Glider

What kind of things can you determine about a person from the results of the Stroop test?

Originally posted by Mastermold

But if the consciousness is just being aware... then how can you prove anyone else experiences the same feeling?

You can't.

One problem with consciousness is that as yet there is no all-encompassing definition for it. We talk of 'awareness' and 'the ability to percieve and produce an adaptive response' and so on, but these do not define consciousness.

Another problem is that consciousness can only ever be inferred in others. Whilst each of us has implicit and experiencial knowledge of our own conscious awareness, we cannot know (or prove) that another person does. We can generate evidence for it. We can ask them questions and evaluate their responses for example. Or apply a given stimulus and observe their response. However, none of this constitutes proof.

If we reject body/mind duality theories (as most people appear to have done), then we are left with theories of consciousness as an emergent property of a complex system; a synergistic product of the complex functioning of the brain (a little like feedback). That we may expect a certain degree of uniformity in conscious experience is supported by data showing a degree of uniformity in neurological function. However, even this is no guarantee.

The source of these problems is that there is no such thing as an objective experience. Whatever happens to costitute a stimulus from the external milieu, our experience of it depends upon transduction of that stimulus, and subsequent afferent volleys of electro-chemical impulses. That these seem to be essentially the same (or at least similar) in most people, leads us to assume that their experience of the stimulus is the same [as ours]. But this is only an assumption. As Robert Louis Stevenson wrote ..."for no man lives in the external truth among salts and acids, but in the warm, phantasmagoric chamber of his brain, with the painted windows and storied wall."

In the case of neonates, it is the iris that lacks pigment. the pupils and lenses should be perfectly clear (i.e. black) very shortly after birth.

Of all animals, human babies are the most underdeveloped at birth. For example, in premature cases the liver is not fully functional and they cannot metabolise bilirubin, so they appear jaundiced and have to be placed under UV lights, which breaks the bilirubin down in the skin. The same goes for the eyes. Neonate eyes are underdeveloped and It can take a little while for the eyes of newborns to acheive their true colour.

The same can be apparent of their hair. A lot of babies that are born with hair, are born blonde. after a while, they produce sufficient melanin to acheive their true colour.

The colour of the eye, as defined by the colour of the iris, doesn't change post-mortem. If a person has brown eyes, this is due to a higher concentration of melanin in the iris than a person with blues eyes (as Fafalone said). However, the colour of the iris is not dependent upon the continual production of melanin. When a person with brown eyes dies, the colour of the iris remains unaffected.

The change in eye colour that you can see in the eyes of dead people is due to opacity of the cornea, aqueous humour and lense brought about by lack of oxygen. Once a person dies, they stop producing tears and blinking, and blood circulation ceases. The cornea must be moist in order that oxygen may be absorbed.

So, the iris of the individual stays whatever colour it was. However, the pupils dilate on death and if you look into the (now very large) pupils a few hours after death, you will notice a distictive blue-white 'haze'. This is the change that people report.

If you want an example, but want to avoid staring into the eyes of a dead person (which is not very pleasant), look at the eyes of a dead fish. The same thing happens there, and you will see the noticable blue-white colour in the pupil.

Originally posted by aman

I think grief is different from depression. Maybe levels of grief are natural but depression could be unnatural.

You are quite right. There are (broadly speaking) 2 types of depression: Reactive depression, which is the normal response to an environmental event, such as the death of a loved one, losing your job, house, partner, whatever. Reactive depression is quite normal and usually acute (fast onset - short duration).

Then there are mood disorders. These are clinical conditions (often of uncertain aetilology) such as depressive disorders and bi-polar disorders.

As such (in light of the original question) we might just as well ask "what is the purpose of diabetes?". There is no 'purpose'. It happens, and it is bad.

Originally posted by Mastermold

I am pretty ashamed of some of the ignorant people who live here, but I guess all countries have their share.

Very true! We have plenty to go around in the UK.

I think it's a powerful ability, to be able to recognise the weaknesses of one's own country. It doesn't help that the public face of politics and certainly the media realise this and aim to influence the lowest common denominator. 'Dumbing-down' is a real problem here, and all the jingoistic, (largely) unsustantiated acusations and promises to 'defend what is good against the threat of evil' is designed to sway the opinions of people who believe what they are told by their government and the media is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Having said that, it appears that around 75% of the population of the US and 82% in the UK are opposed to war in the absence of more substansive evidence. I suspect that most of the political manoeuvering and shouting being done on both sides of the Atlantic is an attempt to change this.

Unfortunately (in my opinion), those who are shouting the loudest are not actually those who will have to pick up weapons and 'do the deed'. I suspect the world might be a queiter, more peaceful place if they were.

Originally posted by fafalone

There's a law on the books that makes suicide illegal. People have actually been criminally charged with attempted suicide.

In the UK, suicide was illegal. In the Victorian era it was in fact a capital offence. Anyone found attempting suicide could be sentenced to death and hanged. (I swear this is true).

In the article it also states that Lithium seems to lower depression and suicidal behaviors in people decrease

Lithium is not effective on depression. It is effective only on bipolar disorders. The drug interventions for depression are generally things like MAOIs (monoamine-oxidase inhibitors), tricyclics and specific 5-HT reuptake inhibitors (e.g. fluoxetine).

However, I believe serotonin concentration differentials are consequential anyway; that is, whatever is causing depression is causing changes in serotonin, and serotonin is not causing depression

You have a point here, but it depends on your point of veiw. It could be argued that it is a set and cyclic pattern of negative affective thought and maladaptive behaviours that causes depression and reduction in 5-HT levels is a result of this. On the other hand, on the basis that the most common and effective chemical interventions for depression are drugs which elevate 5-HT levels, it could be argued that it is the reduction in 5-HT levels which cause depression, and that depressed affect results from this, leading to a cyclic pattern of negative thoughts.

In reality, it is probably a combination of both, and the key lies in understanding the nature of the interaction between physiological and psychological factors that results in depressive disorders.

Re the experiment: Whilst it may not practical to attempt to measure 5-HT levels in the brains of suicide victims, a major metabolite of 5-HT, 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid (5-HIAA) is found in cerebrospinal fluid and is used to determine 5-HT levels in the central nervous system. There is a consistent body of data showing a relationship between low levels of 5-HIAA in the CSF and depressive disorders. CSF is easy to obtain from both living and dead people, so you might want to use this as your measure.

Yes it is. But given the time constraints, and that the function (and therefore structure) of abstracts and summaries are more or less the same, it's as good a place to start as any.

Originally posted by Hitman47

Currently I've been reading Scientific American about the possible causes of suicide and why people decide to kill themselves year after year.

Generally, people decide to kill themselves only once.

Generally, the summary or abstract of a research report contains all the main points of the paper in a highly condenced and concise form. It provides a little background, the hypothesis(es), a little methods, main results and conclusions.

The summary (depending on the journal) is often limited to between 150 and 250 words, but should give the reader a good idea of the rationale for the study, how it was done, what was found and what it means.

If this was set as an assignment, I suspect they will want more than 250 words though. Nonetheless, the format and function remains the same. You might want to include a bit of evaluation also.

The best way to get a 'feel' for journal article abstracts is to do an online literature search through something like Medlab or Psychinfo, or visit the a journal homepage. Most of these sites provide abstracts. Read a few, and you'll get the idea.

Originally posted by fafalone

The government should not force their morality based on the Bible (outright violation of church and state) on a large group of people who are not morally opposed to it.

I agree, no government should force the morality of a minority onto the majority. Nonetheless, this does not negate the value of ethics, and ethics has nothing to do with the Bible.

Ethic: A set of moral principles.

Ethical: Relating to morals, especially as concerning human conduct; morally correct.

Ethics: Science of morals in human conduct; moral principles or code. Ethics is a branch of philosophy that attempts to help us understand which ways of life are worth following and which actions are right or wrong. Ethics addresses questions of right and wrong using reason rather than faith or tradition.

* Current usage of the term 'ethics' not only refers to the study of morality (i.e. a synonym for 'Moral Philosophy') but also refers to the subject matter of that study (i.e. as meaning 'Morality')

* Ethics concerns human conduct, character, and values. It studies the nature of right and wrong and the distinction between good and evil. Ethics explores the nature of justice and of a just society, and also our obligations to ourselves, to others, and to society.

Originally posted by Skye

Modern societies have much more variation between the winners and losers, and can communicate this to everyone. Amplifying the negative stimuli in this way could lead to people overestimating how bad they are. In a closed tribal society I might have been good at science compared to those around me. Unfortunately we have the net now and from reading this forum I know I have far, far to go

You put it in a nutshell. The huge (and increasing) difference between 'winners' and 'losers' is constantly force-fed to us through the media. e.g. That footballers (who play a game for a living) earn something like £80,000 a week, whilst a highly qualified nurse (who keeps people alive for a living) would take over five years to earn as much. No wonder people's self esteem is suffering. No wonder people are questioning their own sense of priorities.

As for being good at science, don't get suckered into the same trap of skewed priorities. Being good at science is based mainly upon how you ask questions, and the methods you employ to find answers. I know many individuals who can spout a lot of information, but are poor scientists. My computer holds a lot of information. It doesn't understand any of it though, nor can it generate any new information.

Originally posted by Sayonara³

Having said that, physicists involved in the first nuclear weapon tests warned there was a good chance the atmosphere would be igntited by the explosions. So you never know what craziness we might do next.

Yeah...so we don't appear to have been too limited by our morality as it is, do we?

More than that though, ethics exists for a reason. If we choose not to be limited by ethical considerations, then...well, to hell with us I suppose. I wouldn't want to live in that world.

Originally posted by blike

Maybe they used a picture of the old fossil find?

Well, the picture shown above is definitely the one of the fraud. The reason it caused so much excitement to begin with was its tail. The long, straight tail suggested saurian features, whilst the front end of the fossil was more bird-like. Thus, it was hailed as a missing link.

However, as I say, when they found the 'negative' of the front end of the fossil at the original site, it showed that the creature had an entirely different tail, much more bird-like. I believe they also found fossils revealing the creature who's tail is shown in that picture.

However, this only concerns the fossil pictured. If there has been a new find, then I don't know about it, so you could be right, there might be a new one.

That's true. I was referring only to the 'cellular blueprint' as it were. Identical DNA may result in an identical organism on the cellular lever, which would imply that (for example) structures associated with voice production would also be identical. However, voice modulation, cadence, mode and register of speech and accent are all socially acquired.

Concisely put sir, and quite right.

Certain people, idiot savants for example, can calculate extensive math problems at incredible speed. Are they consciously "thinking" when they do that? Or is their brain performing on its own, so to speak?

The precise process by which 'idiot savants' perform these feats is not understood. However, it is known that pre-conscious processes occur at amazing speeds. For example, people presented with emotionally valenced information show a measurable response indicating that pre-conscious recognition and classification of the stimulus occurs within 250 milliseconds. However, the individual is not aware of this, and in fact it has been shown that they need not even be aware of the stimulus. The stimulus only has to be within the receptive field of a sensory modality, it does not have to be registered consciously. This form of 'automatic evaluation' has been described as "Universal and unconditional".

It has been suggested that the processes involved in the feats performed by 'idiot savants' are similar; that it is an automaticity which occurs beneath conscious awareness and without intent (once the action has been initiated). This would account for the individual not being able to explain the methodoly he/she used to reach an answer, and also the speed with which the answer is achieved.

Very true. Well said!

It may seem brutal to allow people to kill themselves

If you got to know them, or talked to somebody who wanted to; somebody in unbearable suffering due to a terminal condition, it might seem more merciful than brutal.

You're absolutely right about where the problem lies. In my opinion, the patient should have the right to decide, as long as they have all salient information. But as for those who are not in a position to make the choice, then I don't think the choice should be made for them. But it's very tricky. The US have 'living wills' which can provide instructions to medical staff in the event the individual is not in a position to tell them themselves. Even then, there are so many ethical issues.

As for the financially driven 'pitfalls', we are already seeing evidence of this in organ transplant situations. Where prices have been placed on donor organs, there are now 'black markets' dealing in organs. e.g. Some people are selling their own kidneys. Some are even having them stolen. That seems to be what economics does to a good thing. Place a monitary value on something, and the real value of it is removed. e.g. make Ivory worth money and the elephant becomes worthless. Make a kidney worth money, and the human becomes worthless.

This is in line with something I said yesterday about us having our priorities skewed.

Originally posted by Skye

A clone would have quite a few differences in appearance. Things like posture, musculature, fat%, voice and hair would probably differ.

not to any significant degree, the clone would have the identical 'programming' for the skeletal and muscular structures, and possible percentage body fat too. They would have the identical genes determining the size and structure of their larynx and the same hair (unless they changed it). Basically, they would develop according to the identical 'blueprint' of the original cell donor. Their personality would differ though; they would be an individual. That might exert some influence on body shape/size later in life for sure.

I'm really just playing the Devil's advocate, I wouldn't have a clone because I'd rather my child be genetically individual, theres the imperfections in the cloning process and the delights in the sexual process, including sharing parenting with someone you love.

...and raising a true and unique individual?

I haven't seen the news today but as far as I know, the UN inspectors have failed to find evidence for the existence of WOMDs, or for an active programme for their development. Apart from a failure to provide full cooperation, there seems to have been nothing of any significance found at all.

It's starting to sound a bit like there will be a war unless Iraq can prove the non-existance of WOMDs. Can anyone see the flaw in that?

Originally posted by fafalone

Disarm = remove weapons and remove an insane and cruel dictator from power.

That's perfectly reasonable. I have absolutely no issues with that.

Spare us your ignorant anti-war far-left "but the people of iraq are innocent" spiel.

I will, if you spare us your ignorant, pro-war, far-right paranoid "lets bomb the bastards before they bomb us" speil.

I suppose it depends on your defintion of 'better', which in turn depends upon your definition of 'disarm'.

Disarm = remove WOMDs from Iraq, rendering the country relatively harmless?

or

Disarm = Annihilate the country using your own WOMDs, sending most of the population to oblivion, both the innocent and the guilty, to let God sort them out?

Bears a little thought I'd say.

Originally posted by Skye

My guess is that this is just a situation where my environment differs from that my behaviour evolved in so it doesn't quite match up. My strong desire for sugar was probably matched by low supply of it in the past.

Quite right!

Kindness to others might have been matched by them being closer related to me. But suicide is amazingly frequent for any kind of perversion of self serving behaviour.

True. Again I would say that this is a result of our modern environment differing so much from the environment in which we evolved. The increase in suicide rates and exponential increase in incidents of stress related illnesses suggest that we have gone wrong somewhere.

Is it possible that out current priorities are skewed? That we measure life 'success' in terms of wealth, and the drive to achieve it? In doing so (listen to the modern use of language) we are dividing our society into 'winners' and 'losers'. Moreover the 'winners' are often poor role models (bratty, egocentric individuals), whereas the 'losers' tend to be those who keep society running (nurses, medics, firefighters, etc.) The pressure to succeed has grown, and is still growing, and the definition of success, seems to me to be spurious.

We seem to be caught up in a blindfolded race for progress. We all want to be first, but I'm not sure we know where we're going. 'Progress' suggests motion from a starting point to an objective. But what is our objective?

For example, there are 100,000 severely disabled children in the UK. These poor individuals suffer profound physical and mental impairments, and will never know any form of independent life. 20 years ago, with the level of medical technology available at that time, these children would not have survived after birth. The progress we have made in medical technology means that people who would not have survived given their physical and mental impairments, now can survive.

The question is; Have we made progress?

Don't misunderstand. I'm not for one minute suggesting we eliminate physically and mentally impaired children. I hold three priciples dear: Do no harm; Ease suffering; Preserve life. It's just I think 'life' means more than fulfilling the physiological criteria, and I do believe there are occasions where the latter two principles come into direct conflict. What I am suggesting is that we tend to decide between them without sufficient thought; "Life at any and all costs!". I have said it before. Death is not the enemy. The true enemy is suffering.

I think that the best progress we could possibly make, is to reconsider our priorities, and the processes through which we form these priorities. That, I suspect, will be the only way to make a significant impact upon the growing rates of suicide.

Originally posted by Skye

But how do the decisions you make for your clone differ from your child?

Because you could help but be affected by the knowledge that this individual was (in effect) you (at least on a genetic level), and the fact that your clone would look exactly like you. This would influence your attitudes towards it and expectations of it. At least children have the advantage of being pecieved as different and individual. Even then, in many cases the parents still attempt to live vicariously through them.

Exactly. You could classify it broadly as 'thinking speed' but it would actually be a measure of the time taken to consciously retrieve information. This time varies dependent upon factors such as familiarity with the information, associations between different information (i.e. 'traces') and whether or not you have that information in the first place. Given the nature of nerve conduction, if there were any differences in conduction rate between individuals, it would be so infinitesimally small that a test of memory or free recall would stand absolutely no chance of detecting them.

As far as I know, the only thing that can result in a significant reduction in conduction velocity are certain types of neuropathy and particularly de-myelinating diseases of the central nervous system (e.g. multiple sclerosis).

Originally posted by fafalone

 

I suspect it was the smaller dinosaurs that developed wings to escape from larger predators

This makes a lot of sense, and supporting evidence can be found in the behaviour of many modern animals, so called 'flying frogs', flying lizards and flying squirrels etc.. have all evolved the ability to fly (actually protracted glide) to escape predation rather than gain food.