot be proven, measured or studied objectively yet you know and value beauty, love and intelligence. Is this not inconsistant. Are you not putting an unrealistic condition on one nonmaterial subject while living in harmony and appreciation with a number of others that are equally immaterial and unmeasureable and indefinable. Yet you admit that you are spiritual. Would it be better to say that you have yet to experience God on a personal basis.

You are not the only one who believes or at least says that they believe as you do. We refuse to accept God because God is not necessary, not material, not measureable and has no universal definition yet we believe in life, consciousness, beauty and intelligence. Is this consistant, logical and reasonable?