Well Freakenstein What is intelligence without knowledge the fact that any form of perception is gaining knowledge around oneself, to say intelligence is naturally inherited is false because there is no possible way for those without senses to ever gain knowledge there for no way to interpret anything, btw everything you sense is a for gaining knowledge to know where you are or think where you are to read symbols of text based on some sound and having the ability to communicate.... Also that intelligence is based on the thing you said
your own personal thinking, such as perception, logic, how you interpret things, your own rate of learning, and your learning capacity
well i interpret those things as a some form of knowledge. Try not to limit your idea of what knowledge is because it will restrict any intellect you possess because we are only a part of an environment and that is how we know anything...the brain is just a vessel to contain ones own mind..
to say intelligence is naturally inherited is false
Actually it is. You are born with a degree of intelligence. You just need nourishment to accelerate your depth of what you know. Knowledge is facts given to you. Intelligence is, by definition, how smart someone is, how quick they learn, and how well their mind interprets.
because there is no possible way for those without senses to ever gain knowledge
Hellen Keller could not see. She could not hear. She still had an amazing intelligence level and excelled much farther than those that had those senses. She used what was given to her and gained knowledge that way. She could even learn how to talk by process of vibrations and muscle movements.
well i interpret those things as a some form of knowledge
How is that exactly? Unless you are forced to be taught exactly how to interpret things, all of that is based directly on your own personal noggin. Knowledge is someone teaching you how to make enchilladas. Intelligence is figuring out how to assemble a puzzle together, or getting to the end of a maze level.
Idk about textbooks, but occasionally some books that offer some brain-knowledge I've read that considering our brains have untapped potential yada yada yada... etc.
Also, I'm sure that -- if your in a near death experience, the chemical activity in your brain is heightened -- Considering you are in a state of extreme mental trauma your brain has to go through a ton of stress and then work on things like slowing down different processes of the body while heightening others (Adrenal glands, for example). So I'd assume (not being a brain professor) that its pulling off some extra work.
I'm a human anatomy class myself, a college-course I might add, Strop.
I don't mean to engage in a pissing competition but I become a doctor in a few months. I've been studying college-level for nearly six years.
Also I'm starting to get tired of the two main issues in this thread:
1) Too much talking about what is trolling and what is not (get over yourselves, people).
2) Failure to acknowledge the various interpretations and misinterpretations of the original statement. You guys are talking across each other way too much for the thread to be constructive.
I think of the "you use a maximum of 10% of your brain at any given time" as trivia. My point was that it's only appreciable in laypersons terms, as any rigorous study into how much brain is active at any given time would include a whole bunch of variables that makes quantification difficult.
Now, let's find something I can sink my teeth into:
I could be wrong, but I don't think near death experiences actually make you use your brain more, but rather release the chemical dimethyltryptamine in your brain, causing hallucinations. In fact, I believe they have proved that dimethyltryptamine is involved in near death experiences recently.
Last I heard, the popular theory was massive, global hyperexcitation of the temporal and frontal lobes due to hypoxic injury. Could you post some links to the literature that implicates dimethyltryptamine?
I don't mean to engage in a pissing competition but I become a doctor in a few months. I've been studying college-level for nearly six years.
Congrats. You're a man into their mid-20s that completed the MKAT and became a doctor. I'm a junior taking a freshman college-level course of HAaPs. =)
2) Failure to acknowledge the various interpretations and misinterpretations of the original statement. You guys are talking across each other way too much for the thread to be constructive.
There wasn't any constructiveness in the thread to begin with! All the OP was was asking an urban myth that may or may not have a hint of truth behind it. I propose a new OP:
The human brain. An endless database of infinitesimal capacity for knowledge, put together by different sections, the Cerebrum and the MO to be the most important (in my opinion). The cerebrum is the reason why we have intelligence in the first place, and the more refined cerebrum yields those with a larger intelligence. Can there be possibilities of doing surgery on the cerebrum to further enhance our intelligence, as in what happened in "Flowers for Algernon"? If so, would this new research benefit mankind greater than we can imagine?
And the MO: It is the brain's eyes and ears so to speak. It is the reason why we can see, besides the eyes being the vessel for the sense. Blindness, may not be because of the eyes that are the problem, but the MO itself? Are there surgical procedures to fix the MO that would make the person literally see once again in their lives? Let this OP be the new grounds for logical discussion.
Well that's interesting... but the above links suggest that we still don't really know what dimethyltryptamine does and in what context, we've merely speculated.
Can't remember who it was but when one says "roof" I was thinking more along the lines of peer-reviewed papers and level-1 evidence i.e. systematic literature review of randomised-controlled studies. And such a study would be terribly difficult to get past ethics committee when it comes to finding links to "near-death experiences".
And such a study would be terribly difficult to get past ethics committee when it comes to finding links to "near-death experiences".
As in research to test guinea pigs to see if DiMethylTryptamine really does play a part in these flashbacks? I could see why. It may be research and all, but to others, torture. People are finicky about these sorts of things. Morals and such.
Just as an added reference, answers.com, yahoo answers, ask.com, yadda yadda yadda. These aren't legitimate sources of information, because anyone can "answer" these sorts of questions. Most of them are misleading anyways.
You're a man into their mid-20s that completed the MKAT and became a doctor.
I should probably post the details on my profile so I don't have to explain every single time... the short of it is I don't study in the US, so my course has different acronyms attached to it :P
Anyway, it's probably not particularly relevant to the content of this thread so.
I don't mean to engage in a pissing competition but I become a doctor in a few months.
Sounds like someone wants a urine sample. Well, I'm an unlimited resource in that field.
The human brain
Or lack thereof...in some of our cases.
The cerebrum is the reason why we have intelligence in the first place
Poor Sarah Palin was born with no cerebrum, according to your argument.
It is the brain's eyes and ears so to speak.
You must be a little confused. We speak with our mouth, we see with our eyes, and we hear with our ears; but we don't speak with ours eyes and our ears. Not most of us, anyway.
make the person literally see
Not metaphorically? What if you can't see metaphorically?
we still don't really know what dimethyltryptamine does and in what context
I know what it is. "Dime/thy/tryp/tam/in/E" is how it should be divided. You see, there was a Scotsman with his Scottish hat, also known as a "tam". The tam is used as a symbol for the Scotsman. The "E" at the end stands for "Edinburgh". "Thy", of course, means "you"; "tryp" is just a bad spelling from a bad speller who can't spell the word "trip". The translation "I'll give you a dime if you trip the Scotsman in Edinburgh."
Nahh, I really have no idea what it is. Fun story, though.
Ernie, just about 95% of that did not make a single bit of sense or was relevant to any of this thread.
You must be a little confused. We speak with our mouth, we see with our eyes, and we hear with our ears; but we don't speak with ours eyes and our ears. Not most of us, anyway.
The MO really does control the senses. If we'd still have the eyes and such, but no MO, we still wouldn't be able to see. This is what I'm getting at.
I should probably post the details on my profile so I don't have to explain every single time... the short of it is I don't study in the US, so my course has different acronyms attached to it :P
I clean forgot that you aren't in the states, Strop, my bad XD
Well, until someone comes up with a legitimate source about Di/Methyl/Try/pta/mine, then we'd better focus on the reformed OP so we can stay on topic for once in this thread.
The human brain. An endless database of infinitesimal capacity for knowledge, put together by different sections, the Cerebrum and the MO to be the most important (in my opinion). The cerebrum is the reason why we have intelligence in the first place, and the more refined cerebrum yields those with a larger intelligence. Can there be possibilities of doing surgery on the cerebrum to further enhance our intelligence, as in what happened in "Flowers for Algernon"? If so, would this new research benefit mankind greater than we can imagine?
And the MO: It is the brain's eyes and ears so to speak. It is the reason why we can see, besides the eyes being the vessel for the sense. Blindness, may not be because of the eyes that are the problem, but the MO itself? Are there surgical procedures to fix the MO that would make the person literally see once again in their lives? Let this OP be the new grounds for logical discussion.
As in research to test guinea pigs to see if DiMethylTryptamine really does play a part in these flashbacks?
This wouldn't work for the purposes of the question at hand anyway, the reason being that here, we're interested in whether dimethyltryptamine is implicated in the subjective experience in near-death states. Not sure the guinea-pig neurobiology translates so well for such functions.
