MishMish

A negative means test sounds more acceptable than a positive one, while what makes for a competent parent seems hard to identify for me, is easier to identify certain factors that would make for a poor one. Would not use income as an absolute basis, however, though if it would throw anyone onto public assistance seems a reasonable disqualification. The "unfairness" of random sterilization really doesn't bother me, biological factors already do that to some extent, and I expect enough people would be reasonably adequate parents that for the level of population reduction required some of them would have to forego anyway. Which also means the negative means testing idea may not be adequate to the situation. In addition, this would really have to be implemented globally to be effective, though because of the consumption factor reducing in the industrialized world would still have some impact, should think

That emotional processes can affect cognitive processes. Depends on how welcome they are, I guess, if you consider them getting in the way or not First would be helpful to know that by his definition "feelings" is basically the awareness of "emotions" and not identical. His work is with fear, and his view is that what the non-conscious emotional system has learned may be suppressed through reconditioning but not completely eliminated. Since the emotional system is set in motion through direct sensory input and prior to any cognitive involvement, and as long as the emotional system has stronger connections to the cognitive than the other way around, he did not seem to think much of "controlling" the emotions as you seem to suggest, but did npt really speculate on it either

Me: "which I find that" Sorry, poor editing...

Last I heard it might be restored after all, which I find that pretty disgusting Anyone know at what point refeeding syndrome becomes an issue? Just curious, she's under "care," if that is what to call it for being jerked about so, so would not expect it to be an issue in her case, but went through a spell of severe undereating myself once. Got myself back on solid food, but had gone ketotic and was having gag reflexes when I tried to eat, so have just been curious on how severe the imbalance or state of starvation need be before refeeding becomes a critical issue

Am with you on both the close your legs & be smart comment & the but for some reason want to pass on my genes. I don't have kids, but not by positive choice, just don't see it as responsible given my circumstances and at this point don't expect it to happen, but would without hesitation if circumstances allowed. As for targetted (or some means test for allowing one to have kids) am uncomfortable with that myself. I don't pass my personal means test, I guess is what it comes down to, but I am not sure what criteria one could establish that really would correlate to qualified parenting. If I thought that could be objectively established I might change my mind, but see too many not only personal variables but situational ones. Am also uncomfortable with how well we could predict which criteria would be beneficial, in the sense of designer children, which is the other direction that scenario would lead The primary objection as you note is this sense of entitlement to unrestricted reproduction. Am not quite sure where that comes from. If the, not sure which word to use here but let's say insitnct, is for sex and kids are just a consequence, seems to me random sterilization should not much interfere with either any "rights" or with the gene pool in the form of unintended consequences

Can't say I've won many converts to the idea, and certainly there are practical problems to be hashed out, but seems to me random sterilization, say of every third kid, would be one fine (and non-eugenic, just to forestall) way to stabilize the population...

If there's a reason science should be important to the humanities instead of the other way around maybe that's it right there

I've no idea about philosophy, will accept "practical" instead of "valid," however, for my position And not to quibble.... Gecko: "I do. however feel compelled to drop the word "objective"." Glad to hear that

LeDoux has a couple of books on the matter, The Emotional Brain & Synaptic Self, you might be interested in By his explanation (and as I understood it,) yes the emotions do take the "low road," quick and dirty, with supplemental information taking the high road after processing in context, and as the connections from the "emotional" domains (eg the amygdala) to the cognitive are stronger and better developed than the reverse, our emotional states are more likely to intefere with or affect the cognitive than the cognitive to affect the emotional As for reading emotional states, I am undecided. The basic (whichever they may be) I think probably are hardwired, but am much less sure about the complex, even the basic I think are open to misinterpretation (at least or esp concerning those with different neurotypes) and the complex I think may not be hardwired at all, perhaps still being sorted out evolutionarily All personal speculation that last

Just read in one of the news magazines about volunteer "patients" who allow new doctors/students to practice on them and give tips for what would make uncomfortable procedures more comfortable or less intimidating

And it is this which can't be done, if I read you right We can't get outside the system or identify some independent variable, all we can do is accept some propositions as axiomatic or definitional, the rest is dependent on everything else and the aceptance of those axioms & definitions I agree YT's is too narrow because it does not allow for the as yet unquantified, but that's minor, and agree "it works." I just like my models model better... Gecko: "Perhaps "Components of Existence influence one another in a manner which is subject to objective observation". Better?" No. You're going to have to define "objective" instead of "reality" is all.

Blike: "For medicine, I think the humanities are crucial. It is important that physicians learn how to connect with humans in a very real sense, and have a greater understanding of the human phenomenon." Agreed, but am not sure the humanities will get you there Have studied both (biology & ME studies, don't expect me to remember much about either) and take essentially the same approach to both. Apply the "clinical" approach to myself and others as well, something some have a hard time with if applied to them and do not seem to think possible if I apply it to myself So I do not think the subject matter will influence the approach one takes, but is more likely one's overall approach to the world influences one's choice of subject matter or interests I tend to think the humanities could benefit from the sciences and a bit more rigor, but I may be a bit biased in the matter as well Faflone: "I'd much rather have an excellent surgeon who knows jack about literature than a mediocre surgeon who is a great philosopher" True, but I figure for most cases most doctors are competent enough, the difference being some are willing to listen to and address the concerns of their patients (or so I have heard,) most seem to think they are the dispensers of wisdom and we're supposed to just accept what they say uncritically.

What is the context? I don't see much point in brain in the vat speculations, but best I can tell there are certain propositions accepted by definition or as axiomatic, and everything else is built from those I see no way to get to an absolute reality, and am quite happy dealing with the world using a models based approach The better the explanatory & esp predictive value of the model, the better the model, but there is no way to prove in an absolute sense that it is the "true" state of affairs. Silly question, you're having to answer, to my mind

I should have thought to add: presumably in autism as certain areas of the brain may be irregularly wired, the functions normally performed by those areas are taken on by other brain regions. I've heard people talk about this plasticity on the boards, but haven't come across the specifics in my readings yet. Anyway, assuming it is so, I would expect later brain injury, whether from the vaccine or something else, would not have the same effect. Perhaps someone else knows around what age the brain becomes less amenable to such plasticity?

As I say, I'm just getting into this as a topic, but myself I don't credit the vaccine theory. Austism (as opposed to Asperger's) seems to generally be diagnosed say 2 1/2 - 3 yrs, around the time the vaccines are given? Or so I've read. I think there's just a lot of panicky parents willing to pick up on any coincidence. Institutionalization, severe neglect etc can produce behaviours similar to those seen in autism, how much that may stunt brain development, and if in the same manner, I've no idea (eg some of the presumed thought processing/language peculiarities,etc.) I haven't looked into that much, and what I have seen has said in a good environment the kids can be "rehabilitated," or whatever. The only specific drug I can think of offhand that was mentioned re fetal brain development was thalidomide, not even sure where they got that data since I thought it had been banned for preganant women anyway. But I'm pretty sure I've seen reference to other drugs or possible infections during pregancy, just don't remember what or where There's also an idea out there that high testosterone in the womb may be a factor, I'm skeptical of that as well Also cited as a potential factor for homosexuality, again seems to me to be grasping at straws, but I could easily be wrong I guess. The guy doing research into autism and fetal testosterone, there may be others bbut the one I know of, just put out a book: The Essential Difference. I don't particularly recommend it) Not much help, am I? What can I say, it all seems very undefined to me and I guess I shouldn't have said anything since I'm just getting into it, but it has become my new obsession and so was hard to resist...

Have just become interested in autism/Asperger's First, many find phrases such as "victims" of autism offensive. Just a side note. The primary diagnostic difference between autism and Asperger's is age of language acquisition. As such, many do not distinguish between HFA and Asperger's. But more to the point, severity of symptoms is not itself a diagnostic criterion. There's still far too much diagnostic confusion for my taste, and I've just gotten into it anyway. Three brain regions I see referred to as being affected pretty consistently are the prefrontal corrtex, the amygdala, and the hippocampus, though I haven't yet pinpointed precisely how (and I'm not asking for more than is known, just saying my reading on the matter is still in the early stages.) I expect eventually the situation will be clarified, but at a minimum I think it safe to say there are presumably multiple mechanisms (from genetic predisposition to fetal brain injury) resulting in multiple areas of brain injury which present fairly similarly. Eventually I would hope that the ASDs would be better defined by which areas are affected, I see it more now as being a group of disorders with variation in those diagnosed autistic/Asperger's sharing some regions affected but not necessarily all or the same. Myself, while for the moment I'm used to grouping Asperger's with autism for general purposes, I expect if the whole spectrum gets sorted out they will be classed separately, with autism itself also further divided into the different types.