Slashdot Mirror
The Future of the Most Important Human Brain
mattnyc99 writes "About a year ago, we watched live as neuroanatomist Jacopo Annese sliced the brain of Memento-style patient Henry Molaison (aka H.M.) into 2,401 pieces. Since even before then, writer Luke Dittrich — whose grandfather happened to be the surgeon to accidentally slice open the H.M. skull in the first place — has been tracking Annese and a new revolution in brain science. From the article in Esquire: 'If Korbinian Brodmann created the mind's Rand McNally, Jacopo Annese is creating its Google Maps. ... With his Brain Observatory, Annese is setting out to create not the world's largest but the world's most useful collection of brains. ... For the first time, we'll be able to meaningfully and easily compare large numbers of brains, perhaps finally understanding why one brain might be less empathetic or better at calculus or likelier to develop Alzheimer's than another. The Brain Observatory promises to revolutionize our understanding of how these three-pound hunks of tissue inside our skulls do what they do, which means, of course, that it promises to revolutionize our understanding of ourselves.'"
While I have no wish to demean their efforts, this approach still seems somewhat brutal to me. I'm no neurologist, but isn't this still a rather macro-level view of things, with the cutting process still causing damage to the fine structures they want to study?
It seems likely to me that future scientists will look back at this in not too long with stifled laugher and perhaps a little shock at the approach.
Clearly this a front organization--for zombies!
You will pry my brain off my cold dead...
No you won't.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
This is as misguided as studying Einstein's brain.
It is very unlikely that a boost in intelligence or a unique way of thinking is due to a physical brain property.
Brains are just brains, an organ, and most are not that different -- certainly the differences are not the cause of the vast personality and thinking differences and intelligence disparities we have.
No, someone's intelligence or outlook on the world is a combination of upbringing, willpower and education. Anyone could be as intelligent and knowledgeable as they wanted to be, if they wanted to be.
Think bog standard PC's, that can all run different OS's on the same hardware, each with different behaviors.
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
If I were HM, I'd have probably say "Don't give me that 'contribution to science' BS." If he were alive today though, I am sure I would thank him for his contributions anyway.
For once, Slashdot has been too fast publishing an article. This one should have been released in Halloween, telling that scientists are competing with zombies in the used brains market or something similar.
No, someone's intelligence or outlook on the world is a combination of upbringing, willpower and education. Anyone could be as intelligent and knowledgeable as they wanted to be, if they wanted to be.
How young are you?
This is one of the most naive things I have ever heard. Some folks are never going to be rocket surgeons.That might not be ok with the current everyone is a genius and everyone gets a trophy crowd but it is the truth.
This is so unbelievably unintelligent that if it weren't so long I might think it was a joke.
I often resort to extreme examples when explaining the ability for variations to people who deny variations exist. So with that in mind, an extreme example of a different kind of brain would be the autistic mind. Clearly it is different. It has little to nothing to do with the way the person was raised or educated over time. It is how their brain was created. If a brain can be created to that extreme of difference why not changed in more subtle ways that allow enhanced mathematical capabilities or greater empathy.
Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't happen or exist.
The whole point of science and these studies is to figure these things out. To learn about the things we can't see but effect our daily lives.
No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
Sorry to disagree with you, but clearly the physical properties of the brain matter.
Which physical properties? Well, we need to find out.
Think about it for a while. All my life I would have given a leg and an arm to learn to play any musical instrument (went to schools for years) and could never get beyond the really easy stuff; a seven year-old child could out-play me every time. But I have a gift for analisys and abstraction, thus I'm good at writing software.
You say upbringing, education and will-power. Well I had all three: mom was a music director who wrote music and poetry, I went to very good music schools and I yearned to be able to play music; I simply don't have the right "hardware".
Try running Deep Blue's software in your bog standard PC, see how far it gets.
Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out. - Cardinal Wolsey
I've often found the people that never get fantastic jobs/lives, don't care about that anyway.
Maybe that's the sour-grape syndrome though...
Affect
Here at the UW we harvest thousands of brains for various medical studies, and generally freeze half of the brain and slice up the other half and stain that half with various dyes, while taking electrical and other measurements within a few hours of death.
While an approach like this described in the article might be useful for things like Pick's Disease, it would pretty much prove useless for Alzheimer's Disease, since that is an age-appropriate measurement of tangles and neurolytic fibers.
Things like childhood diseases or other gross abnormalities might be interesting.
But if you want to know if you'll get Alzheimer's it has a lot more to do with the exact APOE genes you carry and your general cardiovascular health and brain injury risk factors than it does other stuff. And by the time you harvest these brains it's way too late.
And things like Parkinson's are more about mitochondrial failure to function correctly than about general brain health - it's not just your brain, it's the rest of your body too.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I'm not young enough that you should disregard the above. Yes, some folks won't be rocket scientists(I assume that's what you meant), because they don't care.
Anyone with that aspiration can teach themselves what they need to, go to school or get training, and do it. Especially for that type of discipline(physics/math) where prerequisite knowledge is more important than original thinking.
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
No, someone's intelligence or outlook on the world is a combination of upbringing, willpower and education. Anyone could be as intelligent and knowledgeable as they wanted to be, if they wanted to be.
It has been shown than intelligence is highly heritable. Identical twins raised in different environments will almost always have nearly the same IQ. Adopted siblings have vastly different IQs.
On the other hand, it has been shown that the rich and powerful don't have better genetics or IQs than average people. The class system and inheriting wealth is what keeps them rich, not their willpower.
This is the typical argument of why the poor deserve to be poor because they choose to be stupid and have no willpower while the rich deserve to be rich because they choose to be smart and have a lot of willpower. The only problem is that it is completely false.
Maybe you're tone deaf or something, either way it wouldn't relate to the point I made above.
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
I live by the Hacker Ethic: do what you love to do in life, and be passionate about it.
You're argument has so much more authority when you use insults...
Anyway
I am not denying variations in brain exist. I am saying teh variations in brains are about as meaningful as variations in livers, and are not the causes for different types and levels of intelligence in people.
Your use of an autistic mind as an analogy is interesting, but flawed. An autistic mind is a defective brain. Using my PC analogy before, an autistic mind is the equivalent of only being able to boot in single user mode.
Sorry, but I have read a lot on this and never found anything to meaningfully support that differences in the physical brain correspond to personality or intelligence. The differences in brains influence our personality or intelligence just as much as the differences in our livers or hair.
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
Well, some brains are better than others.
My children are very good in school, i.e. 'smart.' This was a foregone conclusion. We knew, absent damage, they would be this way before they were born. All you have to do is look at the lineage.
We could also predict they would be individualistic, egocentric and disrespectful of authority. All you had to do was look at me...
These predictions came true because genetics, which determine the way the brain grows or can grow, matter hugely. Look at the studies of identical twins, separated at birth, who had the same hobbies and even married similar-looking spouses.
What genetic properties determine this? Good question. But you can breed for intelligence the same way you breed for any other trait.
If you don't have the physical properties to be intelligent, all the studying and willpower in the world won't help. The wiring has to be there.
Brains are just brains, an organ, and most are not that different -- certainly the differences are not the cause of the vast personality and thinking differences and intelligence disparities we have.
You are wrong. Worse, you a provably wrong.
I know folks who never could do such a thing, no matter how bad they wanted it. I imagine you do as well.
These folks vary from borderline disabled to just a little slow. These traits are clearly nature not nurture as they have perfectly functional siblings.
So now you claim differences in brains can make them defective?
Where exactly are you drawing this line you so suddenly found?
It's odd for you to have a pro-science polemic and be using quasi-religious terminology like "how their brain was created". It's currently a very open question when exactly brains are "created", with most scientists believing it isn't at any one time. Physical brain structure changes significantly over someone's life, especially in the earlier years; it doesn't spring from the womb fully preprogrammed. Experimental interventions on other mammals (can't do that research on humans) show that environmental and stimulus differences can even induce physically different brain structures.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Tone deafness could be the result of brain structure for all we know at this point.
Are you a republican by any chance? This sounds like the beginning of an "anybody can be rich, but only those who worked hard actually achieve it" speech.
I agree that determining what makes people different brain-wise may not be evident on a "macro" level, i.e. how heavy it is etc. But the idea that everyone is the same except for willpower and effort seems misguided.
If someone applied such an argument to a physical activity, say hitting a baseball, running a 40 meter dash or vertical jump, it would immediately be seen an fallacious. Physically I could have been A-Rod or T.O. if I just tried? No, I think not.
Mentally I could have been like Einstein or Tesla if I just thought hard enough? Been Mozart if I just applied myself to music? please.
Sure, everyone has the potential to be better, no one is using all their talents perfectly, some are using them minimally, but that doesn't mean they can do anything they set their mind to.
I fail to see how this applies to what I said. Please feel free to elaborate.
Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: [to Igor] Now that brain that you gave me. Was it Hans Delbruck's?
Igor: [pause, then] No.
Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: Ah! Very good. Would you mind telling me whose brain I DID put in?
Igor: Then you won't be angry?
Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: I will NOT be angry.
Igor: Abby Someone.
Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: [pause, then] Abby Someone. Abby who?
Igor: Abby Normal.
Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: [pause, then] Abby Normal?
Igor: I'm almost sure that was the name.
What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
Brutus! Stop playing with that knife, you're making me nervous.
What magical fairyland do you think "willpower" lives in?
Also, just parenthetically, PCs compartmentalize their differences rather aggressively, for cost reasons; but it is actually relatively simple to observe the hardware differences between PCs running different OSes: just look at the arrangement of magnetic domains on the HDD platter surfaces. Hardly easier than just booting the sucker; but 100% physical and hardware based.
Of course intelligence or a unique way of thinking is due to a physical brain property. What other possibility is there? Fairy dust? A "soul"? Now I agree it may be that the physical properties which remain after death and dissection aren't enough to reconstruct the physical properties important to intelligence or unique thought, there are certainly enough properties there to make the study worthwhile.
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
Why can we not do this research on humans at least in a observational manner?
By that I mean using MRIs and other non-invasive techniques compare brain structure to lifestyle, education and important events in a group of peoples lives.
I was going to mod you troll, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you really do believe that all brains are created equal- but in that case, and by your own argument, you must not be very motivated or lack the discipline to learn the truth of the matter. I wonder what could account for that?
Well there are differences in people's organs. Some people can drink more than others. Some are better athletes, etc. People have different hair -- mine happens to be thin and fly-away, which annoys me.
This idea that all people are of equal capability intellectually is just really silly. You think geniuses like Newton or Einstein didn't have something different going on in their brains besides just upbringing or education?
Anyways, this particular brain is interesting for it's known impairments. An unfortunate slice that causes memory failure teaches us about how the brain functions. We've actually learned a lot by doing tests on people for brain surgery. More detailed information of physiology can only help.
What?
Let me clarify for you, since the simple is not obvious
Brains are all physically the same, with the significance of variations being negligible.
Sometimes brains have an error that is reproducible, and that has the same symptoms.
There. Now, what don't you get?
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
You are a brain. Even if that brain is very influenced by the world around it, you are still a brain.
And as a neuroscientist let me tell you, brains ARE different.
There is more to science than physics!
www.iomalfunction.blogspot.com
brains are not stamped out of the same die like computer processors... THEY GROW.
you're an idiot.
I fail to understand what you fail to understand.
Let me try that again: Some people don't really give a shit about how much money, power, knowledge or fame they get. If someone finds physics interesting, that doesn't mean they're going to become a rocket scientist, or have any desire to do so.
Well, if I made a few changes to some genes your brain would be about as useful as a liver. Are you trolling? Because you are basically arguing against half a century of research in the cognitive and neural sciences with no evidence.
There is more to science than physics!
www.iomalfunction.blogspot.com
I think you are the one who does not get it. Your two statements are contradictory.
If variations are negligible, and an error is a variation.....
But I have a gift for analisys and abstraction, thus I'm good at writing software.
You should put those programming skills to use creating a spell checker :)
This illness for which H.M. is studied is one with gross pathology that should be very visible with the method used. The study of Einstein's brain did the most important thing that a scientific experiment can do: it falsified a hypothesis. Nobody really knew that Einstein did not have gross pathology until they looked. This is not to say that the person who kept Einstein's brain in a jar on his desk for his whole life had any right to do that, but preserving the brain for the imaging tools of a later generation was a good idea.
Bruce Perens.
I made no claim that they would.
My only claim was that some people lack the capacity to do so and that may be and most likely is a result of differences in the brain.
It seems to be due to a part of the brain missing.
What the people above don't seem to get is the prevalence of many types of defects is not evidence of radical possible differences in a working brain.
A particular car will be shipped out and most will work. The ones that work all work the same. The ones with defects may be grouped into the different defects. Yet if you fix that defect, it will be just like all the other working cars.
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
HM was certainly a very important brain, but not *the* most important. There are plenty of patients out there with very similar injuries that have yielded equally (if not more) important discoveries. It is frustrating to see someone present research on medial temporal lobe damage that contradicts studies with HM and see other people be like "But HM!." They have to be reminded that six patients tested with superior methodologies to those around 30-50 years ago should come out on top. He made valuable contributions, but as a field I'd like to see memory research move on from HM.
There is more to science than physics!
www.iomalfunction.blogspot.com
Can you provide a source showing why you believe intelligence is highly heritable? My research indicates quite the opposite....inheritance can play a part, but nurture plays more of a role than nature.
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
We could also predict they would be individualistic, egocentric and disrespectful of authority. All you had to do was look at me...
And with this, you have demonstrated your complete ignorance of genetics. Well done.
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
I made no claim that they would.
I never said that you did. :|
My only claim was that some people lack the capacity to do so and that may be and most likely is a result of differences in the brain.
Yes, I agree.
Why couldn't you be like Einstein or Telsa? Those guys were knowledgeable more than anything, and kept thinking and thinking until they found something that made sense. You will find the people who make new discoveries these days are the same, laboring away at it.
The worst thing we did was put these guys on a pedestal of intelligence, when they were probably not that more intelligent than many people on /.
For the record, what were the significantdifference found from studying Einsteins brain? Oh, right. None.
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
So a variation that is a defect in a working brain does not indicate other traits could be the result of similar variations.
That is some might fine hair splitting you are doing there.
I would never take the spelling nazis' fun away! I'm a civilized being -.__.-
Now I'll know if you're English or American!
Analysis is a word I always have trouble with, in my native language is "analisis" and I always get confused as to where the "y" goes.
Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out. - Cardinal Wolsey
It's fake. Saw the mic pack on the belt-back of a "victim", the same that was on her "accomplice" mother.
FAKE !!
Please list your research. It seems to contradict the majority of the literature out there and would be interesting to read.
My statements are not contradictory. You're extrapolation that the presence of defects means the presence of meaningful variations of a working model is false. That's all.
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
So where do you think they got that drive/willpower if not from some physical difference or chemical one?
Jesus Christ dude.
How many times do you have to try and understand?
The presence of various defects of a working model do not imply the presence of meaningful non defecting variations of a working model.
You seem to be convinced that's the case. Care to back it up?
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
Wait, a simpler analogy.
If you buy a new car and there is a problem with cruise control, does that mean it is correct to infer that there may be cars of the same model that have significantly better cruise control?
That is the leap you are making, and it is not supported, either logically or with our observations.
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
Agreed, completely.
As you say though, it falsified a hypothesis -- yet people still continue down the same road. Why?
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
Do you believe that nothing causes physical changes in the brain?
No matter the cause nature or nuture, physical changes on some level must occur. How else does memory work?
The "the arrangement of magnetic domains on the HDD platter surfaces" is something done by the software to standard hardware, so it still goes with what I said above.
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
Funny how that terminology, and seemingly pro-science polemic with one extremely simplistic example thrown around (how one can even think it's sensible to use "the PC" for this?), appears to be mostly just a slightly stronger than usual manifestation of certain universal "errors" in...physical structure of the brain / the workings its neural network. Things like just-world phenomenon, correspondence bias or illusory superiority (which indeed partly disappear in some disorders...or indeed even if somebody "simply doesn't care")
One that hath name thou can not otter
nurture. not nature.
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
You've been making claims this whole thread, yet have not provided a single source.
You seem to be arguing from what you personally believe, none of which is backed by current understanding.
I'd point you to the wiki page on the human brain, and when you have a better understanding I would be interested if you hold the same beliefs as you do currently.
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
If I know that the problem is a defect with this model. Like say I sliced the cruise control wire. Like in this case.
Do you think you could run faster than Usain Bolt if you just tried?
Everything about you is physical you could no more want to be smarter and become smarter than you could want to be taller and become so.
I wonder what the brain looks like of the guy who came up with this idea......Hmmm.
I agree with this (and many others from above about the same issue) that genetics play a HUGE role in defining a person’s brain and "wiring".
I come from a H.R. Manager and a Salesman...so unfortunately I have a great ability to read people and define them into work ethics, habits, and can use that to get desired results. What does this mean? Nothing really important, only that the abilities and traits held by my parents were passed on genetically to me, and as I have passed them on to my daughter. I see qualities of me and her mother surface daily.
I have even had instances of my father’s negative willpower come out of me for periods, so I would say that this could be passed on genetically as well. But I'm by no means any type of scientist or have any experience in this, but it's just what I've gathered.
You only think that because your brain is different from theirs.
Your ?????? "You're. ???????
It is very unlikely that a boost in intelligence or a unique way of thinking is due to a physical brain property.
Huh? If not physical then what? Spiritual? Thought is just chemistry, chemistry is just physics.
The brain is a physical object. Mine is, right now, affected by beer. Simple chemistry. Well, maybe not so simple but still chemistry.
Free Martian Whores!
A brain is a brain, huh? Tell that to the kid kid with trisomy 21, fragile X, or numerous other genetic disease that cause brain malformations.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7084/full/440588b.html
http://www.sheknows.com/health-and-wellness/articles/800980/ability-to-handle-stress-depression-linked-to-variations-in-brain-structure-and-function
Everything is physical, everything. No magic, No soul, deal with it. Even nurture causes directly observable changes in the brain.
Brutus! Stop playing with that knife, you're making me nervous.
Fabulous technology news, Caesar! March have launched their own IDE!
So is that a physical/structural change or chemical one?
Humans do not operate on fairy dust and unicorn farts.
No, it is something that is directly observable as a structural change. You could take the platter off and see it with an electron microscope. It would be about as much a structural change as you will see on a turned off PC.
You've been making claims this whole thread, yet have not provided a single source.
That's the pot calling the kettle a nigger.
Tell that to my oldest daughter, who had her umbilical cord wrapped around her neck when bein born and suffered brain damage as a result.
Retardation is incurable, but ignorance is not.
Free Martian Whores!
Or practice at the right age. Why is there an abnormal number of "perfect pitch" incidences in Tonal Language speakers. (See the Science Monitor Article from a half decade ago.) Neural pathways are built because we create them. Grey matter is created cause our body pooped it out.
Saying one is more important than the other is like saying a sculptor is more important than the stone they chiseled out on. Both were integral in creating a work of art, and both can be studied, but should not be taken independent of the other. (Unless you're just being foolish for the sake of argument.)
He's not a troll, just ignorant. Hopefully this thread educated him.
Free Martian Whores!
The same applies to the dissection of other organs as well. For instance, any dissection of the heart is inherently biased towards the cutting planes defined by the dissector (source). The true arrangement of muscle fibers in the left ventricle of the heart (more precisely the existence of sheet structure) is still a subject of hot debate because of this. Obviously, one might think that by now, we should be able to just pick an organ and throw it into the best relevant imaging scanner (CT, MRI, PET, etc.). The truth is, there is still anatomical information that even state-of-the-art medical imaging modalities cannot reliably reveal.
As an example, consider DT-MRI that measures the diffusion of water molecules along the tissue fibers in an organ. The discretization in the data is such that only the local average orientation of the diffusion of water is known at any given location. To obtain more useful anatomical information, the full fiber pathway in a region needs to be reconstructed, a task called fiber tractography. Different computational methods based on different anatomical assumptions lead to results that are often contradictory (as is the case in the heart models described in the article cited above) and since there is no ground truth (remember that the dissection is biased), we currently hit a dead-end.
Hopefully, as more dissections (like this one) are performed and the data is made available publicly, we will eventually be able to faithfully reconcile pieces of what we observe in medical conditions, in medical scanners, and on the dissection table.
Note the GP said gross pathology not itty bitty little difference.
We continue down this road, because there must be something changing. How else are memories recorded?
Anyone with that aspiration can teach themselves what they need to, go to school or get training, and do it. Especially for that type of discipline(physics/math) where prerequisite knowledge is more important than original thinking.
You're not serious, are you?
You mean I can train myself to have perfect pitch, like some musicians? Or to have perfect color sense, like artists? Or a deep understanding of multiple dimensions?
That's like saying that we can all play basketball like Wilt Chamberlain, or ride a bike like Lance Armstrong.
Each brain is drastically different, each is capable of different things. No amount of training will make my daughter an engineer like her brother in spite of her nearly perfect math skills. No amount of training will give my son the empathy to deal with animals like his sister has.
Brains are as different as our bodies, and no amount of training will let me run a marathon; my body won't allow it. For some, no amount of training will let them keep up with me on a bicycle.
No amount of training will let most people keep up with me in my field of intellectual expertise; I have great vision in that one area, and I'm a total doofus in others.
Yeah, I can learn to flip burgers. But that won't let me compete with an accomplished chef, who has talent and vision.
If I spent 10 years maintain a correct diet and exercise regime, then yes, I could quite likely run faster than Usain Bolt.
Just like your diet and what you do to your body can determine how it looks/acts during your life, the way you treat your brain can result in differences
Someone who studies most of their life and tries to come up with new ideas will have different "software" from someone who watched TV and parties most of their life. These difference are not in the "hardware" or structure of the brain, simply in the "software".
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
My brain is not normal. Ask anybody who knows me. However, it works better than yours.
Free Martian Whores!
I know that everything is phsyical, genius.
Never once did I mention magic or a soul, so please don't try and put words in my mouth.
What I am saying is that the personality of a person, or the "software" is a result of nurture.
To clarify, all working non defective brains start off the same and have no meaningful variations. (point 1)
The neural pathways that may be mapped as a result of upbringing and environment will not be observable upon death. (point 2)
Thus, studying the brains of dead people is misguided.
If you can show some evidence against point 1 or 2, I would appreciate it. Let me ask you again: What meaningful variations did we learn from studying Einstein's brain? Oh, that's right. None.
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
You're not arguing a point that relates to the claim I made. You are arguing an adjacent point, essentially a strawman.
Otherwise, show me where I stated anything that is even close to fairy dust/unicorn farts/souls etc.
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
All brains don't have to be created equal. It's pretty clear that the vast majority of the population are not making the best of the capabilities they were born with.
It was once believed that the serfs couldn't possibly learn to read, or to benefit from it even if they did learn. Now we live in a society with near-universal literacy.
We have no idea what the limits of our brains are, and thus have no way of comparing brain capacity.
If Einstein had been raised in a box, do you think his brain capacity alone would have given Relativity to the world?
Even software is physical, it gets recorded on the disks, thus changing them.
If I spent 10 years maintain a correct diet and exercise regime, then yes, I could quite likely run faster than Usain Bolt.
Not going to happen, people try that and fail all the time. They just are not built for it.
I guess if you want to be pedantic you could say that it is a structural change. The same way a two harddrives with the same files will store them in slightly different ways.
However, this is hardly meaningful, and we would learn nothing new by studying it.
A more apt comparison would be with RAM.
We spend our lives patching and updating our brain OS, and while we are alive it is stored in the same way as RAM.
When we die the power is off, and so is the BrainOS. Studying our brains will not show a persistent structural change, just as studying a RAM chip that has been without power for a day won't show anything significant.
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
That doesn't refute the OP's point. Are you saying someone who studied rocket surgery their entire life wouldn't be a competent rocket surgeon?
Dude I am totally stealing that... That is *THE* best spelling Nazi remark I have ever read.
Just write everything in code from now on, and I'm sure people (like me) will be too confused and dumbfounded to understand what you're saying, but then all the debuggers come out and flame it anyways, so I guess you're still screwed.
Funny enough that I'm from an English background and still don't understand spelling, but I do resort to spell check before every post so I don't get SLAMED by people telling me things wrong with my genetic code that I already know!
*sigh* If only I could talk through circuitry!
I'm not young enough that you should disregard the above.
Apparently you are or you've led a very sheltered life (read: filled with idiots).
Anyone with that aspiration can teach themselves what they need to, go to school or get training, and do it.
They can't.
Especially for that type of discipline(physics/math) where prerequisite knowledge is more important than original thinking.
Quite clearly you've never done advanced math, prerequisite knowledge is a small part of it while a certain way of thinking is the vast majority of it.
For example, I took the Calculus AP exam at 11 after 6 months of learning Calculus online in my free time. Generally wasn't that difficult. I learned algebra before that, of course, but I didn't even know as much or spend as much time on it as the average High School student going into a Calculus class. I'm lazy by the way so I really didn't study very hard.
That is innate intelligence. Things make sense instantly that others spend days struggling with. They always did for me. Out of the blue with no practice or training. I almost never studied for standardized tests and did better than kids who spend hours a day for months studying for them. I can put in a tenth of the effort of an average person and do just as well in most technical classes.
That said, innate intelligence is more of a threshold talent. To become great at something you need a certain amount of innate talent and then a shit ton of practice. But if you lack that innate talent then no amount of practice will help you.
Feel free to delude yourself into thinking otherwise so as to keep your ego from imploding but that is reality.
If we're pursuing good science, it's necessary for there to be another study to corroborate the first. But there are differences in brains that we can just barely see now, and for which we need more research. For example, the structure of neuronal connections matters, and it's even influenced by use.
Bruce Perens.
It's practice. But you're right - some people can, some people can't. I'll never get beyond 'average' as a sax player. And I've heard buskers play better than I do - and I always will. Luckily I play for fun. I program for money. If I played for money I'd spend more time on it, and less time programming.
"The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
You do realize that variations in livers can cause huge differences tight?
Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
Igor: Of course.
Dr. Frankenstein: Sit down, won't you?
Igor: Thank you. [sits on the floor]
Dr. Frankenstein: No no, up here.
Igor: Thank you. [sits on a chair]
Dr. Frankenstein: Now... that brain that you gave me... was it Hans Delbruck's?
Igor: [Crosses arms] No.
Dr. Frankenstein: [Holds up hand] Ah. Good. Uh... would you mind telling me... whose brain... I did put in?
Igor: And you won't be angry?
Dr. Frankenstein: I will not be angry.
Igor: [Shrugs] Abby someone.
Dr. Frankenstein: Abby someone? Abby who?
Igor: Abby Normal.
Dr. Frankenstein: [Slightly angry] Abby Normal?
Igor: I'm almost sure that was the name. [He and Dr. Frankenstein laugh]
Dr. Frankenstein: Are you saying... [Stands] that I put an abnormal brain... [Puts hand on Igor's hump] into a 7 and a half foot long... 54- inch wide... [Grabs Igor by throat] GORILLA?!?!?! [Strangling Igor] IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE TELLING ME!?!
"The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
But there IS a physical difference between two formerly identical PCs that have different OS's installed on them. You can't see it on the outside but its not magic and pixie dust. The magnetic properties of the IDE drive are changed in distinct and decodeable ways that dictate how the OS works and operates the rest of the hardware of the PC.
Studying the brain in this way is to try and figure out what the equivalent is to the magnetic storage method of the hard drive and then to somehow decode that storage method.
Even if every brain were physically identical (which it's quite obvious they aren't) the "combination of upbringing, willpower and education" that makes you you must be stored somewhere inside you in some way. It's a pretty fair assumption that it is in the brain somewhere and somehow.
You might think you are nothing more than your brain, but I am really my soul.* The brain is just a channel to communicate the will to the body.
---
* "Soul" in this context means "testicles."
So clearly all those other world class athletes are slacking.
Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
I can't escape a feeling that what they are doing is akin to slicing apples and then taking high grain black and white photos of those slices - in order to find out how they taste.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
The wiki page? Really? You call citing the wiki page 'research'? Dear god man...
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hbm.20398/abstract
Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
Science refutes Calvinism and the attendant ideology of success by person effort and willpower.
Not every person who is unsuccessful is willfully indolent - in fact most are doing the best with what they have.
Not everyone who is poor deserves to suffer and die - many are, apart from their genetics, no different than you or I
If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
In my view you are bascially arguing that all brains are equal, ignoring obvious medical issues (head injuries, severe oxygen deprivation, missing genes etc) there is no substantial variation. To me this is an argument for a form of perfection - all brains being made more or less identically. A perfect manufacturing process if you will.
I hope I dont have to argue that nothing is perfect.
Could many people do much better than they currently do with what they have? I have no disagreement with that, I just disagree that everyones upper limit is the same.
Increased size of the inferior parietal lobe, statistically significant increase in the level of glial cells, enlarged Sylvian fissure, vacant parietal operculum. That's what we discovered in Einstein's brain. Unfortunately, Einstein is only one statistical point. Without more genius brains, it's difficult to say what exactly caused his genius. Therefore, let's study -all- the brains of dead people. As many as we can get. The one thing we can say from that is that there are clearly physical differences in brains, although if you dismiss everything different as a defect and irrelevant, I guess that doesn't help much.
Also, as far as the computer comparison goes, I think that's particularly apt. Especially if you consider the practice of binning. Not all CPUs are created equal, even in manufacturing processes as close to identical as we can manage. Some work better. The same thing used to be done with guns. Before leaving the factory, sharpshooters would put a number of rounds through them, and some rifles would be more accurate than others. Those that went past a certain threshold would be put aside and sold separately, as the Winchester "One of One Thousands." It happens with screws, there are various grades to define how close to spec the threads are manufactured.
With the best precision manufacturing capability history has ever known, we still can't manufacture a screw to perfection every time. And you think that there won't be variations among brains?
I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
The Funny English Language
No wonder the English language is so very difficult to learn.
I sometimes wonder how we manage to communicate at all!
We'll begin with a box and the plural is boxes.
But the plural of ox should be oxen, not oxes.
The one fowl is a goose but two are called geese
, Yet the plural of moose should never be meese.
You may found a lone mouse or a whole set of mice,
Yet the plural of house is houses not hice.
If the plural of man is always called men,
Why shouldn't the plural of pan be called pen?
If I speak of a foot and you show me your feet,
And I give you a boot, would a pair be called beet?
If one is a tooth and a whole set are teeth, Why should not the plural of booth be called beeth?
Then one may be that and three would be those,
Yet hat in the plural wouldn't be hose.
And the plural of cat is cats and not cose.
We speak of a brother and also of brethren,
But though we say Mother, we never say Methren,
Then the masculine pronouns are he, his and him,
But imagine the feminine she, shis and shim, So English, I fancy you will all agree,
Is the funniest language you ever did see.
Why can’t people from all over the world speak English?
Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out. - Cardinal Wolsey
i get that you're completely wrong, and pathetically and childishly cowering behind a james-bond wanna-be account that you use to spout ignorant ideas with no responsibility.
brains are not all physically the same.
you're an idiot.
Except... if I give you a small sample of brain, can you identify which area it came from? My limited understanding is that brain tissue is uniform in structure.
I'm not trying to side with metrix007. Maybe he misunderstood what that actually means...
Patient H.M.'s brain was NOT physically the same as all other brains. There were known changes made to it, and effects from that change that helped us do extensive mapping of brain activity which would have been difficult to do otherwise. That's the whole point of why patient H.M. was so important.
You don't appear to get anything.
"The Brain Observatory promises to revolutionize our understanding of how these three-pound hunks of tissue inside our skulls do what they do, which means, of course, that it promises to revolutionize our understanding of ourselves."
And to be exploited to the fullest extent to which human greed will allow.
With the good, comes the bad. Expecting anything else is just delusional.
Agreed, but that has nothing to do with a discussion on whether or not we can learn something from studying a dead brain.
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
It is well known that when a brain suffers trauma or damagage, other parts of the brain can be "rewired" and refit for a different purpose.
This still has nothing to do with the claim I made above about "standard" brains.
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
At about... oh... 100 random students (as in - didn't really pick to be there by themselves, not their favorite subject but they have to this subject anyway) you will start to notice those that simply... don't function properly.
Not retarded or stupid even, their minds simply can't bend around certain concepts or tasks.
The best they can do is just memorize - or cheat.
Think bog standard PC's - where one has an integrated graphic card and another comes with a pluginable one with similar performances. Similar on paper.
And let's not even go into what makes a "standard" PC. Even two "standard" Macs are not exactly the same, let alone two random home-built boxes.
As for "Anyone with that aspiration can"... everyone MAY not be able to.
Ramanujan was a mathematical genius who was cast aside by two other professors before Hardy decided to take a closer look at his "scribblings".
And just as things were starting to pick up for him - he died.
Invictus may be a nice poem - but it is full of shit.
Particularly the last two lines.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Some people do have a physical advantage, it's true. However given most people starting off equal, the person who puts in the most effort will be rewarded.
Have you any example of someone who had an analogous physical advantage in their brains?
Einstein didn't and Newton probably didn't.
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
I'm not ignorant.
People are arguing a sandman, yourself included, saying that I am saying that no physical changes occur
What I am saying is that all working non defective brains start off equal, and that changes made are not persistent.
am saying that the biggest cause of intelligence or a way of thinking is upbringing and environment, and that studying a brain will not show anything special.
There are exceptions where we may learn something from studying an exceptional brain, but people with exceptional brains are going to tend to be strange in some way. The people who seem smarter than most have a greater interest, or try harder or whatever.
If you can show me any definitive research that shows that brains that are not defective can be significantly different, and those difference can lead to increases in intelligence, I would appreciate it.
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
i find personal interest in a subject has more to do with your perceived intelligence in that subject than any brain power, your right though, some people will never become rocket surgeons, but IMO that has very little to do with their brains ability and more to do with personal taste. if I'm not interested in becoming a surgical lawyer and studying it becomes boring for me I'm not going to retain the information and have no desire to understand the concepts. in much the same way I'll never be a good laborer, i have no desire to work my self to physical exhaustion so I'll never get proficient in it.
We could also predict they would be individualistic, egocentric and disrespectful of authority. All you had to do was look at me...
Wow, it sure is Lamarckian genetics in this thread.
March have launched their own IDE!
What does machine architecture have to do with an IDE? What am I missing here???
Yes. By definition when you have a PROBLEM it means that the state of things is not what it should be, that it could be better.
...whether we can still put into a great white shark.
You are a moron. Studying patients like H.M. is how we learn things and how they become well known.
I wasn't going into the success/willpower thing at all.....I don't think anyone "deserves" better because they are smarter, even though that is generally what happens in reality.
There is more to science than physics!
www.iomalfunction.blogspot.com
My minivan is different from your eighteen wheeler. Which one is defective? How do their differences contribute to their respective abilities?
The amygdala (a brain part) in males is much larger than in females. The reverse is true for Broca's area. Which gender's brain is defective? Do these differences matter? Which one would you fix? I guess these are the sort of questions these guys try to understand.
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
Patient H.M. was never able to regain the ability to form new long term memories, so your argument of how well-known "rewiring" of the brain is, is directly counter to what H.M. showed us.
In short, your arguments are nonsensical and uninformed. You should leave this to those who work in neurosciences.
i think you need to understand that to be the best or one of the best you need to have the perfect / really good hardware, but anyone can learn how to run and run well, it may take longer for people to achieve a percieved success, but its still possible... Think of it this way, because we are so similar in nearly everyway, even the slightest variations in function are accentuated. am i going to be able to become a world renowned long distance runner? probably not, am i going to be able to teach / train myself to do long distance running? without a doubt if i had the drive to. In my opinion given the right circumstances any non defective brain should be able to learn the requirements for almost any job. if you want to use your PC as an example, some PC's come with more ram or faster CPU, they are able to handle more tasks or deal with tasks quicker, it doesn't mean your standard computer cant run the same tasks.
Funny enough I always remember as a child watching some of Gallaghers old skits and one in particular talking about the same topic...in reference to the words "good" and "food" and how they are pronounced. "Good" being pronounced [goo d] and "food" being [fu d]....so shouldn't it be [goo d] [foo d] or [gu d] [fu d]!
Always makes me laugh to think of how we can take something so natural (communication) and completely screw it all up!
And yet, as anyone with a bit of age and insight will tell you, we are most definitely more than just a brain. The grey matter is just a significant part of the vessel that aids in our perception of its dimensional space..
Who would have thought that identical twins brought up in a similar way would be... similar? i bet if you sold one of the twins to slavers you would have very appreciable differences in tastes and intelligence.
Sometimes, the 'parent' button would be best left hidden...
~ KingAlanI
All my life I would have given a leg and an arm to learn to play any musical instrument
MONKEY PAW!!!
Sewage Treatment Facilities - "Our duty is clear."
I think you just shot your own thesis in the foot, if not the head, and you came full circle.
You are now claiming it is a physical/chemical difference and not just the ethereal "willpower." If that is part of the physical difference in brains, then there will be enough variation in brains that even "normal" people can not achieve what they want because now they lack the necessary physical/chemical characteristics to do just that.
GP is correct -- if there is a something which truly "effects our daily lives" it is very much worth learning about, and a marvelous field for science to explore.
Let me try that again: Some people don't really give a shit about how much money, power, knowledge or fame they get. If someone finds physics interesting, that doesn't mean they're going to become a rocket scientist, or have any desire to do so.
The GGP was stating that there are distinct physiological differences between people, which result in profound differences in ability. You seem to be supporting the GP's assertion that a person's intellectual ability is purely a product of their environment, and also claiming that people who don't achieve much fail to do so because of lack of motivation, not because of lack of intelligence.
If you've ever tried to teach a complex skill (programming, mathematics, music) to a group of people, you'll know that intrinsic human aptitude for a given task varies dramatically from person to person. Some people understand intricate systems effortlessly, while others will never 'get' systems above a certain level of complexity. All of us hit the wall somewhere, but that 'somewhere' ranges from 'ability to understand why maxing out your credit card is bad' to 'some of the finer points of quantum physics'.
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
Thoughts: ;)
1. I think you mean straw man. I presume a sand man argument is one that puts your opponents to sleep?
2. While education certainly plays a part, and learning to think is a part of that education, I can't see how you can support the statement "all working non defective brains start off equal".
3. I'm curious as to your definition of 'defective'. You seem to think that there's some factory spec. for brains, and that most of them conform to this spec whereas some don't properly implement it.
4. While not 'definitive research', consider that there's often less intellectual variation between siblings (who generally share both upbringings and genetic makeup) compared with friends of similar socioeconomic status (who share similar upbringing but are genetically unrelated).
5. If 4. didn't convince you, try this paper and its references for information establishing "a significant and substantial genetic influence on cognition."
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
Our society has near-universal reading and writing skills, true. For anything more advanced, though, I think we're starting to see the limits of 'the average' human's capability. Consider that despite decades of widespread attempts to teach scientific method and basic mathematics in schools, we still have almost universal scientific and mathematical illiteracy.
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
I really hope people actually read your post instead of simply responding superficially to your slightly superior tone.
- signed, the guy who didn't understand why the other kids in primary school DIDN'T get 100%
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
Not if they don't have the innate capacity to be a rocket surgeon. And even if they could be a competent rocket surgeon, they'd never be a great rocket surgeon. It's like saying "take a guy who's absolutely hopeless at driving, and train him for his entire life to be a racing driver." He might eventually have some measure of success but he'll never be a Schumacher or a Loeb.
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
effect v. To make or bring about; to implement.
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
About a year ago, we watched live as neuroanatomist Jacopo Annese sliced the brain of Memento-style patient Henry Molaison (aka H.M.) into 2,401 pieces.
Now, I'm not a neurosurgeon, but that strikes me as a somewhat risky procedure.
Did they at least try medication first?
Our society has near-universal reading and writing skills, true. For anything more advanced, though, I think we're starting to see the limits of 'the average' human's capability. Consider that despite decades of widespread attempts to teach scientific method and basic mathematics in schools, we still have almost universal scientific and mathematical illiteracy.
"Mathematical illiteracy" is pretty hyperbolic considering a) how advanced mathematically the average person in our society's math skills are compared to, say, that of someone in a South American tribe whose society and language has no concept of any number beyond 'three', and b) how often your average person has the opportunity to make practical use of more advanced math skills.
I mean, what would be the mathematical equivalent (for the average person) of reading the newspaper every day?
Also, we see great differences in average math skills in different countries. Canada and the US are neighbours, yet Canada ranks consistently higher in math skills (and science). A couple of rankings I've found have placed Canada about 5th out of industrialized nations, and the US about 24th or 25th. Clearly the US hasn't come anywhere near its math skills potential (and, I would halfheartedly argue, neither have Canada or Hong Kong).
Actually, what I wrote was not some sweeping blanket for all of mankind; variations in humans would not make this possible. What I wrote was actually an addition to the previous ideas, not a new separate one.
*Some* people have no interest in astrophysics and consequently will never become astrophysicists. Others *want* to become astrophysicists, but lack the (brains, intelligence...) to do so.
"whose grandfather happened to be the surgeon to accidentally slice open the H.M. skull in the first place"
The surgery was no accident - it was a planned procedure that the doctors (correctly) thought would stop the epileptic seizures that H.M. was experiencing.
Memory seems to be the exception, but there are many cases of patients with brain damage having their brains rewire or reconfigure to restore functionality.
http://books.google.com/books?id=0Cm0PoI-7RMC&pg=PA147&lpg=PA147&dq=brain+damage+restructure&source=bl&ots=JxsoyNs8Km&sig=Xcp755HRxj-RNOb_JirvU_q-cu4&hl=en&ei=UpfGTJ7wGYf2tgPgg53-DA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
You sure as hell don't work in neuroscience, or you would know this.
Sorry, have to post AC. All those downmods decreased my limit.
Hi,
Thanks for a civil reply.
1. Yes, definitely meant strawman.
2. Given healthy humans, the brains are not going to have any significant variations. The differences sure as hell won't count for differences in intelligence. How they are raised and what they are exposed to will.
3. Defective as per what I have said in the rest of the thread....tone deaf is missing a part of the brain that working brains otherwise have, autism or downs syndrome would be other examples.
The factory spec is pretty spot on...it's called DNA. Unfortunately some people still have this idea that who we are is mapped out in our brains physically, which simply isn't the case. Brains are about as different as thumbs, i.e. not overly. It's what we put in them that matters (yes, there may be some physically changes, but whether or not it is persistent is a separate thing).
4.Interesting, I've found the opposite in my research. Take twins and raise them in vastly different environments, and they will have different IQ's.
5.That abstract was interesting, but it concludes that there can be a genetic influence, not that genetics are responsible. I still maintain that nurture plays a far more pivotal role than nature.
How young are you?
I don't think it's really a matter of age. Even a young, but reasonably observant person, is capable of seeing that organic factors will have significant impact on intellectual capabilities. Nurture may have a tremendous impact on what you end up being able to do with what you were given to start with, but what you were given to start with is what is going to establish where the boundaries lay. My guess for second most important factor would be nutrition in the early years, followed by nurture in the early years.
The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
What counts as a defect?
What counts as a variation?
Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
Then that's something you can agree on. Are you going to answer his question now?
Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
People in the nature/predetermination camp are just as stupid as those who believe only environmental factors matter.
Nature/genetics determines the size of the cup, and nurture/environment determine how much it gets filled in a life.
What people can achieve in their lives is a combination of ability and opportunity.
I suspect that classic Von Neumman computers, and their crazy-fast-but-not-wildly-different descendants are not a wildly good analogy for the brain. Adult neurogenesis is a well established phenomenon, with some demonstrated links to behavioral change. At the level of crude analogy, the brain exhibits at least FPGA levels of hardware plasticity, quite possibly greater.
On the other hand, as you note, a brain never actually shuts down(with the limited exception of a few cases of people being frozen and surviving). Consciousness ceases about once a day, or under anesthesia, or certain types of trauma; but the brain is "in flight" 24/7/365 from when it starts to grow to when it dies. There may be some amount of important activity that is never hardcoded into cellular structures that are well preserved after death.
However, even in that case, it doesn't mean that studying the structure teaches you nothing. Consider the computer analogy: by design, certain things, like secure-swap crypto keys, are deliberately kept in RAM only, and never flushed to disk. They are lost on shutdown. However, the kernel code that implements the secure swap is visible as a magnetic structural change, and the function of SRAM is clearly visible from studying its circuit diagrams, which can be inferred by imaging it silicon.
A researcher given a computer and forced to study it without turning it on could(with considerable difficulty) read the HDD contents, determine the initialization vector for that architecture, read the BIOS code, etc. and infer that, were the system still running, there would be a crypto key stored in RAM for the secure swap. He wouldn't be able to tell you what the key was before the computer was shut down; but(with some seriously arduous work), his purely physical study could tell you a great deal about what to expect, and what areas to study, if you had a method for imaging the RAM contents of a running computer.
You don't get to know everything about every computer; but a useful composite view can be assembled. Similarly, with the brain, there are probably certain activities about which you just can't say much based on a dead brain; but structural study should be able to shed a great deal of light about where to look in a living brain if you want to see different functions in action. "This structure, based on its neural anatomy, looks like a timing mechanism. Expect to see periodic waveforms on electrodes in a living organism." "This area has strong connections to the retina, it should light up like a christmas tree when visual stimuli are presented.", etc.
Google "Ides of March"
Yes, some folks won't be rocket scientists(I assume that's what you meant)
No, I'm pretty sure he meant Rocket Surgeon
Or... we lure them to the observatory and Nuke it from space
simple solution - start with a live brain and work quickly
Might I recommend this "Anonymous Coward" fellow? Get enough Slashdotters with scalpels and we'll do the job in record time!
Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
I am really my soul.*
...
* "Soul" in this context means "testicles."
I really, really hope you appreciate how incredibly gay you just made Mortal Kombat.
Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
Genetics certainly play a significant role.
I doubt my neighbour's dog is going to do that well in matters requiring significant intelligence no matter how hard he tries.
Similarly I'm never going to beat Usain Bolt's record.
I am so surprised to hear everyone here speaking so matter-of-fact about this. I believe the book is far from closed on these matters. While it is true that genetics has a large hand in the way the brain forms - it is also quite possible (and I would say probable - with the exception of certain mental disorders) that this is just our brains default configurations. The brain is extremely adaptable - and while certain tasks are naturally easier for some, it rarely makes them impossible for others.
:)
The climb may be uphill, and the speed bumps more often and difficult - but this does not exclude someone from an activity. Its not that I _can't_ learn to play the guitar, it's simply that the amount of work I'd spend mastering that skill is substantially larger than it would be for many other people - so large it may not be worth it to me. I find, when learning something new, the classic "ah-ha" moments seem to, for me personally, confirm this idea.
The brain, however, seems to be much less adaptable the older we get. Can't teach an old dog new tricks I suppose
Comprehensive solutions via a competition of ideas like no other.
I have to agree with the parent poster. The parent is proof that someone can be as dumb and ignorant as they chose to be, and they are doing a fine job too. :-)
Sure enough, the cow costume was hanging up next to the superhero outfit and sailors uniform. (S,Spud)
we still have almost universal scientific and mathematical illiteracy.
What exactly do you mean by that? By analogy to actual illiteracy, I would assume that mathematical illiteracy denotes an inability to do any math, even addition and subtraction, which is clearly not the case. What level of mathematical knowledge do you think constitutes basic literacy?
Those folks would be very rare. Most people, if they applied themselves, could be 'rocket surgeons.* What it takes is an active interest in the subject. It's all motivation and obsession.
Einstein was obsessed with finding out about a certain aspect of the universe. He got a lot of help from working mathematicians and scientists.
And no, I am not young, nor am I naive. The idea of IQ, in the public usages, has hurt us far more then it has helped us, regulating people and expectations on a test, not on motivation.
*Nice reference.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I disagree.
Interesting, dedication, obsession.
I would argue the serotonin levels are the real way to measure success and aptitude, not 'IQ'.
Yeah, some people get it sooner, but that's more of an artifact of the individuals thinking pattern, not a general IQ. I know people who would be considered extremely smart that just don't get music. (I hate to break the Smart = good at music myth, but their you go.)
I know people who get music automatically, but couldn't get OO programing to save their life.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Sure, it's about interest, not a magical 'IQ'.
BTW, I know obese people, blind people, and have met a man with one leg all who have ran a marathon. I suspect the on'y reason you think you can not is because you don't want to do it; Which is fine. At your age it may be too late to win the Boston marathon.
And contrary to what TV may tell us, pretty much ayone who properly applies themselves can be a great chef. The work isn't really that hard.*
*I was trained as a chef, but I found it a horrible job, surrounded by uneducated people. I was trained in 1983-4; did the gob in 85. I consider it 'Shit I did while waiting for the computer stuff to take off'~.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
gee, I wait for your definitive paper on autism. After which I'm sure you'll gt you noble prize.
Before you write that paper, let me give you a hint: it's not an extreme difference.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Wow, you can cut and paste as well, truly you are a genius~
English is the easiest languagte on the planet to communicate in..it's also one of the ahrdest to elarn all the rules. It stsill doesn't axcuse you from misspelling 'analysis'.
Also, you might need to look up 'Anecdote'.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Naturally I fat fingered 'hardest' and 'learn'. Oddly, that butchery did not show get a hit with spell checker.
Stupid blood pressure meds making my hands shaky, and stupid me for not proof reading backwards.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Sure, it's about interest, not a magical 'IQ'.
BTW, I know obese people, blind people, and have met a man with one leg all who have ran a marathon. I suspect the on'y reason you think you can not is because you don't want to do it
I'm a personal trainer and a group fitness instructor, as well as an endurance cyclist. Nope, my body will not stand up to the pounding of a marathon. No way, no how. After 13 miles, my knees and hips are done.
And contrary to what TV may tell us, pretty much ayone who properly applies themselves can be a great chef. The work isn't really that hard.*
*I was trained as a chef, but I found it a horrible job, surrounded by uneducated people. I was trained in 1983-4; did the gob in 85. I consider it 'Shit I did while waiting for the computer stuff to take off'~.
You might have been a good cook, but to be a great chef you need to have a love and a deep understanding of food. If you consider the job shit, your food will taste likewise. I am a fair cook; I've run kitchens before and still do on occasion. A friend of mine is a great chef, and nothing I can do will allow my meager talents to match his.
You missed a few more than that. I wondered if you were making an ironic joke!
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Considering a human can be powered off if sufficiently cooled and powered back on without a loss of OS I disagree.
Your intelligence, like everything else about you, is partly determined by genetics and partly by environment.
There are people born with excellent eye-hand coordination, and some without. Some grow muscle mass easily, some do not.
Some are genetically tall, some genetically short. Some are predisposed to being fat and some to being skinny.
Why do you think brains are all alike, when none of the other organs are? Your premise is illogical and counterintuitive and as such, it's up to you to show research. I'm not sure any has been done.
Free Martian Whores!
Why'd you post the most insightful comment of this thread AC? I'll bet you know better, but the environment around here may have you skittish. ;)
Talent and vision can be gained. Physical height is different, which makes Wilt Chamberlain unique. Anybody can be Van Gogh. Only tall people can be Wilt Chamberlain. Got it?
Or you simply didn't have the right teachers or the right mindset. I found that I wasn't able to play music particularly well either, until I altered my mind and talked to various professional artists/creators.
However, this brings up an interesting point. The whole point here is to scientifically study the human brain. So it doesn't surprise me that these concepts that can't be scientifically proven (yet) are being derided as liberal equality feel-good ideas that we all have the same brain capability.
Brains may form different physical properties as a result of their evolution/development throughout life, but most functional components in the brain all work the same way, and many people are capable of things they are not aware of. Or put another way, very few people reach their full potential, which is why we don't see van goghs or mozarts everywhere. Actually, these people were obsessive about their craft. Mozart probably analyzed more scores and sheet music than any other musician before. He was extremely dedicated. It didn't just happen.
Actually I do. And you'd understand why Patient H.M. being such an exception was so important to research if you did.
Sorry for posting AC...my post quota expired
I am not saying they are all identical, I am saying they are all alike. Think of it this way....everyone's arms are very very similar, i.e. alike, but none are identical. Some arms may have defects which cause them to work in different ways. All arms that are not defective tend to work in pretty much the same way however.
I just think that environment plays a far more significant role than genetics.
My premise is logical and I have supported it logically, and it certainly can't be counter-intuitive if there is a lack of current understanding and research. Indeed, based on our observations....it is intuitive.
You realize Einstein was not anything special right? He put in the work and came up with something that worked..., there were a lot of other original theories, they were just wrong.
He was also wrong about an awful lot of stuff we know today is right, and his IQ was nothing special.
We have to stop putting people who make discoveries on some sort of intelligence pedestal....it's baseless.
Bad example for your position. Mozart was playing by the time he was four years-old and composing a year later. How much sheet music could he have read from the time he was born?
The truth is that we don't know. We might find out soon, perhaps never.
But I don't suscribe to the idea that we all basically have the same brain potential, it is not true for other functions of the body, why should it be true for the brain?
Examples abound: lactose intolerance, color blindness, alcohol metabolism difference by genre, etc.
Again, no one knows if indeed we have the same brain potential or how and why it varies, if it does.
Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out. - Cardinal Wolsey
It is the difference between going to sleep and turning off. In sleep mode everything is still in ram, once it is turned off its gone forever.
The importance of H.M. is the extreme localization of the brain damage. (It was surgically induced, after all.) Due to ethical considerations, his case is unlikely ever to be reproduced. It's generally best to steer clear of absolute statements such as "the most important", because someone is bound to take exception, but it is difficult to overstate the importance of H.M.'s case.
Your specific complaint about further studies contradicting things learned from H.M. do not detract from the importance of H.M. Are Newton's findings less important because of Einstein?
What innate capacity to be a rocket surgeon? The rocket surgeon gene?
In a sense, yes. There may not be a single gene that makes you good at rocket surgery (or any other thing), and I'm not denying that environment also has a strong influence, but there's certainly a significant genetic component in aptitude. To perform any task exceptionally, and to perform some tasks at all, you must have both in some degree. Read up on twin studies if you're interested in learning more.
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
http://ajpregu.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/291/3/R768 Here's a study among others that show the ability of the environment to override genetic predispositions. I won't dispute the importance of genetics in governing behaviour, but given the range of cultural norms experienced by humans in time frames far too short to be explained by genetics I think it's clear that the environment is the overriding factor. What I will dispute is your claim of an on-or-off state, where a person either can or cannot be a rocket surgeon regardless of their environment.
you're an ignorant hypocrite.
also, you're wrong.... completely and pathetically wrong.
you're an idiot.
Where would Slashdot be without you, MichaelKristopeit? You're always there, adding so much to the discussion.
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
a better question is where would slashdot be without all the ignorant, hypocritical, pathetic idiots.