MishMish

Glider said: "You are talking about distinguishing between not remembering something you learned, and not remembering something you never learned. The former is amnesia, the latter isn't." I finally figured out what didn't make sense here I thought the full answer basically addressed the question of the need for some outside standard, which I had already known but was asking if there was one, and took it as a negative Personally think (actually know, though do not know the details) a pure distinction between failure to learn/forgetting not the only choices, and had hoped an answer might get into more of that But what am coming back here for is because finally figured out what had confused me in the above. Is "learning" as such applied to episodic memory? Not to get bogged down in semantics, and I think I can see a case for it, but am also not sure how you mean it Not sure this will clarify. I know I had friends who went to the same schools and can recall instances of talking to them off school grounds, but (with very rare exception, two or three at most) not on school grounds or any image of their being on school grounds (not surprising given the limited number of on school grounds memories I have) That is more what am referring to, and not sure I would use the term "I learned" I talked to friends at school for that sort of thing, but could easily be missing something May be minor here, but added to my confusion, and having identified why thought to mention. And hoping clarification might follow

Thanks Lucid Dreamer, am not trying to reach an emotionless state or any such thing, was just wondering as I had asked if absence of some emotion is possible. I see no reason to rule it out a priori except perhaps the complexity of the system you note may provide enough redundancies (and make an answer to my question impossible at this point)

I agree complete absence of all emotions would be impossible May not be entirely appropriate an anaolgy, not sure, but hypothalamic injury or perhaps congenital can result in damage to the thirst center so even if one is dehydrated one would not feel thirsty, though google searching found someone say for primary adipsia fewer than 100 cases reported so complete absence is obviously rare Still, was thinking along those basic lines and wondering if similar could apply to what are considered the basic emotions as well.

If I take some physiological repsonse as the divide betwen cognitive and emotional systems, makes sense to me poor body awareness could be involved with poor ability to recognize/identify emotions So if am on the right track on that would be part one of my question Part two is thinking complete absence of some emotion could be possible assuming the emotion first requires ability to process some sort of sensory input, and if that can not be processed could not be some emotional response

I expect for short term memory she's referring to working memory. I supposedly have exceptional working memory, though didn't think to ask how many digits and was just based on repeating back strings of numbers and letters in forward, reverse and mixed order, not a significant skill of itself but I can see without it would be a problem. I do not think "wanting" to remember something significant. From experience having a framework to insert something into seems more critical, why I like that cognitive hook Glider keeps referring to (though have still not found much on.) And while I don't think "wanting" to remember significant, both attention and some sort of emotional involvement seem to be. For the moment am going on the idea that I did not have to study through most of school and so nothing forced me to much attend to it (and am kind of unobservant as well,) that best I can tell I have a somewhat compartmentalized filing system making discerning overarching frameworks more difficult and also why my recall is so context dependent, and in many situations have little emotional involvement as cause for my poor memory, though could just be rationalizing and still haven't got it figured out in the least Despite that, did well in most of school and I expect everyone just assumed I was "learning" on account of that Same as my exceptional working memory and just being intelligent by basic measures to start with may help me compensate for some of the other cognitive/emotional lacks you may have exceptional strengths that disguise how your memory/learning is operating and, as Badchad mentions you might hit a limit where they are put to the test

You're welcome, hope they help you figure it out

You might do better looking for an online discussion board for OCD and talking to some people who have been diagnosed. That can give you a more practical real life persepective than the clinical can, though I personally think considering both perspectives the way to go Can't say I know any offhand to recommend however, though there must be a ton of sites devoted to OCD. You would just have to pull some up and see what serves your purpose or where you feel comfortable The two sites below have both general information and discussion boards for a variety of diagnoses. Am not sepcifcally recommending either and I have only visited them occasionally, but may give you a start: http://brain.hastypastry.net/forums/ http://www.healthyplace.com/

Thanks for the clarification

Kedas, whose post is your comment in response to (and what do you mean)

I don't think you'll get an argument about the value/need for better critical thinking skills. But I would not take quite such a cynical approach to nursery rhymes. Ability to recall factual information and ability to analyze it critically are both required, and while I never had any formal critical thinking type training and feel the lack can also guarantee having relatively competent analytical skills and poor/unreliable/context dependent (take your pick) recall for factual information is most frustrating And back to nursery rhymes themselves, I agree with the basic use, but think has also been diverted for the pleasure effect as well, sort of like how some people salt their food because they like the taste of salt though get more than enough in a typical US type diet. The taste for salt (which I don't share) serves a function, but its application is not always functional [edited as had left out a step in my thoughts]

Somewhat off topic but brought in by Coquina's comments on early puberty, most seem to assume that sexual behaviour begins there, but do not mention the adrenal androgens and not sure why. Did a bit of a search a bit back but did not find much

Martin, I'm not sure I understand your question It occurred to me there's two questions being answered for meaning though, why they were written and why teach them to kids. And I do not think there being meaning or a lesson can be assumed, someone had mentioned nonsense verse as well Chldren also seem to like paradox or unreal verses, so I think it's more the form itself

I knew that many at least of the Mother Goose rhymes had political explanations, though had not known what they all were But am not sure the assumption that nursery rhymes need serve a purpose per se is a good one, especially if looking for some message in them Don't know the correct terms but some form of meter and rhyme helps with memory, as Skye pretty much alluded to, and kids (and adults) tend to like alliteration Would say the form has a use for memory, we like it because that use is programmed into us, and perhaps some rhymes became children's rhymes after the message had lost its significance but the form still appealed

I realize the need for some sort of outside reference, and was not asking how the individual himself could tell (though if I could remember either remembering or forgetting might help) Did not think it likely, but still thought to ask if there were other means or tests however. Anyway, appreciate your comments

Thanks for the distinctions, but am trying to figure the past makes me ask I have rather poor memory, especially for personal events though factual recall can be unreliable or not available on demand. Most striking example for me is can't come up with more than a dozen memories that took place on school grounds for the first 5 1/2 years, and am being very liberal in what I consider a memory. Certainly was aware enough to get through my school days, but have reasons to think they may not have formed terribly well to start with, a hazard perhaps of living in the present, and I do not remember remembering them, but also took a good knock to the head (jumped off a train and smacked it on the pavement) so head injury is a possibility too Not meaning to go into my particular situation though of course so I can think on it is why am asking, I can understand if you have a starting point how one could distinguish, but was wondering if there was some way to distinguish after the fact if the memories are due to some sort of amnesia or just never quite formed to start with

Am curious how one would distinguish, if possible, between retrograde amnesia and failure to encode memories to start with

Recently cut my hair rather short (about an inch) and kept getting facial flushes and occasionally chills. It's been something over a week, and yesterday did not notice, though is now growing out again too, but is it possible my head just had to relearn how to regulate body heat given the new circumstances?

DNA: "IQ is the measure of the copacity of your mind. How much it can hold." The different subtests measure different things. Not sure just what all (have still not found a good site to explain it all) Nor am I sure how the subtests are weighted, as they must be or I do not see how I could I have ended up with the full scale score I did (was mostly consistent on the subtests, but quite poorly in the object assembly (37th percentile) and less than I would rather think myself in matrix reasoning and picture assembly (both 84th) yet still ended up with a standardized full scale of 138 putting me in the 99th) I took the WAIS, by the way, and also have no idea why they include a general knowledge category. That seems in direct contradiction to the "capacity" idea, as did both word defintions and sayings interpretations (not sure which subtest that latter falls in) I also became uncooperative towards the end (stupid questions, it annoyed me) but not sure which subtest(s) that would have affected, but not those in which I did poorly, am sure of that (even if I did poorly in some they were more entertaining) And no, IQ definitely does not predict actual performance There are also skills people need to have to be able to utilize or apply their mind. I also expect there must be some basic level beyond which an increase in IQ is not much benefit, a diminishing returns sort of situation, though would not know what that might be. But most people seem able to navigate the world and function in it quite well without having any remarkable IQ

Still not finding much, found this though which was what I thought had been the case: "Pseudoseizures. Often a manifestation of psychologic illness, pseudoseizures are usually poorly stereotyped, varying in form and duration. Most epileptic seizures last less than 3 minutes, but pseudoseizures may have a much longer duration. They are much more likely to occur during times of stress and do not typically occur while alone or during dangerous activities such as cooking or drinking. Without capturing a spell on EEG, it can be difficult to differentiate pseudoseizures from epileptic seizures. Comparing a prolactin level drawn within 15 minutes of a spell to another drawn 24 hours later can be informative. Epileptic seizures are usually accompanied by a significant rise in prolactin level over that of the normal circadian variation. However, a normal prolactin is not helpful because not all seizures are associated with a rise in prolactin level." http://www.vh.org/adult/provider/familymedicine/FPHandbook/Chapter09/04-9.html Am stilll uncertain which seizures may not be assoicated with elevated prolactin, or how one would in those cases determine if the seizure was a real one or not Will keep looking, though the question is apparently of more personal than general interest

How reliable is prolactin considered to be for distinguishing beteen seizures and pseudoseizures

Tom, with a bit of snipping: "One for systems that correspond to things that are known a priori, and one for systems that correspond to things that are known a posteriori." "That is, in science there is a way to verify axioms independently (albeit not in the absolute sense, but by induction) of the formal system used in the theory. You know you have enough axioms when you can derive statements that can describe all past observations, and that predict new results." I am not getting to this board much at all lately, and am going to have to think on this That last part is how I have described the criteria for accepting some model as the preferred, however Someone once told me I seem to have a problem with induction, and he is probably right as I have no idea what he meant, and I have never been able to keep the distinction clear no matter how many times I have tried. As I said, to me logic is quite circular Even the notion that two parralel lines do not intersect seems to me must have had an observational basis (though obviously limited) leading to the abstracted principle The question has been brewing for other reasons, but the immediate impetus was two basic principles I accept, cause and effect and that for two objects to interact there has to be some common element by which that interaction can be effected They seem obvious to me, yet I can find no justification Don't mean to pester, and appreciate your help on it, feeling too I have missed something somewhere however...

Sayonara: "I haven't studied much anthropology but I'm guessing that the development of imagination and abstract thought processes would be directly linked to the development of language." I would disagree. Language is descriptive. Before one can can talk about a concept, the concept itself must exist Sayonara: "There's a significant survival advantage in being able to plan and co-ordinate everything from hunts to locating a new community, so abstract thought processes would have put significant selective pressure on early man to develop those abilities or be left by the wayside (that's actually kinda backwards but it's easier explaining it that way)." This I would agree with, though do not consider it "backwards" but related to consciousness (and not meaning by that to restrict consciousness to social animals, the ability to evaluate options and plan would be useful to a more solitary species as well)

Thanks Tom Realized I had not expressed my question very well, but you got at it I look at it in much more basic terms, that one can not get outside the full system to find some outside objective standard. At some point, one is simply going to have to say something is, by defiition or by calling it axiomatic (and I may be using the term wrong here,) otherwise at some point everything will eventually be self-referential My question is how one determines what validity that has, or how one knows one has reached that point beyond which there are no further assumptions to make (how I have always defined the independence of axioms, perhaps that is incorrect?) I can not find one, it all looks quite circular to me (my primary problem with logic I think) Also occured to me after posting perhaps this really belongs in the philosophy section, but be that as it may

Ju00: "by the way, the theory is that we as human races have reached the final stages of our evolution and unless something drastic happens(and happens very quick), we will not evolve further as a species." "The" theory?

While I would say anyone who claims protection against Alzheimer's is rationalizing, quality of life is a factor. For the schizophrenic who is self-medicating the risks may not outweigh the benefits. For the non-schizophrenic who still enjoys smoking the benefits may still outweigh the risks.