Multiple Intelligences: Howard Gardner's Theory

[BiologyForums]

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 knowledgeable 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]

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 knowledgeable 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]

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]

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 knowledgeable 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]

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]

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 referring 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]

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 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.

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]

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 their 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 their 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]

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 their 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 their 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]

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?