Scuro we all crunch stuff together in our heads and get confused. Heck I do it all the time. My memory is just especially good for my favorite stuff (IE the stuff that doesn't hurt to study. :-) ) Even on this stuff I get confused. Probably an ADD thing.

I just thought you were taking a more general view and had missed my distinction between hunter gatherers and agrarians. I get misunderstood a lot because I don't always communicate effectively. So I tend to assume I screwed up making my point a lot these days. Because it's true entirely too often. :-)

My point of view about ADD in a nutshell is that Health care professionals place it entirely in a modern context. I mean why wouldn't they? The only problem with this is that a restricted point of view restricts information you have access too. ADD sucks to have. I know this all too well. It feels like very much like a disorder to me. I just think that's more the result of all the abuse I recieved because of it and society's lack of tolerance for the misfits in general. Society doesn't have to dumb down for us to succeed. Only be more flexible, less linear, and a lot less assembly lineesque in the way it works. Frankly, I think the way they run things now is a terrible waste of potential contributions from folks like us.

There are probably 10 distinct conversations/debates going on here. Switching back and forth, while reading the posts sequentially is an awesome excersize! Pity the fool that has 'last-word-itis'...

I can't site references, but just recently it was found that the geneology of modern man as we knew it, has to be reformulated.
NEW evidence (remains?- DNA for sure?) of modern man was found which is much older, by thousands of years, than we had previously found. Indicating that modern man is way older than the simian (sp? - who cares, right?) Origin of the Species theory.
OMG- the world IS round.
Quantum physics - look at the changes, re-evaluations and corrections that are happening every day. (nothing smaller than an electron, etc.)
Mathematics - what a tool for predictability! It allows us to share a communal, definable reality.
We know so very little.
Now, let's say we finally are able to define the mechanics/physiology - the neuroscience of what? Thought? Executive function? The neural network.
Let's simulate it and provide stimulus - a black box - input and output. This is all with the presumption that all analog function can ultimately be expressed digitally.
We still couldn't predict outcome because of all the random functioning that may be occurring.
That random functioning would cause asynchronous response. This is also with the presumption that random function is like infinity. ( adding 1 to infinity redefines infinity - I'm at a loss for the term..kripes)
At any rate, we would eventually identify a range of response that is repeatable given a range of stimulii.
The out-liers become interesting - why are they outside this range? What makes them unique?
Running out of stores of natural resources, damage to network, stored experiences, recall of those experiences, processing errors, mutations - gobs and gobs of reasons.
Society judges and dictates the acceptable range of response. Society being the general concensus of the group. Different groups, different societies, different needs. This is good, this is aberrant.
A random sampling of organisms is watching you barf after eating those berries. Your partner learned from you, the dog will follow your cue, the cat is merely curious about all the fuss, and me?
I'll see that you are an inferior specimen that can't handle those berries, but aside from all that - a tasty morsel! Hot Pot, anyone?

Behavioral therapy: change of topic
If crawling around on the floor is helping someone feel better - great. But why start at crawling, just get right into Gestalt, do the primal scream then work your way out. My poor parents, they didn't know what hit 'em back then in the early 1970's...

semper fi, I'm married to a former jarhead searching for nirvana...

KVRRD, you may be referring to the recent discovery that the "Species split" between ourselves and our common ancestor with Chimps occured both earlier and much more messily than previously thought. It now appears we were briefly part of what is known as a ring species. A ring species is a group of partially reproductively isolated populations that are often quite different over their ranges physically but notheless maintain steady gene flow through the groups at the fringes who are compatible enough to interbreed. The English ring necked gull is an example. The over all range of this particular ring species is global, but the american "version" looks nothing like the english version and can't reproduce with it in spite of a healthy amount of gene flow between the two groups through intermediaries. Basically the groups whose ranges overlap can reproduce with each other but not with the next range over, so the genes flow but individual group differences in range behavior and morphology persist. It's pretty weird, but way cool. The highschool textbook definition of species is simplified for teachability. Defining species gets weirder looking at bacteria that can exchange genetic material with all sorts of unrelated bacteria.

I also agree with Kvrrd about alternative treatments. While I think empirical testing is important, I also think that if you find something that works for you go for it.

Yes, way earlier. Maybe some guys even degenerated, (de-evolved?) and re-evolved as simians. And good point about gene flow and inbreeding!
Gotta go google ring species...

Evolution isn't progressive Kvrrd. it's merely change appropriate to the environment. Animals can get more or less complex and it's still evolution.

It wouldn't be surprising if there was lots of speciation if some groups jumped back and forth a bit (although "jump" implies a far more rapid change than it would have been)

Darwin didn't even like the word "Evolution" because it implied a predetermined direction and end result (the greek root means to unroll a carpet... Thus revealing the pattern). Darwin preferred "Descent with modification". Huxley popularized "Evolution" because he disagreed with darwin about evolution not being "progressive". Huxley refused to believe that humans weren't somehow a pre-ordained "end result". Once Huxley who was much better at popularizing Darwin's ideas than Darwin was had established "Evolution" firmly in connection with Darwin's work Darwin grudgingly accepted the term, he just didn't allow it to change the definition of his theory.

That is why people like to use words like De-evolve and also why they like to think of evolution as progressive. Because the roots of the word lend themselves to that very interpretation.

Ah. ok. Semantics - gets me every time. I was trying to make a point that there are too many variables and we are not equiped yet to reliably predict outcome. Yes, survival of the fittest, adaptation, all of that.
Yes, if we group ourselves with all organisms, I agree with you.
For myself, I'd like to think that we are advancing, improving, adapting - we are creating our civilization.
Curiosity, 'Man's search for Meaning', why am I here...oy.
Wow - what a giant BS session...lol

I glaze over history and specific details, who said what, terminology. I could never remember details like the ones you cited, e-boy. The gist and implications of statements, concepts, ideas, no problem. Keeping straight who said what and when and why...I fail miserably. Makes it tough to hang in there with credibility.

my response was to e-boy, btw. (just in case)

I glaze over history and specific details, who said what, terminology. I could never remember details like the ones you cited, e-boy. The gist and implications of statements, concepts, ideas, no problem. Keeping straight who said what and when and why...I fail miserably. Makes it tough to hang in there with credibility.Ah, just say "it's chaotic" and that'll pretty much cover it! :D

I liked your examples, btw, of what the complexity and variation does to predictions.

I'm getting too many warm and fuzzies here today...thanks, Barb. a lot.

to have a carue is more to do with fiting in than some the porblems add adhd couse to us to be happy as we are as is the main thing dorm

My point of view about ADD in a nutshell is that Health care professionals place it entirely in a modern context. I mean why wouldn't they? The only problem with this is that a restricted point of view restricts information you have access too. ADD sucks to have. I know this all too well. It feels like very much like a disorder to me. I just think that's more the result of all the abuse I recieved because of it and society's lack of tolerance for the misfits in general. Society doesn't have to dumb down for us to succeed. Only be more flexible, less linear, and a lot less assembly lineesque in the way it works. Frankly, I think the way they run things now is a terrible waste of potential contributions from folks like us.

Those points you made did get me thinking. Did you have answers to any of the questions? I am skeptical of such a line of thinking. It offers bold answers that can't be checked empirically.

I do agree with you, there is a lot of wasted potential out there. We do have have a documented developmental lag, and if you give many of us the same mental task a few years later, we can do it. Being ADHDers, and given a roadblock, I see far too many kids throwing in the towel to live in the moment of drugs and partying. That dropout rate is far too high.

…Mathematics - what a tool for predictability! It allows us to share a communal, definable reality…
Actually, it’s modern abstract language that allows that trick – it has nothing to do with mathematics. The shared internal common model of reality in which we all experience being was devised specifically so we could communicate with words in the way we all take for granted.

And truth be told, math is generally pretty miserable at this. Most of the real, dynamic Universe is beyond adequate mathematical description, even adequate approximation.

What valid math there is describes a huge universe; it can be easy to get lost in it and mistake that for the Universe. It seems like a good descriptor because it applies so precisely to such a small chunk of reality.

There are hints of math everywhere – some aspects of visual processing are well described by certain transforms, and there are mathematical approaches to the analysis of grammar, to name just two related directly to the operation of the brain.

But it’s a mistake to assume the underlying processes are actually mathematical. They came first and math followed, a distant shuffling imitation of the processes nature has given us.


…This is all with the presumption that all analog function can ultimately be expressed digitally…
Why presume that? Why bother to apply a transform to the function of neural structures at all? They’re adequately defined, and have been for years.


…We still couldn't predict outcome because of all the random functioning that may be occurring.
Not so, and I’m not sure why you’re stating this.

Here’s a way to view this: if the outcome of neural function wasn’t predictable, you wouldn’t be able to define ‘predictable’.

Neural function is by definition logical, and the outcome of logical operations must be sensible, also by definition. (Truth is, that’s a not-so-subtly circular argument, which is easily exited by noting that logic is a fundamental property of Nature.)

‘Sensible’ in the context of understanding neural function is the same as predictable. The idea that random ?anything? prevents us from arriving at a predictable outcome of any neural operation(s) is completely unsupported.


(out of sequence) …Society judges and dictates the acceptable range of response. Society being the general concensus of the group. Different groups, different societies, different needs. This is good, this is aberrant…
OK, you’re describing the Social Impulse, the collection of instinctive behaviors, impulses, and drives that keeps our common models of reality synchronized.


(again, out of sequence)…The out-liers become interesting - why are they outside this range? What makes them unique?
Running out of stores of natural resources, damage to network, stored experiences, recall of those experiences, processing errors, mutations - gobs and gobs of reasons…
These ideas are related to your idea that randomness plays a role. Neural function is extremely resilient; in almost any case other than severe injury or something like mental retardation, your best bet is to assume what’s under the hood is working exactly as it should, doing something supremely logical and sensible, regardless of how difficult it is for you to understand it.

There is no point in assuming neural function is impaired or unpredictable when you set out to understand the brain and mind. (grins…)


you may be referring to the recent discovery that the "Species split" between ourselves and our common ancestor with Chimps occurred both earlier and much more messily than previously thought…
Note, too, that this refers only to genetic markers. The roots of the speciation event leading to modern humans are at best only indirectly apparent in the genetic record.

That implies DNA isn’t such an interesting component of the emergence of H. sapiens. In general, the original event is thought to be tied strongly to the development of our ability to communicate using complex abstract symbols.

While that derives from traits that certainly selected, the reflection of that process in DNA isn’t necessarily obvious. There’s good reason to suspect much of what defines us isn’t traceable through reverse engineering, i.e., starting with DNA.

Our results are in good agreement with the consensus; the actual emergence apparently occurred when our earliest ancestors made an en masse descent into an internal reality, which (among other advantages) enabled the bandwidth limitations of the oral – aural channel to be circumvented.

We all still occupy a distant cousin of that original model of reality. There’s certainly no obvious genetic connection for such an abstract ability.

My point of view about ADD in a nutshell is that Health care professionals place it entirely in a modern context. I mean why wouldn't they? The only problem with this is that a restricted point of view restricts information you have access too. ADD sucks to have. I know this all too well. It feels like very much like a disorder to me. I just think that's more the result of all the abuse I recieved because of it and society's lack of tolerance for the misfits in general. Society doesn't have to dumb down for us to succeed. Only be more flexible, less linear, and a lot less assembly lineesque in the way it works. Frankly, I think the way they run things now is a terrible waste of potential contributions from folks like us.

Those points you made did get me thinking. Did you have answers to any of the questions? I am skeptical of such a line of thinking. It offers bold answers that can't be checked empirically…
Why do you say that E-boy’s ideas can’t be studied with empirical methods? It seems obvious that any example could be subjected to structured scrutiny in the standard way.

Good real-world examples are alternative educational settings and the reorganization of assembly lines into work-group cells. Both of these have been the subject of empirical studies.

Whether SB_UK or Barb would like any particular study is a whole other question. In both cases there are independent goals (like meeting production quotas or testing schedules) that make it difficult to control the variables, or even put together a proper group of test subjects.

But a lot of real world problems are like that, and there are standard ways to compensate. Regardless, the methods are still empirical…

Why do you say that E-boy’s ideas can’t be studied with empirical methods? It seems obvious that any example could be subjected to structured scrutiny in the standard way.

I made that statement about a previous post.

http://www.addforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=296749&postcount=112

Here are the questions again.


I would like to understand this better. So, the specific genes of ADHD are dated back to the start of modern man. I am assuming the whole gene. I'm not a geneticist, so excuse me if I use the wrong term or misunderstand basic principles. As I understand it, "changes/mutations occur on parts of specific genes, how can one determine that the ADHD changes occurred 40,000 years ago and not later or possibly even earlier? Finally, how can you determine that the changes are related to the environment? Can you not have a change that causes no life threatening outcome, that is passed on through the generations?...say like detached earlobs?...and is not influenced by the enviroment?

Science ain't about belief, though. That's the whole point of scientific investigation, it precludes belief or faith or feelings. It excludes everything but that which can be shown objectively through empirical observation

That was not my point. You believe in using science your way. I will use science my way…
No you won’t; not because we say so, but because you literally can’t, by definition.

Let’s clear up a critical misunderstanding here, once and for all, before it blows up again for the umpteenth time.

Barb is correct in her assertions about science, but she’s leaving out a part of the bigger picture. That’s not an error on her part.

Science is all about knowledge. Belief and faith are concepts that are logically complimentary to knowledge. (Faith is simply the standard tool for applying belief, similar in a sense to the way you might apply knowledge through explanation. We’ll leave it out of the rest of the discussion.)

Belief and knowledge occupy a continuum; every time you discover or uncover or do anything to gain new knowledge, the territory in which belief holds shrinks a little.

OK so far? Knowledge and belief are mutually exclusive; once you discover the truth about something, you no longer believe it, no matter how much you might want to continue to think that you do.

It gets better: there are two distinct types of belief. Some part of the territory split between knowledge and belief is intrinsically unknowable, and the rest is (theoretically) knowable. The part we can’t know by definition is the exclusive province of faith, and it will forever be so. (Dang! It slipped back in, didn’t it?)

But for the rest, the part we can (but don’t yet) know, belief is only a kind of logical place-holder, a way of dealing with what’s over the horizon before we actually get there and convert the belief to knowledge.

So: when Barb says that science doesn’t have anything to do with belief or faith, she’s not exactly telling the whole story. Belief is what science converts to knowledge, what it operates on while we try to figure out what we’re looking at, and how to do it.

If we’re successful, we convert that belief to knowledge, or more accurately, we replace the admittedly flawed place-holder with the real deal. The fact that someone else doesn’t yet know we did that is of no consequence; once the belief is replaced, it’s gone, even for those who haven’t heard the news.

And it’s not necessary for you to believe that Barb (or whomever) in fact has pushed back the line defining what we know. Your acceptance of that fact is also of no consequence, for the same reasons: we rely entirely on our ability to present the knowledge in a convincing way.

It doesn’t matter whether we present it to any particular person, only that we can, and that we know it will be convincing. The proper application of the scientific method is what allows us to be certain that the logic of the potential presentation will stand up to scrutiny.

Note that because the certainty of the knowledge relies on the presentation, we can discover new knowledge that seems to modify or even invalidate what we knew previously with no adverse effect on what we actually know.

All that happens is the line between knowledge and belief gets pushed out a bit further into the territory which is possible to know. At that moment the presentation necessarily changes (if we want it to remain convincing, as it must) to reflect the truth of the entire body of all that we know.

Nothing in this process could possibly be misconstrued as casting doubt on the result of scientific investigation. Quite the contrary; taken as a whole, the picture should inspire complete confidence in the method.

We know of no case in which new knowledge has actually invalidated previous knowledge. All that changes are the facts that we consider convincing, as we push that line further out. It’s our view of the territory that changes; what we knew previously applied to a view of a different, smaller territory, and might be expected to differ in turn.

The truth about many of the methods and therapies mentioned in this thread is that they don’t have a convincing presentation. That is, they conflict directly with the ‘map’ of what we know, what can be known, and what is possible to conceive but impossible to know by definition.

Anybody that chooses to do so may freely deny the existence of the lines on that map, or imagine they must be incorrectly drawn. But absent a convincing presentation to support that opinion, the map remains in its current state.

In the end, holding such opinions can’t really be called wrong, but it certainly separates those holding them from the rest of us convinced souls.

What is wrong, though, is trying to claim that the territory occupied by knowledge hasn’t been taken properly. By definition the only way to play the game is by making a properly convincing argument, in the same way the territory was claimed.

Simply saying that the existing arguments are incorrect is not convincing, not even an argument of the required form. Such statements are primarily emotional, and do nothing to move those lines on the map. Going on as if they did is exactly what hobbles these discussions from time to time.

The ‘map’ delineating the territory subject to belief and that addressed by knowledge isn’t subject to debate; in effect, it’s defined by the same precepts that define valid debate. There’s nothing to gain by trying to ignore that view. And taken in the context of that map, some of the arguments that have caught us up in the past seem just plain silly.

In effect, all Barb is saying is that the concept of homeopathy lies in an area that we know, no longer subject to belief. The knowledge defined in that area undeniably contradicts the ideas at the heart of homeopathy.

The line lies there, and this is what we know, and it isn’t homeopathy.

Does this mean that what we know will never change? No, but if it does, we’ll be convinced of the reasons that it did, and nothing of that territory will be lost. Homeopathy will still fail to match what we know; if something reminiscent of homeopathy is ever discovered, we will understand it in the same way, and the reasons it seems similar as well.

Does this mean homeopathy is bad, or people practicing it wrong? Certainly not; that is a completely different set of issues, and we believe nobody here would criticize a person for such a personal choice. Barb is not criticizing the choice of homeopathy, or any of the other methods mentioned here and elsewhere.

She’s rightfully criticizing statements that claim that map is incorrect. What we know doesn’t have to impact your personal choices, and you don’t even have to accept that map as a valid description of your universe.

But once a person makes that choice, the map’s validity is no longer an issue. In denying its context, the context of any possible argument is also denied.

That might seem a bit deep logically, but in the end it’s all too bloomin’ simple: what the heck is there to argue about, anyway?

Nothin’, that’s what. Barb’s right, we know what we know, and homeopathy (or whatever) isn’t it. And orthomolecular is entirely correct in considering it a personally valid choice.

Nothing about that makes it valid at all in the larger context; the map holds regardless of whether any particular person knows how some detail looks. But then, y’all knew that, didn’t ya’…


--Tom and Kay

I made that statement about a previous post…
Ahh, I see. I was confused by your juxtaposition with a different E-boy quote that cited several examples addressable with empirical methods. (grins…)

I have only one objection to your post (I know, a first)...that original quote was mine, not barb's.

Everything else is largely correct, though.

The other thing to add is that scientific knowledge is not only useful because it is correct, backed by evidence, and objectively observable, it is also useful because it points us towards more answers: the photoelectric effect points to quantum theories, general relativity points towards black holes, Hubble's observations point towards a big bang.

And disproving ideas that are wrong is important because it points us towards the correct answer: Michelson-Morley disproved the aether and paved the way for relativity, Pasteur's disproving of spontaneous generation led to our understanding of microbial pathology and saved millions of lives, Copernicus, Bruno, and Gallileo's observations disproving the geocentric universe and showing that the earth and all planets orbit the sun allowed Newton to formulate his theory of Gravity (which would later be modified by Einstein, but only slightly). Actually, speaking of gravity, observations of Mercury which showed slight discrepancies with Newtonian Gravitation were one hint that led to General Relativity, by suggesting that our understanding of Gravity needed an update.

In the future, if there is flaming in progress, please utilize the "bad post" triangle located in the upper right hand corner of the screen.

Please do not engage in the flaming, or encourage those who are doing so, in posts which are off topic of the thread's main point.

Thank you.

>> My responses in red like this
Quote:
Originally Posted by kvrrd
…Mathematics - what a tool for predictability! It allows us to share a communal, definable reality…

Actually, it’s modern abstract language that allows that trick – it has nothing to do with mathematics. >> like what? Esperanto? ;) The shared internal common model of reality in which we all experience being was devised specifically so we could communicate with words in the way we all take for granted. >> Definable reality. 1+1=2 for me? for you? We agree, we share a basis of knowledge. This is knowledge because we agree on the proofs.

And truth be told, math is generally pretty miserable at this. Most of the real, dynamic Universe is beyond adequate mathematical description, even adequate approximation. >> and so it is just conjecture and with anecdotal proof it becomes a belief.

What valid math there is describes a huge universe; it can be easy to get lost in it and mistake that for the Universe. >> and what's up with these multiple universes? that's linguistics. It seems like a good descriptor because it applies so precisely to such a small chunk of reality. >> exactly. It's limited - but knowledge.
There are hints of math everywhere – some aspects of visual processing are well described by certain transforms, and there are mathematical approaches to the analysis of grammar, to name just two related directly to the operation of the brain. >> ahhh, a liberal arts kinda entity, are ya? You've gotten LaPlace all rowdied up in his grave...

But it’s a mistake to assume the underlying processes are actually mathematical. >> of course it is!!! Merely a means of definition... a definition we agree upon. They came first and math followed, a distant shuffling imitation of the processes nature has given us. >> yes - that's was my original point. Originally Posted by kvrrd
…Mathematics - what a tool for predictability! It allows us to share a communal, definable reality…



Quote:
…This is all with the presumption that all analog function can ultimately be expressed digitally…
Why presume that? Why bother to apply a transform to the function of neural structures at all? They’re adequately defined, and have been for years. >> and that's why we can model this...



Quote:
…We still couldn't predict outcome because of all the random functioning that may be occurring.
Not so, and I’m not sure why you’re stating this. Here’s a way to view this: if the outcome of neural function wasn’t predictable, you wouldn’t be able to define ‘predictable’. >> a 2 bit random number yields 00, 01, 10, 11 Logic 101. 4 bits, 8 bits, a dollar. sorry. This has something to do with stepping through neural functions. Given the same set of structures, and the same stimulii, the result should be predictable if all the structures behave as expected. As you said. If one of the structures is impaired, the outcome will be different. If we know which one is impaired and how, then the outcome is one out of a finite set. We can use a 1 bit random number simulate that impairment. This works because our model is discrete. Stay with me here - I'm losing patience as well. As the system gets more complicated, more permutations are tracked and it is still predictable. It's synchronous. A million structures(=events) would require a million bits to describe the set at any given time.
We store those states=memories. Is everything saved? What gets discarded? Redundant stuff, etc. But why? With mutations and aging and growth, the set of structures changes. Events may take different routes through the structures to get to thier destinations, because one path may be busy or no longer there. Our we pull out partial memories to get us there.
The decision making process is learned, voluntarily or not.

Neural function is by definition logical, and the outcome of logical operations must be sensible, also by definition. (Truth is, that’s a not-so-subtly circular argument, which is easily exited by noting that logic is a fundamental property of Nature.) >> T and F type of logic?

‘Sensible’ in the context of understanding neural function is the same as predictable. The idea that random ?anything? prevents us from arriving at a predictable outcome of any neural operation(s) is completely unsupported. >> meaning this is your impression.


Quote:
(out of sequence) …Society judges and dictates the acceptable range of response. Society being the general concensus of the group. Different groups, different societies, different needs. This is good, this is aberrant…
OK, you’re describing the Social Impulse, the collection of instinctive behaviors, impulses, and drives that keeps our common models of reality synchronized.



Quote:
(again, out of sequence)…The out-liers become interesting - why are they outside this range? What makes them unique?
Running out of stores of natural resources, damage to network, stored experiences, recall of those experiences, processing errors, mutations - gobs and gobs of reasons…
These ideas are related to your idea that randomness plays a role. Neural function is extremely resilient; in almost any case other than severe injury or something like mental retardation, your best bet is to assume what’s under the hood is working exactly as it should, doing something supremely logical and sensible, regardless of how difficult it is for you to understand it. >> hopefully the 'you' in the last fragment is a generalized 'you' and not targeted at me?

There is no point in assuming neural function is impaired or unpredictable when you set out to understand the brain and mind. (grins…) >> Huh? Hmmmm, I may have learned a valuable lesson here.

Scuro one thing me and science have in common is we both ask more questions than we can answer. :-)

Seriously though, sometimes asking the right questions is more important than finding a given answer. One can't be afraid to ask questions if they are difficult to answer. Restricting ourselves to the 'Easy stuff' is niether very fun, nor a particularly fast track to understanding. There are lots of questions posited and answered empirically today that had been deemed impossible to handle that way only decades ago. Why? Because once you've asked a big important question and you realize getting the whole answer or even understanding the whole answer might be beyond your capabilities THAT'S WHEN you start breaking it down into bite size hunks. Now you have big picture to guide you and lots of little questions in the right direction to ask and answer as you can. What's even better is that you end up generating even more questions you might never even have realized needed to be asked until then. You also may make progress in what you thought were unrelated areas and shed light on someone else's questions. Maybe even some of their big ones. TADAH!

So yes I like questions. I like to hypothesize about things. I don't totally pull things out of my butt though. I find clues all over the place in a host of disciplines. I get a feel for things and I hash out ideas I think might explain how things are. Then, being a non-scientist myself, I wait impatiently to see what the working scientists types learn and adjust my ideas according to the new evidence. Think of it as back seat sciencing. :-)

Science isn't about all dispassionate objectivity and cold sterile data you know. If it weren't for creativity solid science like plate techtonics wouldn't even be dreamed yet. Creativity is the crossroads where art and science meet.

I have only one objection to your post (I know, a first)...that original quote was mine, not barb's.
Oops! My bad; try to keep it pared down, and a misquote creeps in from time to time. Apologies to both of ya’…


…disproving ideas that are wrong is important because it points us towards the correct answer…
Right, and look at how it plays out in the context of that map: Michaelson and Morley didn’t just show no aether existed, but rather clarified our picture of the territory in which belief was being replaced by knowledge.

Knowing what isn’t there is obviously as important as knowing what is; it focuses the debate, narrows the possible range of valid speculation.

Every important aspect of scientific endeavor, formal and otherwise, can be viewed as an exercise in extending the territory occupied by knowledge, pushing back the line between knowledge and belief.


…observations of Mercury which showed slight discrepancies with Newtonian Gravitation were one hint that led to General Relativity, by suggesting that our understanding of Gravity needed an update…
Good example, especially in how it demonstrates that territory isn’t lost when some problem like this crops up. It isn’t even necessarily rearranged. In a sense, we were speculating that the topography way over there, near the edge, would be similar to what it’s like here.

Newtonian mechanics still delivers valid approximations everywhere it was originally tested and found to hold, and it’s used routinely every day. Einstein’s work didn’t really invalidate Newton; instead, it shows us why Newton’s empirically derived mathematical models must take that particular form.

Incidentally, Einstein’s direct impulse for the development of the special theory (which subsequently led to the expanded general theory) was “the conviction that the electromotive force acting on a body in motion in a magnetic field was nothing else but an electric field.” (Einstein, in a 1952 letter to the Michaelson Commemorative Meeting of the Cleveland Physics Society.)

The problems with the transit of Mercury weren’t what he was after at all; the fact that a theory developed to explain a particular feature of the new territory serendipitously happens to describe completely different features accurately is always a good sign of robustness.

Gee what was the topic any way????? :confused:

Sounds like a bunch of ADDers in a conversation does it not?.... :p

ADD treatment alternatives or is there a cure for ADD.......math no but must have some thing to do with math...probably stats....every ones favorite.

Okay dropped by to agree with ms_sunshine.......because I am a moderator too well yes and the fact that she is right would also be among my reasons...no one likes to be flamed, it is hard to resist (I know from experience) but I have faith that this group can be civil, you guys will have to be the evidence :D

Do these discussions take place in those forums where they discuss drugs? I don't see it. So, why do you think they go on here then?

These discussions go on every where every section, even in real life.…..where there is more than one point of view, just about any where there is “discussion” period. :eek:

However the same guidelines apply to all discussions on ADDF.

One does not have to be disagreeable to disagree. It can be hard for passionate people to grasp this concept at first, but persons with opposing perspectives can be civil to each other. I think that is one of the most valuable lessons I have learned here as a member.

There is no point in assuming neural function is impaired or unpredictable when you set out to understand the brain and mind.

There’s a point to that which seems to have been missed. (grins…)

When we speak of understanding, we’re assuming that predictable patterns exist to be observed, discovered, and subsequently explained with the metapatterns of a theory.

We apply the very instrument and mechanisms we hope to understand to this task; if they don’t operate predictably, no patterns will be discovered by definition.

It doesn’t matter which failure you speculate might occur, i.e., no patterns exist or the unpredictable mechanism fails to identify any. They’re one and the same, and the fact we can be having this little conversation demonstrates there is no such problem. Predictability is the norm.


Definable reality. 1+1=2 for me? for you? We agree, we share a basis of knowledge. This is knowledge because we agree on the proofs…
That’s fine, as long as you severely limit the context of your claim of proof. Unfortunately, when we talk about reality such limits can’t be supported.

Your basic problem lies in proving that we agree. Every attempt to construct a valid logical proof that either of us exists will ultimately fail. At the heart of the failure is the fact that every individual’s perception of reality is entirely self-referent.

This problem is reflected in any study of the mind. It can be addressed more or less successfully, but failing to address it has unexpected consequences.

The blind assumption of the existence of an actual external physical reality when studying the apparatus that perceives that reality causes important elements of our experience of being to be misplaced.

A good example is mistaking meaning as intrinsic to the external Universe, rather than the internal universe we each individually occupy. Paul Erdös used to say of a particularly elegant mathematical proof “that’s one for the big book,” meaning it directly expressed math that he believed was intrinsic to that external physical reality.

Such intrinsic patterns do not exist. Logical patterns derive entirely from our process of perception; all meaning is an artifact of our experience of being, and that is entirely internal, a process that exists in the neural structures of our brains.


>> T and F type of logic?
Well, sort of. More like the logic of formal logic, but beyond that, too. Ask yourself where logic comes from, and you’ll be on the right track.

The logic we refer to when we speak of logic as intrinsic to the nature of Nature itself is clearly demonstrated in that clarification, and this description as well. At the root, it’s directly related to the fact that anything can ‘make sense’.

The logical proof of that takes a special form required when we’re examining things that are by definition ambiguous in some fundamental way. We observe that whatever it is that constitutes our ability to speak at this moment about something ‘making sense’, it necessarily arises from attributes of nature that are both advantageous and possible.

We can’t account for the appearance of logic in our perception of nature, but we can be certain that whatever constitutes that appearance is directly derived from nature, simply because we also derive from nature.


‘Sensible’ in the context of understanding neural function is the same as predictable. The idea that random ?anything? prevents us from arriving at a predictable outcome of any neural operation(s) is completely unsupported.

>> meaning this is your impression…
Only in the sense that I can’t prove you really exist, or that any of this is real.

On a more prosaic plane of discussion, we’re talking about the commonly accepted reality of neural systems, not just our impressions of them.

The popular perception of neural function as some sort of chaotic process isn’t accurate. ‘Chaotic’ as applied to what we can observe in neural activity (or a simulation of some neural model) is a description of our perception of the result, not the underlying process.

There are a few places where the idea of ‘resonance’ in neural structures seems appropriate, and some of the math usually applied to analysis of chaotic systems can look like a good way to model this.

But we can derive the same behavior from the deterministic models that have been well-accepted and essentially unchanged for thirty years or more. While the ‘chaos’ math might appear to model a particular aspect of that behavior, it’s not directly descriptive of what’s going on in the process that generates it, and it doesn’t model other aspects at all.

It’s popular to talk about neural behavior as random or statistical, sometimes in a way similar to quantum mechanics. But it’s not accurate, and in the end doesn’t further our understanding in a useful way.


>> ahhh, a liberal arts kinda entity, are ya? You've gotten LaPlace all rowdied up in his grave...
Not really. I’ve had the usual hard-core immersion in higher math, and I’ve made a decent living applying it in engineering and scientific research. Laplace and I get along just fine, just one of the gang, so to speak.

My oldest boy is right now making a mild splash applying a deeply twisted version of the math Einstein used to making DFT work on crystals that are bent under stress. The splash is from his discovery that the math doesn’t work reliably when applied in different disciplines, and his subsequent explanation of how such differences can arise.

We have no problem with math around here, but we don’t have any misconceptions about what it represents. It’s a neat tool limited to those contexts appropriate for it’s application, as any tool is.

" Quote:
Originally Posted by kvrrd
Definable reality. 1+1=2 for me? for you? We agree, we share a basis of knowledge. This is knowledge because we agree on the proofs…

That’s fine, as long as you severely limit the context of your claim of proof."
---
Yes, the proof alone, is the only thing that makes it possible, was my original point. What I didn't say was, without that agreed upon proof, reality is not shareable. Like what you said. Agreed.
===
" Logical patterns derive entirely from our process of perception; all meaning is an artifact of our experience of being, and that is entirely internal, a process that exists in the neural structures of our brains."
---
Yes, and uniquely individual. Once you remove the commonality. Ah, you're making me reconsider my words linguistically. I'm a Lithuanian female born and bred on the southwest side of Chicago. It's hard.
===
Quote:
>> T and F type of logic?
Well, sort of. More like the logic of formal logic, but beyond that, too. Ask yourself where logic comes from, and you’ll be on the right track. "
Hey, that's what I meant. philophy 101. Formal logic. math and truth tables. and our need to prove and define so we feel better. and if we can't - we go to K-Mart for the blue-light specials.
===

I guess we're done with that. We agree. And I'm glad. The original reference to linguistics made me think you were discounting math altogether or it just derailed me. I was also trying to be more linear - which is counter to my normal mode.
I was using randomness where you use chaotic. And we can hone our modelling and our tools, getting past complexity perhaps? Discovery? Acceptance? Believe like little children. Ambiguity.

My reference to LaPlace was audio, probability, you got it. I'm an engineer. It didn't seem that you refered to math much, and the linguistics comment tainted my perception. My bad. My oldest son is a ski bum in telluride.... wahhhhhhh....

At the heart of the failure is the fact that every individual’s perception of reality is entirely self-referent.

A demonstration perhaps……


that’s one for the big book

Now with out referencing the original post which book the

The Big Book….

The big book from AA
The Big book that goes with the Big Guy upstairs
The Big book the television has been sitting on for 20 years
The big book your pre schooler likes read at night???

The rrreality of RRReality depends however the origins of the statement…..adding context shows how the person making the quote meant it….



A good example is mistaking meaning as intrinsic to the external Universe, rather than the internal universe we each individually occupy. Paul Erdös used to say of a particularly elegant mathematical proof “that’s one for the big book,” meaning it directly expressed math that he believed was intrinsic to that external physical reality.


However it is all in the context……without the surrounding paragraph the phase has many meanings wonder how universal this phenomenon is……..about as universal as it gets rrreally…

Have we found a cure of ADD yet??? Do we need one???




I was also trying to be more linear

Oh no don’t do that then we will never get out of Ozzzz……. Or was it the twilight zone??? Think I am having a full moon again……… :rolleyes:bomb barded minds from all the angles ........my lazar looks more like a pryism

SB, consciousness as a subject of objective scientific study is not indeterminate. There is substantial reason to believe that many of our "Subsystems" work in very much the same ways. Also while our perceptions run a gamut of variations in sensitivity for colors, tastes, smells etc... the work in very much the same way from person to person. It's the associations that are individual. Even the areas of the brain memory is stored in (Relatively new knowledge) are pretty much standard. Imagery is stored in the areas of the brain that handle processing it. The same for auditory, olfactory, and tactile sensations.

We may never be able to answer the subjective questions of consciousness. For example do I see the color we both call blue the same way you do? We may not need to answer them though. If consciousness is, as it seems, an emergent property of the parts of the system we can understand, then we can duplicate it artificially assuming certain technological advances. providing the analogy is good enough (and recent advances in synthetic biological constructs suggest there is no reason we can't do it with materials that share all the characteristics of the natural system) the artificially created systems will also have the same emergent qualities. At that point the question of whether the effects are "REAL" becomes moot. The same way the question of "How do I know you are really a conscious agent, and not just acting conscious" is moot.

I don't believe consciousness can exist without a brain. I do believe it is more than any single brain function because neurology shows there is NO central region of the brain that is "US". There is no "I" spot in there. largely because the whole brain and the body it interacts with is the "I". To be absolutely honest the whole brain, the body it interacts with and the environment it finds itself in is the "I".

There is nothing mystical about it (Humbling? Yes. Awe inspiring? HECK YES!) Mystical? Nope. There is no need to invoke cartesian dualism.

The question of consciousness (the real questions) really ought to focus on defining it in a useful and quantifiable way (which of necessity will leave, at least for now, the more subjective and untestable stuff out. Although it remains to be seen if even those questions will carry the same import when we learn WHAT WE CAN test and test it.) The real question is what will the relevant questions be when we quantify what can be quantified and learn what we can glean by empirical methodology. I suspect that the same way subjective questions of unprovable nature, like whether or not everyone else is conscious the way you are, about other people have come to be interesting thought experiments with no resolution behind the engineering prospective (we can be sure enough to get the job done), so too will the more slippery questions about the subjective nature of experience.

Truly if we ever understand the brain well enough to duplicate it, we will duplicate mind too (although we'll never be able to prove it). We will not necessarily EVER understand the subjective parts. This of course implies there are objective and testable aspects of consciousness, and that is 100% true. :-) Let's persue the leads we can, and hope we find other puzzle pieces that fit and lots of interesting new questions we never thought to ask before.

I promise I'll post that stuff in the evolutionary psych thread soon. But it might be tomorrow.

There is substantial reason to believe that many of our "Subsystems" work in very much the same ways. Also while our perceptions run a gamut of variations in sensitivity for colors, tastes, smells etc... the work in very much the same way from person to person.

Yea I though so to, but life has seen fit to prove me wrong once again. Just when I think I have it all figured out I get a curve ball right up side my head…. To bad you can’t just take a step into my shoes for a moment then it would be probably equally confusing to you as well but then there would be three…….three in confusion minds instead of two would it work the same as two heads are better than one?.


I understand most of the scientific stuff and do not doubt that they see things in just the way that is claimed but not all can be explained by science even science must acknowledge this…. Thus there reason for being a field of now instead of being read about in history books……….. just consider the placebo effect used in medical studies ….. some are helped by sugar pills, some even have side effects similar to the real thing. Mind over matter…. What exactly does that scientifically mean any way? It is as it reads mind ….. over….. matter = changes what matters.





At that point the question of whether the effects are "REAL" becomes moot.

RRReal can not ever become moot……rrreality won’t.

A patient in a health care facility is going to feed the chickens the chicken are not real to me but that doesn’t mean they aren’t real to the patient……Alzheimer’s may change the patients reality where it become very different from the “collective reality” of the staff but it doesn’t change the importance of that reality to the one who sees chickens.




I don't believe consciousness can exist without a brain. I do believe it is more than any single brain function because neurology shows there is NO central region of the brain that is "US". There is no "I" spot in there. largely because the whole brain and the body it interacts with is the "I". To be absolutely honest the whole brain, the body it interacts with and the environment it finds itself in is the "I".

Steps in the right direction….. reflective…. Universal laws…..we all abide…. All that we test must also……..as well as all that we invent……..universal laws universal………….. mirrored images………… join make third…… in consciousness mirrored images of the mind, the observer makes the third…….= I……same as “we”…more than one part….conflict "with in" self should demonstrate this is a realm that can be related to by most readers.

No central region as there is none as you correctly stated…..




There is nothing mystical about it (Humbling? Yes. Awe inspiring? HECK YES!) Mystical? Nope. There is no need to invoke cartesian dualism.

Would make understanding so much easier………gee since when has true understanding scientific or other wise been easy….. :rolleyes:

I need proper words……


Cartesian duelism (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761574677_6/Philosophy_Western.html#p85)

Quote***
Efforts to resolve the dualism of mind and matter, a problem first raised by Descartes, continued to engage philosophers during the 17th and 18th centuries. The division between science and religious belief also occupied them. There, the aim was to preserve the essentials of faith in “Deity” while at the same time defending the right to think freely
End Quote***

I changed the word in quotes = guidelines

This is as close as guidelines will let me get to that subject……..

no need to break rules to make point however.

Defending the right to think freely…….

Think a shall ……… ;)

Let’s see if you can follow ……

Organization of moral thinkers, social definition as to what is right, what is wrong.. set of rules …predefined…….to live by …… certain ways only acceptable…..dutfly enforced! All others are wrong…. Period = lack of free thinking…. Correct?

Now……………..

Mirrored images ……. I look in the mirror and raise my right hand my image raises my left hand …………..

Images opposing yet identical …….

Free thinking is out side the box…… all boxes!

Here is a hint…….


The question of consciousness (the real questions) really ought to focus on defining it in a useful and quantifiable way (which of necessity will leave, at least for now, the more subjective and untestable stuff out. Although it remains to be seen if even those questions will carry the same import when we learn WHAT WE CAN test and test it.) The real question is what will the relevant questions be when we quantify what can be quantified and learn what we can glean by empirical methodology

Thank you…………….

Usefulness not hinged upon definition (Poo! That almost came out wrong. Should have seen what spell checker did with my original spelling of the “D” word) :p



Truly if we ever understand the brain well enough to duplicate it, we will duplicate mind to

Hmmmm “proof” (sorry Barb) is in time….. as I am thinking one too many episode of the terminator! :eyebrow:




Let's persue the leads we can, and hope we find other puzzle pieces that fit and lots of interesting new questions we never thought to ask before.

Oops impulsive ADDers…. Always trying to rush ahead!



I suspect that the same way subjective questions of unprovable nature, like whether or not everyone else is conscious the way you are,

Evidence of unscientific nature …. Some of us share more of a reality than others = dualism…………….trans. staff working at factily are not seeing the chickens but the patient is…….. lation = :confused:

These alternative approaches may simply work because of the mind (which isn’t scientifically evident by empirical method) over matter symptom that has already been observed………. Double blinded studies empirically necessary (ouch) ……….. of medications upon health conditions, placebos work in small percentage of people. Why?

RRReality can not ever become moot……


Useful would be to harness that ability so we could all place mind over matter………would be more valuable than definitions of mind, well in my reality any way but then again what do I know……




I promise I'll post that stuff in the evolutionary psych thread soon. But it might be tomorrow.

Should prove interesting…. as your post always are, even the ones I do not agree with…… :D

…we all crunch stuff together in our heads and get confused. Heck I do it all the time. My memory is just especially good for my favorite stuff (IE the stuff that doesn't hurt to study. :-) ) Even on this stuff I get confused. Probably an ADD thing…
Not so; it’s a neuron thing, and everyone does it. All you’re describing is the normal process of incorporating new information into your previously existing internal store.

What might be different (and related to having/being AD/HD) is your apparent ability to perceive the process and classify it in different ways. We don’t have eyes inside there, where what you’re describing happens.

Interesting question, that. How do you do it?

…Once you remove the commonality….
Removing it assumes it’s previous creation, a detail of our experience of being that most of us neglect to consider. We weren’t really here when it happened, or more accurately, we began to ‘be’ simultaneously with its establishment.

Getting commonality established in a brand new example of H. sapiens is a tricky and drawn-out process.


…Ah, you're making me reconsider my words linguistically. I'm a Lithuanian female born and bred on the southwest side of Chicago. It's hard…
Yeah, don’t get us wrong; it’s hard for us, too. It’s hard for everybody.

But Kay’s a Ukrainian female, born and bred on the south side of a similarly prominent city, so I doubt that’s too much of a direct factor. (grins…)


I guess we're done with that. We agree. And I'm glad.
Yup, us too. (grins…)


The original reference to linguistics made me think you were discounting math altogether or it just derailed me. I was also trying to be more linear - which is counter to my normal mode.
I was using randomness where you use chaotic. And we can hone our modeling and our tools, getting past complexity perhaps? Discovery? Acceptance? Believe like little children. Ambiguity.
Dang! You did get it.

There’s a component of our extended experience of being that sits right there in the ambiguity with the smiling children. But it’s not ambiguous to us; we develop a way to go into those places without falling prey to the ambiguity.

Nevertheless, when we’re sitting in the middle of it having imaginary tea with the kids, it certainly looks just as ambiguous to the normal onlooker. There’s nothing we can do about that, but we don’t have to give in to their insistence that we can’t clearly perceive anything there, just because they can’t.

We do have to accept that we can’t describe it to them…


My reference to LaPlace was audio, probability, you got it. I'm an engineer. It didn't seem that you refered to math much, and the linguistics comment tainted my perception. My bad. My oldest son is a ski bum in telluride.... wahhhhhhh....
(more grins…) But you have to believe in the part of you that’s in there. We didn’t have any problem when out oldest quit his PhD program and became first a bicycle messenger and then a bike mechanic, other than being nervous parents. Truthfully, if it was us, we would have done something similar.

Now he’s on his way back in after several years, during which he wrote two extraordinary papers and extended his thesis in a significant way. The last paper he published before quitting now has lots of fairly important citations, including one that lumps him between Feynman and Schwinger.

The thing is, we had no idea he was still working at it. All we ever saw was the dirt poor messenger/mechanic. We didn’t even know he had finished his thesis. If we had, I suppose we might have gone looking for the guy who held it up.

However it happens, you can’t ever give up on ‘em; it’s like giving up on yourself.

My reference to LaPlace was audio, probability, you got it. I'm an engineer. It didn't seem that you refered to math much, and the linguistics comment tainted my perception. My bad. My oldest son is a ski bum in telluride.... wahhhhhhh....

This would explain why you were able to pick up on the math thing…… you could help translate the part of Stabile that isn’t a nurse…… :p I am sorry Tom is often mis-understood in his presentations I think having a common element made for a more meaningful and connected conversation…between the two of you…...this is only my theory……….I also think as long as we do not get to many imaginatively flexible ADD moody dyslexics the language should remain primarily English…….okay I shall put my brain back in the box now…….after this of coa rse.

I am just wondering out loud how the basis how your knowledge works / logic / engineer…….. had any thing to do with your fast on the snap….. I think I am able to relate to the female portion of this Stabile pair…….Tom’s wife …....Kay……..her and I share a profession and work in much the same field of that profession…. I have little knowledge of his profession…….then adult off spring thing.........I have one of those too ……….. okay time to go……sorry if this is disconnected I think Stabile is right on here



We do have to accept that we can’t describe it to them…

Heck I am having trouble describing what I am wondering to you all and we are all reading the same conversation…… okay Tammy go pick up your work schedule…….end of rambling sound!

Mead,

I'm the first to admit science doesn't have all the answers and never will. They don't even try to claim that. I just make a distinction between what can be effectively studied at any given time and what cannot.

For example we KNOW that many features of biological neural activity are conserved through time and species by evolution. Which is why even invertebrates like squid have nervous systems and tissue that function very much like ours with the same sorts of neuro-transmitters, etc... We also know that there are specific functional circuits of nuerons that are identical neuron for neuron from one member of the species in question to another. We further know that 80% of the genes in the human genome are directly involved in building our brains. All humans have the same fifty discrete modules of the visual system as well (that alone is a huge amount of functionally identical from person to person brain tissue). Furthermore we know there are variations in what functions neurons are optimized for and in how they are physically arranged in the brain to do their jobs. For example a embryonic ferrett that's had surgery done to channel visual information into the parts of it's brain that normally handle sound, and vice versa, still has some function of those senses provided by the new region of the brain they were routed to, but it's EXTREMELY degraded because each of those areas is optimized in specific ways to deal with sound and vision. The things and patterns, and (forgive a bad word here as natural selection has not expectations or intentions, but does take advantage of constants) that typically occur in that sensory path. Therefore audio processing nuerons (because there is a lot of commonality in neural function) handling visual information will find some patters and process them, but it's doing so in a manner appropriate for sound and which therefore severely limits visual accuity and general visual perception. Nor can the visual centers handle auditory stimuli in the most useful manner possible. So it too get's limited.

My point being is that there is a lot of empirical evidence to support the fact that while learning, and associations formed in our brain are unique, and subjective in how they affect our outlook and experience of being us, that the actual functional aspects of the brain are very likely to be near identical, at least in many areas of the brain if not all. Synapse formation, and the like is quite likely to be completely unique from one person to the next, but the basic wiring of alarm systems, regulators, and possibly even the frontal lobes is probably pretty close to identical and controlled in it's initial formation by genes. Before one divorces genes from the learned side of behavior it's also important to note that we cannot learn at all without genes actively making it possible by altering synapse strength among other things.

I will never know and can never prove that the "Blue" I see and how I experience it is anything like the "Blue" you see and experience. That is a moot point for purposes of investigation because we can't test anything about it. We do know which features of our visual system are repsonsible for perception of that general wavelength neck of the woods. We can even get a rough idea of an individuals sensitivity to various colors by examining how high the concentration of various types of cells in the retina is. So we know my blue activates the same kinds of receptors in my eyes as it does in yours. We also know that it is almost a certainty that your associations with the color blue will be wildly different from mine and probably have a few commonalities as well. It's also true that I've never met anyone with normal color vision who didn't call the same things blue that I do. So it seems to me that it doesn't really matter what happens inside the black box if the answers that come out of it are right. In this case the black box is a metaphor for that place where questions that have no ready answers are asked. So far in all my 36 years my assumption that I share a working definition of what 'blue' is with everyone else I live and work around, regardless of how they personally experience it, has been both accurate and useful. While it's an interesting and ultimately frustrating question whether they experience it the same as me, it's answer isn't providing me with any useful information. While the answer to the qeustion "do we share a working definition of "Blue"?" Does have a definitive and useful answer. YES. Natural selection as a creative force cares not one whit whether we know stuff like that. Natural selection cares about results that work in the messy environment it exists in. So assumptions that are effective (and which are also sometimes wrong regardless of this) are assumptions used in the solution.

I have attempted to split the
“Oh My You Guys There Is A Cure For Add!!! And I Am Not Kidding”

Parent thread Located here (http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27205)

There were soooo many topics so I tried to split the thread into some resemblance of logic...which wasn't easy. :rolleyes:

Barb you said people "do poorly" at pure logic.....

ADDers "do poorly" with pure topics..... :p

Which gives moderators practicing time in the thread splitting department... :faint:

This section contains the discussions about consciousness, (or the lack thereof), evolution (or the lack thereof), empirical evidence philosophy (lack of a better word), neuron-firing (or the lack thereof) all those post go HERE …..

The “Parent thread” I tried to keep all the discussions about the various treatments of ADD and people's reasons why they choose one treatment over the another...so any thing to do with treatments / alternative treatments, or why one treatment has been chosen over another ... any cures you may have run across…… go in the “Parent thread” .....

Remember the no flaming rule it is okay to disagree but disagree agreeably please.


***Please respond to this moderator note or staff interventions by private message only, as not to further disrupt this discussion Thank You ***

Society doesn't have to dumb down for us to succeed. Only be more flexible, less linear, and a lot less assembly lineesque in the way it works. Frankly, I think the way they run things now is a terrible waste of potential contributions from folks like us.


It certainly would make life more easier. (0:
I equate how society is sometimes run like 'The Chain of Command'..which is involves adherence expectancy- without question, by those who are deemed 'fit', to be in charge of everyone.


Just ramblin',
Nova

Don't mind hearing musings from a ramblin' rose. :)

Thank you !

I've been also been dubbed as a 'muse' ...and I've never perceived it as insulting. (0:


Nova

:D Hi Nova welcome back....... :D :D

All humans have the same fifty discrete modules of the visual system as well

Lucky me I get the blind as bat modules, so I now need glasses to find my glasses.

When I hear the crunching sound of glass and plastic under my foot the fact that every one has the same fifty modules of the visual system will matter how much?






My point being is that there is a lot of empirical evidence to support the fact that while learning, and associations formed in our brain are unique, and subjective in how they affect our outlook and experience of being us, that the actual functional aspects of the brain are very likely to be near identical, at least in many areas of the brain if not all.

Okay can I please have a re-phrase or expansion of the above? I an having difficultly understanding what is being said-I apologize it read contradictory to your point and I do not think it was meant to be so.







I will never know and can never prove that the "Blue" I see and how I experience it is anything like the "Blue" you see and experience. That is a moot point for purposes of investigation because we can't test anything about it.

You could go clothing shopping we could match out-fits and the perspective “un-testable” thing will become evident.” I would rather shop for power tools how ever color matching chances are greatly reduced.

Gary does not perceive the same color orange as I do. I know this because he sees my Xanax 0.5 as pink… it is a light orange.






Before one divorces genes from the learned side of behavior it's also important to note that we cannot learn at all without genes actively making it possible by altering synapse strength among other things.

I do not think nature and nurture should divorce, however unless the subjective experience is accounted for along with the nature and nurture, then part of the picture remains missing. I have no doubt that researchers are seeing exactly what they say they do (interpretations is what I question for the most part) …..when mankind a conscious and subjective “being” is discounted moot thus placing the physically seen as the end all and be all, then I think science is heading down the same path once held by the “organizations” that wanted discount scientific evidence because of the “organizations” perspectives of “right” and “wrong” . Did science not learn any thing from the theological oppression that attempted to restrain there contributions ?


There are things that work for reason’s scientist do not know . . .as E-Boy stated accurately. Barb pointed out in one of her post not long ago that in order to take the side of science (based upon empirical evidence alone) one must be willing to change “beliefs” every time the evidence does. . . most people have problems with this. . . again a correct statement.

On a personal note I have ADD okay and to change my belief as often as science changes it’s mind is simply to much to ask this I will admit also . . . mainly because I would have to add some thing else to my family calendar. . . belief of the week!






So it seems to me that it doesn't really matter what happens inside the black box if the answers that come out of it are right.

I respectfully disagree.

In my personal opinion the subjective experience of being has as much to do with ADD because it directly impacts what we are as people. This has direct bearing upon out-look = social skills / ultimately abilities displays = survival chance = reproduction =genetic viability = evolution = yes it does matter.






In this case the black box is a metaphor for that place where questions that have no ready answers are asked.

Actually they do have answers they simple are not “testable” via means of scientific method.

The questions, reasoning, and perspectives based upon the “logical conscious mind” is as relevant as any other aspect of knowledge. . .including method based science. One reason is that scientist are also subject to the same “subjective essence of being”. . .that is why they get a bunch of them together and debate, discuss or arm wrestle over each others findings before repeating the testing and going through the entire process all over.

Gallant and monumental efforts are made to eliminate the (so far not testable) subjective consciousness of mankind (please excuse the visible irony on this one or ignore it which ever is preferred). All one has to do is have fractional exposure to the ramifications of new findings that refute the previous finding to understand the limited perspective of “method driven” science. Some times we are so concerned with method that logic escapes via the back door. . . creativity crawls out of sight . . leaving only one limited view which changes like the wind.




Natural selection as a creative force cares not one whit whether we know stuff like that. Natural selection cares about results that work in the messy environment it exists in. So assumptions that are effective (and which are also sometimes wrong regardless of this) are assumptions used in the solution

Okay the above lost me again…… I haven’t a clue here so please help me understand this idea better.

I could never figure out how anyone knew if dogs saw color or not. How do they know that? Can they measure color blindness? yes. the cones have specific frequencies - now I may not have the vocabulary straight - but I think I can get the idea cross. One provides luminence, the other chrominance. Like nocturnal creatures have more rods. Cats have a lot of cones so are more sensitive to colors, hues. Photoreceptors with specific color frequencies. So yes, Blue is certain. Impressions of blue obviously are not.

ah what the heck, here's a MUCH better explanation. http://www.cis.rit.edu/people/faculty/montag/vandplite/pages/chap_9/ch9p1.html

Rods & Cones



There are two types of photoreceptors in the human retina, rods and cones.

Rods are responsible for vision at low light levels (scotopic vision). They do not mediate color vision, and have a low spatial acuity.

Cones are active at higher light levels (photopic vision), are capable of color vision and are responsible for high spatial acuity. The central fovea is populated exclusively by cones. There are 3 types of cones which we will refer to as the short-wavelength sensitive cones, the middle-wavelength sensitive cones and the long-wavelength sensitive cones or S-cone, M-cones, and L-cones for short.

The light levels where both are operational are called mesopic.

http://www.cis.rit.edu/people/faculty/montag/vandplite/images/chapter_9/dist.gifThe bottom figure shows the distribution of rods and cones in the retina. This data was prepared from histological sections made on human eyes.

In the top figure, you can relate visual angle to the position on the retina in the eye.

Notice that the fovea is rod-free and has a very high density of cones. The density of cones falls of rapidly to a constant level at about 10-15 degrees from the fovea. Notice the blind spot which has no receptors.

At about 15°-20° from the fovea, the density of the rods reaches a maximum. (Remember where Hecht, Schlaer, and Pirenne presented their stimuli.) A longitudinal section would appear similar however there would be no blind spot. Remember this if you want to present peripheral stimuli and you want to avoid the blind spot.







Here is a figure from the textbook that shows the changes in the size of the photoreceptors with eccentricity. The bottom graph shows individual variations in the density of cones. http://www.cis.rit.edu/people/faculty/montag/vandplite/images/chapter_9/dist2.jpg


Here are schematic diagrams of the structure of the rods and cones:

http://www.cis.rit.edu/people/faculty/montag/vandplite/images/chapter_9/randc.gif


http://www.cis.rit.edu/people/faculty/montag/vandplite/images/chapter_9/morph.gifThis figure shows the variety in the shapes and sizes of receptors across and within species.


Here is a summary of the properties and the differences in properties between the rods and cones:

Properties of Rod and Cone Systems
RodsConesCommentMore photopigmentLess photopigment Slow response: long integration timeFast response: short integration timeTemporal integrationHigh amplificationLess amplificationSingle quantum detection in rods (Hecht, Schlaer & Pirenne)Saturating Response (by 6% bleached)Non-saturating response (except S-cones)The rods' response saturates when only a small amount of the pigment is bleached (the absorption of a photon by a pigment molecule is known as bleaching the pigment). Not directionally selectiveDirectionally selectiveStiles-Crawford effect (see later this chapter)Highly convergent retinal pathwaysLess convergent retinal pathwaysSpatial integrationHigh sensitivityLower absolute sensitivity Low acuityHigh acuityResults from degree of spatial integrationAchromatic: one type of pigmentChromatic: three types of pigmentColor vision results from comparisons between cone responses
Pigments

If you look above at the schematic diagram of the rods and cones, you will see that in the outer segments of rods the cell membrane folds in and creates disks. In the cones, the folds remain making multiple layers. The photopigment molecules reside in membranes of these disks and folds. They are embedded in the membranes as shown in the diagram below where the two horizontal lines represent a rod disk membrane (either the membrane on the top or bottom of the disk) and the circles represent the chain of amino acids that make up a rhodopsin molecule. Rhodopsin is the photopigment in rods.

Each amino acid, and the sequence of amino acids are encoded in the DNA. Each person possesses 23 pairs of chromosomes that encode the formation of proteins in sequences of DNA. The sequence for a particular protein is called a gene. In recent years, researchers have identified the location and chemical sequence of the genes that encode the photopigments in the rods and cones.

http://www.cis.rit.edu/people/faculty/montag/vandplite/images/chapter_9/rhodmol.gif

This figure shows the structure of the rhodopsin molecule. The molecule forms 7 columns that are embedded in the disk membrane. Although not shown in this schematic, the columns are arranged in a circle like the planks of a barrel. (Another molecule called a chromophore binds within this barrel.)

Each circle is an amino-acid which are the building blocks of proteins. Each amino acid is encoded by a sequence of three nucleic acids in the DNA.

Before identifying the genetic sequence of human rhodopsin, it was sequences in other animals. Here is shown the comparison between the bovine (cow) sequence and the human sequence. They are very similar with only a small number of differences (the dark circles). Even when there is a difference it may not be functionally significant.

The gene for human rhodopsin is located on chromosome 3.





http://www.cis.rit.edu/people/faculty/montag/vandplite/images/chapter_9/sconep.gif











This figure shows the sequence for the S-cone pigment compared to that of rhodopsin. The S-cone pigment gene is located on chromosome 7. Notice how different they are.









http://www.cis.rit.edu/people/faculty/montag/vandplite/images/chapter_9/landmp.gif





This figure shows the sequence of the L- and M-cone pigments compared to each other. These pigments are very similar. Only those differences within the cell membrane can contribute to the differences in their spectral sensitivity.

The M- and L- cone pigments are both encoded on the X chromosome in tandem. The 23rd pair of chromosomes determines gender. For females this pair is XX and for males this pair is XY.

We will return to this later on when we discuss color vision and color blindness.







The Receptor Mosaic

http://www.cis.rit.edu/people/faculty/montag/vandplite/images/chapter_9/mosaic.gif



This figure shows how the three cone types are arranged in the fovea. Currently there is a great deal of research involving the determination of the ratios of cone types and their arrangement in the retina.

This diagram was produced based on histological sections from a human eye to determine the density of the cones. The diagram represents an area of about 1° of visual angle. The number of S-cones was set to 7% based on estimates from previous studies. The L-cone:M-cone ratio was set to 1.5. This is a reasonable number considering that recent studies have shown wide ranges of cone ratios in people with normal color vision. In the central fovea an area of approximately 0.34° is S-cone free. The S-cones are semi-regularly distributed and the M- and L-cones are randomly distributed.

Throughout the whole retina the ratio of L- and M- cones to S-cones is about 100:1.







Spatial Acuity Estimate From Mosaic

From the cone mosaic we can estimate spatial acuity or the ability to see fine detail.

In the central fovea, there are approximately 150,000 cones/ sq. mm. The distance between cone centers in the hexagonal packing of the cones is about 0.003 mm. To convert this to degrees of visual angle you need to know that there are 0.29 mm/deg so that the spacing is 0.003/0.29 = 0.013° between cone centers.

The Nyquist frequency, f, is the frequency at which aliasing begins. That is a grating pattern of cos(2*pi(N/2+f)) above the Nyquist frequency is indistinguishable from the signal cos(2*pi(N/2-f)) below the Nyquist frequency where N is the number of sample points per unit distance. The Nyquist frequency is f = 1/N. The value of N = 1/0.0102 = 97. Therefore f = 48 cycles per degree.

In actuality, the foveal Nyquist limit is more like 60 cycles per degree. This may be a result of the hexagonal rather than the rectangular packing of the cone mosaic. The optics of the eye blur the retinal image so that this aliasing is not produced. Using laser interferometry, the optics of the eye can be bypassed so we can reveal this aliasing. We will discuss this in more detail in the chapter on visual acuity.

The mosaic of the retina in addition to the processing in the visual system produces another ability to see fine resolution and ascertain alignment of object called hyperacuity. People have the ability to see misalignment of objects of 5 seconds of arc (which is 1/5 of a cone width). This corresponds to seeing the misalignment in headlights 39 miles away. Maybe you can try working this out to see if I am exaggerating.

Wow, I think there are about 3 different conversations going on here and they're all fused together. Life must be terribly dull for non-adders at times like this.

Two questions.
1) On page one, Stabile used the phrase 'social impulse'? Could you please define this better?

2) In this meandering musing, has it been mentioned that by the forming together to create society that human beings have stepped outside of the bounds of natural selection?

Thanks for the mind workout :)

Wow, I think there are about 3 different conversations going on here and they're all fused together

Yea and this is the latter part of another thread… Splitting it in half was fun fun more moderator fun. I choose to believe progress was made. Before the split the subject count was 10!

subject count before the thread split by kvrrd (http://www.addforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=296834&postcount=2)


The icing on the cake was trying to figure out a title…….

“Empirical Chaos vs. Gestalt Confusion”

seem to best describe the topic(s) presented. . .The subjects should be hard to miss even for “us”. . . about any thing should be a good fit. . .keeps me from having to figure out weather or not the discussion is on topic. . . one more wiggly ADHD idea from meadd823!



. Life must be terribly dull for non-adders at times like this.

In my experience at times like this non-ADDers find them selves more confused than any thing else. ;)

Tammy you ask good questions. And you don't need to apologize for them.

For now I think I need to say that we are agreed in some areas that I think, that you think we are not. I didn't mean shades of blue in my statement. I meant the actual experience of blue if you and I both looked at an object we both thought of as blue. The experience is almost certainly different for both of us (as we'll have different associations with blue in our memories). All of that stuff will color our experience. So subjectively there is no way to tell how close our experiences are. We can study the objective parts. We can see the same areas of our brains light up in scans when we percieve blue. We can clearly tell we use the same word for the same color.

There are many "non-subjective" areas of conscious cognitive function that can be studied. Many nuerologist call this the "Easy consciousness question". The hard one being any addressing of subjective experiences.

My point with the black box comment (As a tech I truly hate black box systems. BARF!) isn't that we shouldn't ask the questions, or that they don't have value. Only that we should concentrate on the things we are in a position to seek answers for as far as "objective observation" goes. I would never dream of basing morality on science, for example. So, while I certainly try to allow information to inform my morality, I don't allow it to dictate it. Is it beyond sceintific investigation? Nope.

Darn it, I'm getting confusing again... Keep the questions coming it helps untangle my thoughts. :-)

Two questions.
1)...
2)... Actually, two extremely astutely posed questions which cut to the bleeding edge of the beating heart, exposing the bloody mess, the legacy left by formerly evolutionarily selected behaviours, from organisms which we have 'surpassed', their deeply red pigmented entrails on the walls of our psyche as vanishing reminder, vanishing, hopefully, some time soon.

I'll answer if they aren't picked up by a very particular couple :-) eminently better qualified than myself to handle those questions.

SB.

Why thank you, Darlin' !!

It's good to be back !
I've missed you too, Meadd !! (0:


Nova

N,
~I-C-U~
S.

:-) N'nova ...
welcome back.

I don't see nuffin'! You can't prove nuffin' neither!

It's all lies! Lies to discredit me I tell ya!

And as the whirring of the helicopter blades whisked E-boy to safety, our man in the garden, tired from maintaining multiple separate identities fell through the clutches of delusion, delusion reaching out to soften his fall, as unconsciousness ascended unannounced from below. (http://www.addforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=300274&postcount=127)

(http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1174576) With the new day would come permanent respite. (http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1174576)

:-) SB.

super~nova
~2-C-U~
(http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1174576)
'We are starstuff, billion year-old carbon; got to get ourselves back into The Garden.'

With the new day would come permanent respite. (http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1174576)

"... supernova; ... the only ... in the universe ... to produce the ... element ... gold, through fusion.
All the gold there is comes from the heart of one ..."

:-)

S.

... I get a curve ball right up side my head … :-) if I might take the liberty of urging rest, an early night, and to take things nice and slow tomorrow - heck, maybe get yourself back to 'the garden' ... maybe the anticipation alone is enough to ensure~respite from pain with the new day~ (http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1174576)

I'll stop and take a step away from my computer - hands clearly visible - no violent movements ...

... ... now:-) ... ... ...

SB.

For now I think I need to say that we are agreed in some areas that I think, that you think we are not.

Upon desirously tired reflection,( one day I will learn how to sleep), I believe you may be right. Perhaps I am guilty of projection or forgetting to change my gear oil, I have found you to have a well balanced view most of the time.


Many who are subscribers of the scientific method tend to refute subjective experience in favor of there methodology driven results. Some times refuting logic . . .which by the way is subjectively testable in a black and white word but not in a shades of grey one (kind of like your blue perception analogy). Even insanity has a form of logic to the person experiencing it. What makes it insane is the fact a majority can not relate or the person’s logic is a reason to do physical harm.


I have apparently become overtly used to having to defend any thing resembling an empirically un-testable idea especially if it directly connected to ADD goes double if there is a minuscule of interest generate. I am far from alone on this experience. I think perhaps I got stuck in defend mode. . . I shall attend to that gear oil at once- :p






I meant the actual experience of blue if you and I both looked at an object we both thought of as blue. The experience is almost certainly

Yea but a trip to the mall or any shared experience between two people in this case you and I (especially involving a connection to the color blue-for this discussion) would more than likely reveal each of our personal perceptions associated with "experience of the color blue". . .it was a duel designed comment (thus the power tool part). Sorry I picked that habit up some where around here :rolleyes: and it can certainly be hard to break.






There are many "non-subjective" areas of conscious cognitive function that can be studied. Many nuerologist call this the "Easy consciousness question". The hard one being any addressing of subjective experiences.

The hard stuff that is my ADHD way other wise I would stick to the word games (which are hard for the dyslexic) in chit-chat or the simpler conversations instead of stretching my search engine ability and me brain trying to keep up with you really smart people.


To me though even the “non-subjective” are often subjective to the subjective. By far most of my disagreements with “main stream” don’t have thing one to do with the results. I often disagree with the interpretations, although by being around Barb and debating with her over this and that I am also learning how to spot really sloppy work that is touted as “research”. . . .which further muddies the scientific water . An example of my ventament disagreement in the EF thread (which I shall have to check on tomorrow)

An “expert” is claiming ADDers inability to regulate emotions with result of his studies . . .his studies uses comorbids of ODD and ADD claiming his finding as being ADD charastic traits. Hello!

It isn’t just the snake oil sales people that decrease the reputation of mythology based sciences it is the sloppy work of those claiming to be practicing this field. The subjective experience for me is if it sounds like “plant food” more than like it is “plant food” , because I have smelled plant fertilizer emitting from some ADD experts.


Until I began learning stuff from people here I had no idea why I was objecting to certain experts findings . ..it would seem like the expert should know more about ADHD than I do . . .but I continued to refute the findings because I just knew what was touted didn’t add up. . . Stabile’s idea may be different and presently untested but I found his approach to be a lot more feasible then some of the other fertilizer being passed off as science. When it comes to the experience of having more than one perspective at a time in my experience he is correct. . .I do have multiple perspectives . . . except for me instead of increasing my knowledge like it does for them . . . it serves to confuse me. :o Think I may have broke my compass and lost my filing system.

Now in trying to remember my point (see what I mean about getting lost) Oh yea there are no easy answers even when one is addressing the “testable world” although it sure seems like it should be easier the reality is it isn’t. Besides the answers are only good until some one discovers some little something down the line that indicates the misconceptions. In that light, subjective experience would be more solid than empirical methodology. Personally I do not see why subjective experiences and interpretations can not exist side by side with scientific evidence and methodology. If people would just quite operating under the assumption there is only one right answer = we revisit theology idealization once again then add to the folly by claiming progress.


Besides only studying stuff that can be tested by scientific method wouldn’t that greatly limit what is looked at. How can one get a whole picture if all that is visible is a little piece. I hear claim of whole pictured based on a border piece of a puzzle containing only the color blue. . . If the result driven interpretations don’t add up to subjective experience especially in the area of my ADHD how in the fart can they possibly be correct.


I was reading some where wish I remember where about some times when empirical methodology can not be use then other ways of testing ideas is employed . . .things like math are used to gauge the accuracy of an idea or theory. Okay brain running out of silly idea gas and dyslexia is so bad more my spelling checker is confused. . . confusion is contagious!


Okay before SB comes back and his presence sucks me back into virtual ADD land ;) I am going to call it a night despite the fact that most of the people around these parts call it morning!

Yes some ideas aren't easily testable, so they look to other means of investigating their worth. Math is a biggie. The problem is that while something might well be mathmatically possible, it's still not necessarily true. The use of math provides support for a hypothesis without actually testing it in the real world. We can, for example, conceptualize and explore other dimensions via mathmatics. That doesn't imply those dimensions actually exist in any way we can test. String and M theory depend on the existence of something like 11 dimensions, but we have no idea if any of the theory is anything other than a nice well told story, because we have no means of testing those theories. Although, they do make certain predictions that "MAY" be testable in the near future depending on what technology makes available.

Science as an approach requires empirical and replicable observations and tests.

Lots of stuff about cognitive science I thought I would check out the histroy of this paticular variety of science.

Cognitive science histroy (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cognitive-science/)

***Quote
Talk of consciousness and mental representations was banished from respectable scientific discussion. Especially in North America, behaviorism dominated the psychological scene through the 1950s. Around 1956, the intellectual landscape began to change dramatically. George Miller summarized numerous studies which showed that the capacity of human thinking is limited, with short-term memory, for example, limited to around seven items. He proposed that memory limitations can be overcome by recoding information into chunks, mental representations that require mental procedures for encoding and decoding the information. At this time, primitive computers had been around for only a few years, but pioneers such as John McCarthy, Marvin Minsky, Allen Newell, and Herbert Simon were founding the field of artificial intelligence. In addition, Noam Chomsky rejected behaviorist assumptions about language as a learned habit and proposed instead to explain language comprehension in terms of mental grammars consisting of rules. The six thinkers mentioned in this paragraph can be viewed as the founders of cognitive science.***End Quote

Bold and under lining mine.


Hmmmmm always finding stuff a day late oh well such is all for my better I guess. These names I made bold sure sound familuar, seems like I have read about these guys some where before

E-Boy notice we discussed the same thing in two different threads at the same time but the discussion is different. Think it is related to ADD :rolleyes:


***Quote
Cognitive anthropology expands the examination of human thinking to consider how thought works in different cultural settings. The study of mind should obviously not be restricted to how English speakers think but should consider possible differences in modes of thinking across cultures. Cognitive science is becoming increasingly aware of the need to view the operations of mind in particular physical and social environments. For cultural anthropologists, the main method is ethnography, which requires living and interacting with members of a culture to a sufficient extent that their social and cognitive systems become apparent. Cognitive anthropologists have investigated, for example, the similarities and differences across cultures in words for colors.***End quote

Wow I have misunderstood this fields objective, this sounds a bit friendlier.

More expansive than I had believed. OKay so my subjective experience of this field have been tainted prehaps I shall have to investage further then make up my mind again





String and M theory depend on the existence of something like 11 dimensions, but we have no idea if any of the theory is anything other than a nice well told story, because we have no means of testing those theories. Although, they do make certain predictions that "MAY" be testable in the near future depending on what technology makes available.

I think the more I try to understand all this science mind, conscious thing the more confused I become. .. . .. . ..perhaps all of this knowledge ,theoretical frameworks, constructs of thoeries, instrurmentation, and mathmaticial testable but possibly non-existent eleventh deminsions, through multiple prespectives at once is the chomso's ultiminate "mind game" on man-kind. For all we know we could be living in Who-ville in a dandoline, residing on the end of a cartoon elephant's nose. Some times I swear I hear laughter.

The importance of all this need for knowledge, I understand. The need to test ideas, humans seem to do this natually. Not overly far from a toddler sticking his hand over an open flame to see what happens. Yet we have matured so much-lol

I am reading this stuff and being confunded by all the variables that must be accounted for, in this sceintific method thingie. Then realizing that all these variables can be misunderstood misapplied or simply missing, all this is filtered through various individuals, who are experiencing subjective consciousness as I am but they get a big group of them together to eliminate the subjective conscoiusness part, methodological appplication basing it on theoretical frameworks (they have to match) which looks to be a fancy name for educated view point that has not been falsfied, knowing there is to be an unknown segmant of persons who are under the influence of alterior motives and shear stupidity and we have what?? Chaos theory that makes scense? Wonder how many actaully get it right? I have yet to broach upon the interpreation of said data. The information may be important or flat wrong. Wow what I long way to go to be wrong, all I have to do is sit in my living room and bang on a key board.. To think I am the one with the blooming disorder?


I am saying though despite the fact that all these scientific methods are some complicated grand design of the learned man none is possible without the subjective mind.

When I open my eyes every moring I am experiencing subjective conscoiusness, Every thing I see taste smell and think about is filtered through that which many seek to eliminate and I happen to find it very ironic, some times down right funny.

Foe me it is all part of contrast because with out contrast how much meaning would there be. No true would the be such a thing a false, if the were no light would we precieve darkness, would cold be a word withou theat. All these things are subjective according to contrast, which is percieved.All are testable yet even the test are percieved by a state of being. Testable is experienced over and over by alot of people so they have "shared perceptions of reality" yet we have no evidence of share consciousness. OKay.

ADD medications classified as stimulents have been studies widely and have a lot of evidence backing up thier usefullness in the treatment of ADD. I "enjoy" such benefits however how true is the evidence of stimulent effectivenes for the 20% of the ADD population that does not benefit from medications.

I have read several post here that use the fact that ADD responds to stimulents as a back up reasoning behind knowing there is a dopamine difference in the frontal lobes althugh dopamine is all over the body. . Okay if indeed ADD traits are dopamine different dependent what happen to the 20% do they not experience the same dopamine differences I do or is it individual chemical responses to the medications?

I have never heard any one try to understand why 20% of ADDers do not benefit from medications perhaps they are OTADD=other than ADD.Perhaps there are studies I am unaware of. I understand there may be a portion that simply do not react favorably but why? Why aren't there more studies on that part of the equasion seem like it would have more answers than trying to use folks with comorbind behavioral problems to define ADD and trying to convence me they can tease out the differences. Again I must mention I am impared which is why I possible fail to understnad these things.


All these things are realy not the basis of my "subjective knowledge" nor my reason for reminding people the place research really has in all of this. I believe science is important but it is part of a whole not the whole in and of itself. If it were only the ADD equasion that eludes to the difference between what scientest find in thier testing and the application of that knowledge into real life = how much they match *NOT*,1/3rd of my life would be so much easier to deal with= having nothing to do with ADD.

Don't feel bad Mead. When it comes to string theory or M- Theory (membranes! OH JOY!) even the experts are confounded. They use math to test what they can't verify any other way, and math provides something in that it can be used to describe items that otherwise can't be described. So it's good for seeing if certain aspects of a theory fit known observations, and it's good for "visualizing" things like extra dimenstions we'd otherwise have a great deal of trouble conceptualizing.

Richard Feynman ( a famous physicist, and populizer of physics (quantum and otherwise), once quiped that, "Anyone who claims to understand quantum mechanics obviously doesn't understand quantum mechanics". In short, it makes predictions that match observations, but we aren't sure why it works that way at all. There are no shortage of very elegant explanatory ideas, but very little way to prove them.

Also Mead, your contributions to this thread have been as meaningful and valuable as anyones. Your difficulty with staying focussed on large amounts of text and dyslexia (you did mention you were dyslexic right? I get mixed up so don't get mad if I'm wrong) means you are working much harder to make these contributions, but it does not make you any less intelligent.

I think if you really knew me as a person you wouldn't find me particularly smart or gifted compared to other people. I know the stuff I know about this because it's one of my passions and thus I have no difficulty focussing on it. In addition to that I don't seem to have picked up on any of the common co-morbid learning differences that are seen so often with ADD. It does look as though I have some mild dyslexia, but I seem to have learned relatively early how to compensate for that (at least in material I am deeply interested in. It tends to show up a bit in conjunction with material I am much less interested in and thus less able to focus on), and it is, in anycase a VERY mild tendency for me. Dyslexia, although called a learning disorder, and although quite real in it's effects is another "Non-disorder". It's a matter of context. Reading and writing are not "natural" human behaviors and not all brains are wired in a manner conducive to these activities. They aren't broken, they're just different and cognitive scientists are still trying to find out what that difference means besides dyslexia. It more than likely has it's own set of advantages as well.

Anyway, my point being, that not everyone's learning strengths run to retaining visual information well. Some people learn best hands on. Some like me are combinations of hands on and visual (verbal lessons are difficult for me because I can't retain what I hear well. I've been known to forget whole conversations in the space of five minutes) and some people are verbal learners. This has nothing, whatsoever, to do with intelligence. Think of these differences as being based on different kinds of interfaces with the outside world. So, the fact that we are having a discussion about stuff where a lot, if not all of the available information (for purposes of this discussion as we are online and not in a classroom) is only accessible through a visual pathway is going to have an impact on people who's learning methods are different.

So, I'm back to my initial statement. You've made no secret this text intensive discussion is difficult for you, and yet your interest in the proceedings is high and you've ended up working harder than those of us who have less difficulty with this particular media to sift through everything, but still done an admirable job and contributed both VERY good questions and information. Personally, I think that shows a great deal of intelligence and creativity, as well as interest and motivation.

I'm flattered you think I'm smart. I just think you should acknowledge that you are at least as smart as I am and, quite frankly, possibly quite a bit smarter. I don't think I'd do anywhere near as well as you are here if I was outside my element. Verbal discussions are enjoyable but difficult for me because of the afore mentioned memory issues (less of a problem with topics of interest but still very much a problem) and a great deal of difficulty keeping my comments organized, on topic and in a coherent order. Writing, actually forces me to organize my thoughts somewhat (although if you read my posts you can see I still wander all over the darn place).

Why the big long winded peptalk of a post? That's easy. :-) My shorter posts trying to make this point didn't seem to work. You were still being apologetic when you have nothing to be apologetic about.

I believe that a lot of times people who don't have ADD or other similar types of issues (Big generalization, and yes I know there are always exceptions) are very free and easy with judgements. I think that often leaves those of us who function differently feeling badly about ourselves because we've been told we are stupid, or lazy, or thick, or crazy, or what have you.

But Mead dear, you are among others here who know that different isn't bad and know that snap judgments are usually VERY inaccurate, and know far better than most that a difference in the way we think and take in new information or put out info we already have is just that. A difference. It has nothing whatsoever to do with intelligence.

Do you believe me now? :-)

Some people learn best hands on. Some like me are combinations of hands on and visual (verbal lessons are difficult for me because I can't retain what I hear well. I've been known to forget whole conversations in the space of five minutes) and some people are verbal learners. This has nothing, whatsoever, to do with intelligence.

I can learn all three ways. Those test you take that are supposed to tell you what kind of learner you are always come up with me being almost completely equal in all three areas. I can re-hear stuff I hear and re-see things I see and re-do things I have done. The problem is I can get equally confused using the same all three learning styles! :eyebrow:


Emphasis on this part



verbal lessons are difficult for me because I can't retain what I hear well

Have you tried to convert what you hear into a visual. I have a very visual daughter and she has a hard time with this, so I asked her to try to paint pictures of what the other person is saying. She says it does help (when she remembers to do it) It may go slow at first but once it is learned I am sure it you will find your self able to do it automatically.






Do you believe me now? :-)

E-Boy I always believe you how can I resist such charm?





I believe that a lot of times people who don't have ADD or other similar types of issues (Big generalization, and yes I know there are always exceptions) are very free and easy with judgements. I think that often leaves those of us who function differently feeling badly about ourselves because we've been told we are stupid, or lazy, or thick, or crazy, or what have you.

Agreed. . . . except there are times that I think people with ADD also make or have bought into these snap judgments. I see it happen all the time here, people get mad because others see things differently. Others are like me (which is no better really) get mad because we feel others are cramming their ways of seeing the world down every ones else’s throat, via invalidation.


I think it is a good thing to discuss the difficulties having ADD can bring, as if we did not struggle with things that a majority did automatically or with little effort then it we would have no reason to label ADD and thus treat it. The label must come before the treatment. How ever when every time some one tries to see some thing positive about being ADD some feel the need to bring the person’s view back to the negative. That really really bothers me. Not because what they have to say will necessarily change my mind however if the other person is fairly new to the positive concept this behavior could vary well put them back into the “dark ages”. I think people should be allowed to feel special and good about being different. A persona’s perspective as every thing to do with their attitude, attitude has a lot to do with behavior and choices , which very much affects life. I think feeling the need to come along with some sort of gloom and inferiority doom is a disorder worse than ADD.

Science via empirical evidence and subjective experience are not at odds with each other well they shouldn’t be because both are ways of gathering information about the world inside and out side of ours selves. They are both attempts at understanding and expanding our knowledge.

The studies do helps us to understand the natural world both inside and out science is however not more powerful or any more meaningful. At one time I felt completely helpless and dependent on Gary who began being a jerk. He did some thing that aroused my anger, in that anger (mostly at myself) I decided I was no longer going to be dependent on a man who was a jerk. I decided I was in charge of me, and quit thinking acting dependent. Sept 12 2005 was the day