Multiple Intelligences: Howard Gardner's Theory

[Les Sleeth]

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]

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 separate 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]

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]

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 separate 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]

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]

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]

Intelligence not tested

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]

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]

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 separate 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 similar - 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]

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]

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!

 

[hypnagogue]

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]

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 similar - 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]

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.

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 separates 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.

 

[Zantra]

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 ratherboring answer.



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!

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 separate measure.

 

[Les Sleeth]

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]

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 a lot 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 knowledge 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]

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 separates 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 receive 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 occurring 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]

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 separate 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]

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]

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 a lot 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 knowledge 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 referring 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]

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 each other, 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 each other. 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]

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 each other, 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 each other. 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]

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]

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 referring 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]

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]

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 receive 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 occurring 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]

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]

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]

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.