MishMish

Rockstar, that's sort of the position I was starting from, that the emotional response proceeds from the physiologic, since posting the question have doubted if is valid to assume that as the starting point

YT, short answer yes, was focussing on Ba-on Chohen's primarily because of the conscious/non-conscious question. Given the recognition of different types of "intelligences," made me question if intelligence has come to be applied to what would previously have been considered more instictual, esp when considering differences and caught up in the "esteem building" movement Plus, of course, have yet to comprehend much less absorb much of what all have been reading to comment further...

Just took the WAIS. Did not score so high as Dreamer (138, standardized for age/gender) and can well understand how does not help in real life. And while have not specifically received the "idiot" response, generally appear smart and capable enough that when find simple matters baffling is interpreted as willful obstinacy, some sort of game or some other such moral failing What readings have done to date on autism spectrum disorders have been illuminating and sobering, as can identify how many of the cognitive deficits (and in most cases, though not all, must agree they do indeed represent deficits) do apply to me (and not to ignore the emotional, but not the topic here) Have questions myself for how the IQ is to be interpreted, having just taken it. My summation score before the age/gender standarization was 163, and not sure what that is or is not supposed to correlate to, or rather, am not sure how would turn for a different age/gender group and what the validity of that micro standardization is The summary scores are reported as verbal and performance, the index as verbal, perceptual, and working memory. Also, a difference between verbal and performance of 10 is supposedly of some significance, whereas seems to me at a minimum should be based on some sort of percent difference not absolute (they also gave me the frequency for the difference, in my case 12, as 27.8%, which pretty much shows far as I'm concerned how artificial an absolute difference is for significance) Mr L_JaKiri, will accept any explanations or elaborations you (or anyone else) care to offer

Radical Edward, guess will be patient then To the others: was recently told, for a somewhat different reason, I could rain on any parade. While not strictly true, can see cause for the comment. My apologies, was not trying to spoil the fun, just get my question back on track...

Presumably men and women have different strengths, generally speaking, in different spheres. One reason asked for a definition of "smart" however is because of the innate capacity question. Are abilities which remain largely non-conscious, for example, but which serve functioning in the world considered part of "intelligence" or not Bar-on Cohen has devised his "brain type," based on what he calls the systemizing quotient and the empathising quotient. As I have seen it used this is a screen for finding those on the autistic spectrum. Men are reportedly the better systemizers, women the better empathizers, and he carries the analogy to refer to male, extreme male etc brain type, questionable but those are the terms he uses, while those on the autistic have the extreme male brain (good systemizing, poor empathisizing) His not terribly good book elaborating the matter makes clear he thinks the terms indeed valid as generalizations, though obviously not when referring to a specific individual (I have the extreme male brain by his criteria but am female.) But also seemed to me that those abilities he uses as female strengths refer essentially to non-conscious processes not only in ability but application, whereas the systemizing abilities he refers to as male seem to refer to innate predispositions but conscious application. And will allow could have misunderstood some of what he said, I will blame the lack of cohesion in his book... At any rate, when considering intelligence seems people are usually referring to innate abilities coupled with conscious application, hence my question Iglak, have seen reference to a recent study that girls who were explicitly told before some math test (I think) that the test was not gender biased did better than girls who were simply given the test, giving support to your culture argument for the expression of intelligence

Well, will take the responses to date as a no, we have no leads... Am really not speaking of relationships here, and aside from the fact that I am sexual are other reasons would not expect this to lead to one in the real world. But none the less and questions of relationship aside, the physiological response is there, and that is what I find curious Put the question in the neuroscience for a reason, as is the mechanism am interested in and that is where I would expect to find it

Think first you're going to have define some terms, and would think "smart" a good place to start.

Any leads for the mechanism by which friendly feelings get translated into sexual attraction? Prompted by personal situation re some guy have never seen, no romantic talk between us at all, in fact bit of a nuisance he's self proclaimed asexual, though on occasion sex has been brought up in some more academic context. Just that have come to like him, and that has translated into sexual feelings, not as strong as direct lust but identifiable. Am just getting into brain stuff, interest being autism spectrum disorders, and what little have stumbled across seems to rely on more physical experience. Could be possible, I expect, is some memory activated system, previous sexual encounters leading to some sort of bonding, memory of which is now close enough far as my brain is concerned to platonic bonding to consider it the same or near equivalent and thus activate sexual attraction? Rather specualtive, if anyone has anything more concrete to go on would be appreciated

Should think would depend on just how much awareness there was, and what I was trying to get at in the bit about not being able to imagine different levels of brain function As for basic pain, as Glider I believe mentioned, should be little if any How any sensory input is being processed, and what the patient feels about any of it, I just don't have a grip on. But I do not expect either that she is able to compare notes with previous states, so that would not be a factor I take the thought of brain damage as one, not the primary but up there, deterrant to suicide. But that's also assuming I'd have enough remaining function to know the difference If you don't know the difference, either congenitally or the extent of injury is severe enough that you can not access those memories or even know they exist, how can you judge what you would think about it Why I think such questions should be left out of it, though they undoubtedly affect my opinion that I would not want to be maintained in such a state

I stole that, of course, from an atheism/agnosticism board I visited for a spell. Have no idea how current the word is in the sense I used it. Just an aside, part of why the agnostic position gets me is that the level of proof demanded does not seem to be applied equally. And I think Sayanora already clarified what I thought was careless and why. Iglak: "P.S. and such a stupid thing it was to have misconceptions about, since 1: it was [off topic], and 2: it wasn't even close to my major point. in fact, it had almost nothing to do with my first post." Not the first time I've been told I missed the point or picked up on some irrelevant detail...

Lord what a mess Okay, Iglak, yes you did make assumptions in how the hard or soft atheist might act in your "willing to listen to other beliefs" etc comments And I'm the one who introduced the probability part. Didn't mean to imply you had (actually someone else also mentioned it, but at any rate hadn't meant to be putting words in your mouth or suggesting they were) Skye, theists believe, atheists do not believe. Only Gnostics, using the root not the sense of "Gnosticism" here, claim to know, agnostics acknowledge they do not. Theist/atheist deals with belief Gnostic/agnostic deals with knowledge All I say is as as none of us can "know," in the same sense as we cannot prove reality, I see no need for the agnostic label. That's all there is, or should be, to it It is the misconception that atheists actively assert there is no god, and which you perpetuate in saying atheists 'deny," which Iglak was trying to correct I agree with Iglak in that, he's right after all, I just think he was a bit careless in how he tried to explain it

I agree. The reason I focussed on the persistent vegetative state situation is because I think of the other more as suicide than euthanasia, even if it is assisted. And am with you that in that case suffering or quality of life is a clear factor, and the patient should have the final say when his wishes on the matter have been expressed The laws against suicide are definitely archaic

Forgot about the purpose/value question, and perhaps for the best, but none-the-less: Seems to me most of my distress has been caused by trying to reconcile the irreconcileable. Having no "purpose" in life can only cause distress if one feels or is told that there "should" be one. It is the assumption that life "should" or one's life does have such a purpose I think needs questioned. I am only half joking when I say I would like to force others to see it as I do, what I would like is to get others to question the underlying assumption of the concept

Weighing in with my own thoughts Have decided agnosticism is a useless term. None of us "knows," end of question I also disagree with Iglak's assumptions about "soft" or probability based atheists and "hard" atheists or those who positively assert the gods do not or can not exist. I don't hink you can assume how they weill respond to others on that basis alone. Navajo, not all assumptions are created equal, and that is an important point to keep in mind in evaluating different systems. You can not put religion and science on the same page simply because one can not explain all unanswered questions or the other (referring specifically to gods here) can not be disproven The assumptions involved in a materialist/empiricist approach are of a different order than the assumptions involved in positing some undemonstrable entity. That does not mean such an entity does not exist, but if so it would be trivial

Taxing drugs out of price range had already occurred to me, though would say you analogy to cigarettes only supports my position. Must be some reason it's referred to as a "sin tax," if jokingly or unofficially And best not to get me started on the gov't protecting us from ourselves, seems simple enough to me, the way to do so is by ensuring that we have the appropriate information available, but that's another topic and far afield So back to euthanasia I am rather conflicted on it, the primary difficulty being how to determine what suffering, or what anything, someone who is unresponsive is or is not experienceing. I think it is very easy to conclude that since we value certain levels of awareness or cognitive abilities, and what they allow us to do, we find it difficult to accept we could live with or accept diminished levels. I would not care to be maintained on life support, have doubts about chemotherapy for that matter, but that is a position I am adopting from my current perspective, and fact is I do not know what my position would be if I were in other circumstances, and I know even less what I would feel if I were unable to formulate it at all. No one does, and that's the rub. I do not think it possible to say that the effect is extending the suffering of the patient, in other words. I do agree the laws against euthanasia have to do with the perceptions of those surrounding the case however. Whether it is an inability to accept death as you suggest, or some inane (and I think poorly formualted or at least incocnsistently applied) concept that human life is sacrosanct on the one side or the financial, time and emotional costs of supporting someone in a vegetative state on the other. I think the specific issue of suffering of the patient needs to be left out of it. I use a scale of nervous development when it comes to issues such as animal rights, the greater the level of nervous development the greater the need must be before some harm can be inflicted on the cirtter when rights come in conflict. I have applied that concept before to my position on abortion, and think it can be applied as well to situations such as the current. The problem with my position is the door it opens to euthanasia of folks with Alzheimer's or the mentally retarded, for example, a charge which would not apply to how I apply the scale as I consider mammals certainly of sufficient nervous development that the greater need must be pretty high before we should be able to inflict harm. But I can certainly see how others would take it the opposite direction.

Iglak, just came back because figured out where I may have misinterpreted your position. When you say "purpose," I interpret it as "value." And that is what I reject or think unecessary And, not to be a nuisance, but again see no way beig tools can enter in as a factor Navajo, is not so much a choice for me as just the way it is. But I expect I would be happy if I could "force" everyone else to see it as I do... As I see it, it is just another delusion, and having spent some time trying to see it as others do and doing myself no good in the process perhaps have become a bit militant on the subject Iglak, am not sure what you mean by if the purpose is at odds with what we wanted. As for your point about grounding it in neurobiology, I agree, though can not comment on how any of the specifics actually operate or give rise to that sense of control. But for day to day practical living that sense of control is as real as anything else

No, sorry, that is not what I meant. What I meant is some believers hold that without a purpose being provided by God or religion atheists must be left adrift, while I have seen some atheists counter that they provide meaning or purpose to their own life, or, in response to the Heaven question, that since this is the only life there is there is all the more incentive to find purpose in this one. What I question is the need for a purpose of any sort. And I might add, without a purpose you would be no more a tool than anyone else And yes, agree with Skye we have various desires or what have you, and perhaps that is what you were you referring to. My critters know they can get their needs and many of their desires met by acting in certain ways as opposed to others, and I am a soft touch so they are generally effective. But I doubt they ponder their purpose in life. It is that distinction I was trying to address, and apologies if I misread you

Found it, thanks

Observed and reproduced then. Someone had to cut through Though if reproduced would drop the need for multiple observers in the original step But what had bothered me because of how I handle stray or deceptful sensory input, though do not need to rely on (and generally don't have) a second observer but a second data source to confirm or refute the original Didn't know how to get around "proper" delusions. Can't, I reckon, unless I can somehow incorporate reproducibility as well, which I don't see how could, but don't know why I didn't connect that before either In short, thanks

Iglak (and Skye), okay The two (purpose & atheism) are related to a certain extent in that some claim many would become too depressed or could not handle life without the crutch of religion or God It is that basically that I was objecting to. People obviously do fine without religion, and I don't see why a "purpose" in (or to, still dangerously close to my mind) life should be any different. I have no "faith" in people either, and sometimes do wonder if it would be too stark for others (and do not mean to say anything special or otherwise about myself in that, for me it is just the way it is, I have no more control over it than I do eye color.) But I don't think it's really the case they could not handle it, certainly not if it were the common view instead of a minority As for free will & consciousness, don't know anyone who can explain that one yet. Certainly and at a minimum we have the appearance of free will, and am happy to run with that. For day to day purposes, acting as if we have control and free will serves the purpose, and serves the purpose better than assuming we have neither, so makes sense to me. Perhaps am demonstrating an inconsistency in my position here, but I think the difference is one of level. "Purpose" seems to imply a greater reach than I think appropriate, best I can think to phrase it at the moment

Dudde's hint that we're unnecessarily rehashing an old topic, or at least doing so in the inappropriate venue, aside... All of those points you mention would apply as well, with minor exception (eg health care would still be more available to the rich,) seems to me, if drugs were legalized I maintain the laws against both drugs & euthanasia are based on extending specific concepts of morality to private decisions rather than having any basis in protecting public good Minor aside, I have inadvertently subscribed to this thread (another as well) How do I unsubscribe?

Expect you did fine until this point Unless I am misreading you Seems dangerously close to a purpose to life, and there is none. It just is Thinking you have a "purpose" in life may make you feel better, but is hardly a requirement and I don't see much need to delude myself on it An aside, I don't know many if any atheists who positively assert there is no god. Most seem to come down is just a matter that for practical purposes any god is either so unlikely or so trivial is not a matter worthy of consideration

Well, I don't have anything specific to back it up, know there's stuff out there but haven't looked Wouldn't take the those who can afford their drugs argument too far either. If they aren't out robbing someone themselves, they're still supporting the traffickers and cartels, if more indirectly, and their happy ways. Legalize it, tax it, and open a new Betty Ford clinic

That hardly seems reasonable, since is the illegal aspect that increases the crime factor I wildly assert

Gecko, again should clarify that not all emotions reach the level of conscious awareness, as LeDoux is using the term at any rate. And yes, the emotions are telling you something, whether they reach conscious awareness or not, but they did not evolve in the industialized environment we live in. They are not necessarily telling you something useful to modern life. I've been finely depressed, and I do not think one can simply will one's way out of it. Certainly one can look for and try to reduce triggers or additional stressors, but that is not necessarily sufficient. His references to stress I found particularly depressing, a fine situation to be in. Severe stress inhibits the negative feedback control loop on stress, causing the fear system to be amplified even further. This may intensify not only the response to the original source of stress but to more weakly conditioned fear responses as well. These effects are not just the chemical reactions but also affect affect the wiring. Dendrites in the hippocampus, associated with at least some forms of memory, actually shrivel, apparently irreversibly, under prolonged stress Please keep in mind my readings on all this are still early (and hence my heavy reliance on LeDoux at the moment. I definitely like his approach and find him an easy read, but he is also one of the few I have much read at the moment, so any priority given to his position is a consequence of my limited readings to date.) Am primarily interested in autism at the moment, and am flipping back and forth betwen the psychologists and cog-sci trying to get a grip on the topic, and have definitely not absorbed all I have read