I gotta agree with Pyrrho that you can’t take the discussion off the boards just because it had “only” 363 views. How big an audience were you expecting to have, anyway? And if you don’t want to plow into the details on the boards, why did you start the discussion here? Saying “if you want more info, email me” sounds like a spammer’s pitch, to be perfectly honest.
To: Domina
You asked: “If you don’t want to plow into the details on the boards, why did you start the discussion here?”
Answer: I really do want to plow into the details, because this issue has practically dominated my life (my brain?)for years. The question is where, which site (besides SDMB) I could pose the subject where there would be a higher concentration of people with the same interest? Can you recommend an alternative forum than SDMB for discussions on “How to Eradicate Ignorance” and related issues discussed so far in this thread?
Maybe the problem was my choice of title “A challenge to Cecil”. Obviously, it was a bad marketing ploy. Can you suggest a more “Catching” title? How about “Mine is bigger than yours”, considering that the titles “Penile Lengthening Column”, or “Circumcision Thread” attracted thousands of clicks and participants.
Is there a recommendation to be made to the SDMB moderators to categorize the threads by subjects that contain posts of interest to specific groups? It is impossible to go through all the threads to find a jewel hidden somewhere at the middle of its page 18. There is no way I would even click on “Circumcision Thread” to find in its page 15 or 22 a possible jewel message as Pyrrho12 apparently found under “JDT?”.
Anyway, domina, welcome aboard and your inputs please, either on the above dilemma or on the subject of this thread. It was getting pretty lonely here with only Pyrrho12 around. Frankly, I was almost ready to delete SDMB’s cite from my key web list, as it was beginning to get on my nerves.
I suppose I should thank you for the compliment here, though I somehow don’t think that’s what you had intended.
I am hardly hiding in a closet, prefrering instead to conduct this dialogue in a public forum. I could ask you why you are so interested in contacting me off the message board, but such a question is not important to the subject we are discussing.
**
My own education is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. As is your own. Either an argument stands on its own grounds or falls by its own faults.
**
Question. Have you ever read Einstein’s derivations of his theory of relativity? The sort of argument you suggest is known as an inappropriate appeal to authority, and I can assure you that Einstein did not use such a method in his writings (although I guess a case can be made for the cosmological constant being such).
Einstein probably offered few references because 1) his work was mostly original, and 2) his work was in theoretical physics, which verges dangerously close to pure mathematics in some cases.
**
I cannot read either German or Spanish. However, please forgive me for suggesting this, it occured to me as possible that the reason both cites were in languages other than the one we are currently using is that you did not, in fact, want me to be able to read them. Is this the case?
Given that my interpretation of Wilder Penfield’s career differed substantially from your own, it may be that my interpretation of the above two articles may differ as well, were I capable of reading them. Do you have anything in English, published in a psychological journal? Or, for that matter, details on individual results that you believe will help to explain your theories.
I must apologize for the number of questions I am asking, but this answer does not seem particularly evident to me. First, why is it so important that ignorance be measured in order to combat it? The Straight Dope generally combats ignorance through education, providing information, and by outlining how Cecil Adams comes to the conclusions he does. (This last one is very important, IMO, since it allows the reader to check or challenge his methods. Cecil has been very good about not simply issuing decisions based upon his own supposed authority.) For these methods, measuring ignorance is not a key issue.
Secondly, how does your idea of calculating X% of brain function compare to already developed methods of measuring intelligence, such as intelligence tests?
Finally, what is the correlation between the value of X (as defined mathematically by you, below) and the performance of an individual human being? Is it clear that there is a relationship, or is that merely speculation? How can such a correlation be determined?
Very easy to follow. An interesting model, certainly. However, this does not answer the second part of the question I asked. Is it a valid model? Does it measure a quantity that has significant descriptive or predictave value? How was this determined?
**
Interesting assumption. I agree that this is an extreme oversimplification. How does episodic memory fit into your sceme? What about regions of the brain which have specific purposes, such as the sensorimotor cortex? You seem to be assuming that 100% of the cerebellum is made up of association areas. I will, for the time being, not question your simplification of how the association areas function.
**
So, 100% brain capacity is reached at the following point:
Assuming that Z>>1, which I think is supported by most estimates, at 100% functioning each neuron in the brain would have many more connections than there are individual neurons. Do they link back to themselves? Do they link to the same other neuron multiple times? Is there any reason why you are expressing things as a percent here, rather than as a quantity of some kind?
If your theories are not questioned, how can you be certain that they are good theories? This is one of the basic reasons for thesis defense in nearly all circles of academia. Do not feel so defensive because of my questions. I am attempting to understand your position.
Would you describe your beliefs about neurophysiology as being scientific or dogmatic? If scientific, I can hardly see how you can object to questions. Provide me with information so that I may see how your conclusions were reached. Thorough questioning will protect your work against bias, wishful thinking, and plain misinterpretation of the evidence.
If dogmatic, well, I suppose that if your beliefs are dogmatically held and not meant to be challenged, I will have to respect your wishes and stop asking questions.
I suppose I could bring a thirst for evidence, a deep respect for scientific methodology, and about a pound and a half of kimchi.
**
JDT is Jack Dean Tyler, the originator of the circumcision threads.
So I’ll repeat it:
Fiction: Cecil Adams is an actual human being
Try the search engine under…
http://www.snopes2.com/
huh?
**One Cell wrote:
Subject of Debate: In 50 years from now (if we are alive), will we finally reach a point where each one of us would be a mere “one cell” of a healthy (harmonious) organism, much more intelligent than any one of us?
Challenge to Cecil: I have a realistic and doable plan (with funding) to achieve the above objective. Let’s stop your ridiculous cult business and get on with realistic action plans to make exciting and interesting things happen.**
Two questions:
-
Is the “healthy, harmonious organism” you refer to in your “subject of debate” the result of the “exciting and interesting things” you refer to you in your challenge to Cecil?
-
What “ridiculous cult business” are you referrring to in your “challenge to Cecil” You mean the SDMB? His column?
Why is 10 billion a magic number?
Who’s to say we’re not already single cells in a larger organism comprising all members of our species? (Or at least that we can be conceptualized in that way?)
You can conceptualize any species in that way, regardless of whether the species consists of 10 billion individuals or 500 individuals. On some level, consciously or unconsciously, individual members of a species are working together to perpetuate the species. The species taken as a whole may be thought of as a single organism.
Do you think something “magical” or “extra” will happen when we hit 10 million that hasn’t already happened? Maybe I’m not following you.
One Cell, I didn’t mean that you shouldn’t post on this board, but it does seem to me that you started this thread without knowing the SDMB culture very well. Our concept of eradicating ignorance here is that if someone posts an out-there idea, we’ll demand evidence and spend the rest of the thread debating its validity. You seem to think Pyrrho is wasting your time by asking questions without making affirmative statements, but the Great Debates aren’t all about throwing statements back and forth; probing questions are a vital part of the mix.
I am not sure what you were expecting here. When you say you were looking for people “interested” in this topic, it sounds like you were hoping to find fellow soldiers in the cause. If that’s the case you really are on the wrong board, because Dopers are a highly skeptical bunch. You’re going to have to really prove your case if you want followers here.
Anyway, getting back to the original subject, what exactly is your plan for getting to the Great Mind Meld? I gather it has something to do with bringing 10 billion people into existence, but you have admitted the margin of error is vast on that number. What if it takes 100 billion? How are we all going to fit?
For a possible measure of intelligence, the first link is also published on the same site in English here. The other link is only to a description of a book by Alex Walker. An English version of it is available through such booksellers as Amazon.com here. The description of the book given (by the editor) is: This collection of writings about the history, work, beliefs and practices of the Findhorn Foundation and its associated community of spiritual seekers offers a vision of hope, inspiration and encouragement to the world.
It also includes material by Peter Russel, the author of the first article.
inkblot
I wish to comment on the article by Peter Russel. Russel refers to the “Global Brain” as a metaphor for the growing systems of human communication:
From what I’ve read, Russel’s use of the metaphor is quite imaginative and interesting as a commentary on the information age. It is not, however, what I would deem to be scientific research.
Scientific metaphors are often used to conceptualize or explain difficult concepts. They are not, in themselves, a valid form of scientific inquiry. The use of scientific metaphor has been claimed by some to be a bad thing under any circumstance, as unless the metaphor is very close to the actual situation people may be tempted to infer things which simply aren’t true.
I recall such a debate concerning the “Gaia Hypothesis”, which itself is a metaphor. Many people make teleological assumptions about biology, evolution, and other sciences based upon the Gaia metaphor. Of course, science is not itself equipped to make teleological statements, hence the friction.
It is unclear from OneCell’s posts whether he percieves the “Global Brain” as a metaphor or as something different.
That would depend upon how you wish to define things. If you are speaking metaphorically, then my anser to the question would have to be “Sure. Why not?”. We could debate whether or not your metaphor was a good one, but that’s about it.
By my understanding of Russel’s article, his metaphor already has each person as a single cell in a global brain. The global brain may be undergoing development, but I can find no reference in his essay to a magical threshold number at which everything changes.
Is it fair to say that you are theorizing about a massive change in human behavior or lifestyle once the population reaches a certain critical mass? If not, what exactly is your suggestion? If so, was this idea obtained merely from extending the metaphor above, or is there any actual evidence to show it as likely?
I have to make a point about regarding OneCell’s assumption about the link between neurophysiology and learning.
Your assumption that whenever something new is learned a new connection is made between neurons is not a particularly bad one. I would prefer, however, to state it more generally than that. If I were to make such an assumption as you are making, I would likely phrase it as follows:
Why am I avoiding the phrase “learns something”? Because, of course, when a human being acquires a new idea said idea is not neseccarily correct. Neurons are dedicated to fallacies and misinformation as well as to what we would consider useful data.
OneCell’s model of percentage brain usage does not take into account what information the neural links are actually storing. It seems reasonable to predict, based upon what I have read of OneCell’s theories, that a geocentrist astronomer would be considerably less ignorant than a heliocentrist astronomer. The reason for this is that the most advanced theories of geocentrism, developed sometime in the last thousand years, are hideously complex monstrosities requiring a huge number of connections to store in the mind. Heliocentric theory, by comparison, is relatively simple. Newtonian mechanics will suffice for most people’s purposes. The theory is simple, the mathematics are (relatively) simple, the position of the planets in the night sky makes intuitive sense.
So, because the geocentrist has so many more neural connections made than the heliocentrist, it is clear that he is the one who is less ignorant.
Would anyone care to comment upon my prediction?
This has got to be the first thread I’ve ever been in in my short time here where there were more personal attacks than actual debating.
Anyway, the idea postulated is truly interesting, but in an effort to avoid the more humanistic approach and its associated insults, lets look at it from a different perspective.
Ant. Boring. Ants. Interesting, but reducable to boredom. Ant colony. Now we’ve got something!
Clearly, the structure of the anthill isn’t “stored” in any one ant. As well, the actions of all the ants are much different than if they were isolated, or if the colony is below a certian size. Once it reaches a certian size, a whole new society devolops. It is possible to consider the colony as opposed to groups of ants.
Clearly, as a race we have done similar things. If we regard the OP in these terms, we find that the human race is somewhere between the store-bought-complete-with-mail-order-ants ant farm and a complete colony. Question. What happens after a certain size? Will there be a new “sociology”, started on Mir complete with satellite photo-collages, based on cosidering the societal organism? Would an alien race see patterns and such in our scurrying and road building and food gathering that none of us notice because we aren’t able to sufficiently create the necessary abstractions?
Now, barring more X% and so on, discuss. 
Of course, as population density rises, human society changes. Our group behavior is already vastly different from village life of 1000 years ago and vastly different again from hunter-gatherer bands of 10,000 years ago. We have seen society change from band to tribe to chiefdom to monarchy to nation-state and so on. These could be regarded as different types of organism, I suppose.
Saying we’re in between some chaotic beginning phase and a “complete colony” implies there’s some endpoint beyond which society will not change. I’m not sure I believe that. Even if the population stops growing, so long as the world around us changes, so long as technology changes, our societies will probably change with it.
First of all, I should apologize to anyone on this board who construed my questioning of OneCell’s assertions as a personal attack. I did not intend any of my postings as such.
aynrandlover, I am sorry that my questions for OneCell were not about the elements of his OP that you are interested in discussing. However, I do not believe that my questions were completely irrelevant to this discussion. Please allow me to explain my position on this subject.
This is the core question of OneCell’s OP.
I agree with you that it is valid (and interesting, and useful) to talk about human societies, as distinct from individual humans. This is one of the main distinctions between psychology and sociology.
The question of what happens to a society as population density changes is also quite interesting. Numerous inquiries have been written on the subject. This is not exactly the same as OneCell’s question, though.
OneCell’s question posits the existence of a human population critical mass. Once this number of people is reached, human society will supposedly be radically transformed. The question cannot exist without this supposition.
Before I can begin to discuss the question, I have to know a certain amount of background information. On what evidence is the question based? Is there any reason to think that this “critical mass” number might actually exist? Without this information, I do not feel that it is possible to proceed.
One of my reasons for wanting to know this information is that it will tell me what sorts of evidence, what sorts of arguments, will be relevant to the discussion. If this is a serious inquiry into what would be observable phenomena, then I feel that scientific and emperical methods are the way to go. If, on the other hand, this is a thought exercise or a “what-if” scenario, it would be better to employ imagination and to not be concerned about the likelihood of our conjectures.
From OneCell’s posts, I got the feeling that he believes this to be a serious enquiry rather than an interesting fantasy scenario. That being the case, the questions I asked him were meant to determine the scientific basis underlying his main question.
The main reasons I have seen supporting the key conjecture of the question, that is to say the existence of a population critical mass, have been IMHO somewhat lacking. There are the comparison of human beings to individual neurons, the comparison of human society to an anthill, speculation about various quantities reaching the same value… All of this, in my opinion, is metaphorical thinking. As I have already stated, I do not believe that it is possible to directly extrapolate conclusions about the real world from metaphors.
Given the things I have read so far, I am currently of the opinion that this question is not scientific in nature and lacks any sort of frame of reference which could result in a productive (scientific) discussion. Which is not to say that it isn’t interesting, of course. It’d probably make a fine scifi novel.
One last thing. OneCell titled this thread “A Challenge to Cecil”. When my eyes lit upon the word “Challenge”, I assumed that I was dealing with someone who had an interesting theory, and who actually wanted to defend it against the close scrutiny of an informed and skeptical audience, i.e. Cecil Adams.
In asking all of my many questions, I am sorry if I have offended anyone. I am even more sorry if I have bored anyone. I just hope that now you all understand why I’m doing it.
To: Pyrrho12
Response to your post #4 in this thread
So, where are we? Do I owe you any more answers? (not that I claim I know all the answers).
In your posts # 1, 2 and 3, you posed several questions that I did my best to answer. To support some of my assertions, I referred you to several scientific organizations that are currently conducting research in mapping intercellular connections and neurophysiological basis of learning. Responding to your specific questions, I also provided you with several web sites such as http://nervenet.org/papers/3DCounting.html#Introduction which precisely address the “scientific methodology” being used to measure the number of cells in human brain.
You further questioned why we need to measure ignorance? I answered that is because if you do not measure it, you cannot know if you are making any progress in eradicating it. As you know, human beings, collectively, eradicated “Small Pox” from this planet. Hopefully, one day we’ll do the same with “ignorance”. It does not take a genius to realize that as we went along fighting Small Pox, we had to keep track of N= the number of people still affected by the disease. Without keeping track of N and forcing it to decrease, we could never tell if we ever reached the ultimate objective of N=0.
Then you asked why not use Intelligence Tests (IQ) to measure ignorance. Frankly, I was surprised by that question. For someone such as yourself who apparently has a high respect for scientific inquiry and methods, it should be quite evident that IQ tests (generally formulated by a bunch of psychologists – not scientists) have absolutely no scientific basis as a measure of a person’s intelligence (if you believe they do, please give a web site or a solid reference to support your position). Human intelligence is concentrated in the cortex of the brain. And, ultimately, that is where we go to measure intelligence, not to Mensa. Hence a question for you: What % of truly accomplished scientists (not psychologists) have ever bothered to take an IQ test? Please make sure your answer is supported by web sites and solid references.
You asked me if I had read much about the circumcision discussions on the SDMB. The answer is “no” because I am not as obsessed by human penis as I am by the workings of the human brain (which directs the penis behavior). Now my question to you is: Have you read any of the work being done by all the neuroscientists in the 9 organizations I listed in response to your post #1? Did you dig into details and references cited in nervnet.org? Before dismissing Peter Russel’s work as a mere “metaphor”, did you read his book “Global Brain” and dig into its references including Thomas Kuhn’s “The structure of scientific revolutions”. Please don’t say you do not have time to do so, because I know that as a Canadian teacher living alone in Korea, you have enough time to watch TV sitcoms that appeal to Koreans, or discuss the merits of your rabbits (Emu and Kiki) versus having cats.
In any case, it appears that the discussion between us is turning into mere arguments with no clear objective and finality, as opposed to anything positive and constructive. We both know very well that we are just a couple of snails (as are 6 billion other people on this planet). And collectively, we have a long way to go on the evolutionary path before we (as individual cells) can even comprehend the answers, if any, to some of our questions.
So, here is a suggestion.
Since you have initiated only one thread (on JDT’s circumcision topic), perhaps you may care to start a new thread with some interesting “conjecture” of your own. If you have no interesting new concept to pose, I’d say you are boring. However, if you do dare to initiate something original, interesting and intellectually stimulating, you can rest assured that I will not bombard you with hundreds of questions, requesting scientific methods of inquiry to backup your statements. Instead, I may contribute further to your idea (if it is of interest to me), help to calibrate and make it more focused, so that we may collectively develop a solid action plan to go forward towards new frontiers.
One Cell said:
Many women would say it’s the opposite way around…
One Cell:
“As you know, human beings, collectively, eradicated “Small Pox” from this planet.”
That isn’t entirely correct. Small Pox still exists in many test tubes throughout Russia and the US. Recently a careless Russian scientist though away a tube containing the Small Pox virus and some children found it near a dumpster. They smashed it open and all were infected, (this happenned earlier on this year.)
As for your theory of eradicating ignorance, how we would need to use the similar method we used for eradicating Small Pox (trying to get N=0 (N = Number of people infected with Small Pox)), how does one determine, exactly, when an individual’s ignorance has been eradicated? What is it defined as? And each time a new baby is born, do we add +1 to N?
See my response to annrandlover for some of my serious objections to your OP. I do not believe that you have provided enough data for your subject of debate to appear plausable. See my post about neurophysiology and learning for some objections to your general ideas about, well, about neurophysiology and learning. Would you care to respond to either of these?
I recognize that you do not claim to know all the answers, but surely you must have enough knowledge of the subjects we are talking about to discuss them here.
As for me doing research to find evidence which will support your theory… hardly. That’s your job, being the advocate of this theory. If you have evidence for anything you say, then please present it. If you have no evidence, then kindly admit the fact.
I didn’t contact any of the nine organizations you listed. I did do a bit of reading on NerveNet.org… saw the bit about measuring the number of neurons in the brain. That was interesting. I didn’t find anything to support the other points I have been questioning, though. Sorry.
In order to focus the discussion from this point on, I will single out two claims from your posts which interest me.
[ul]
[li]There is a critical population number, after which a great change will affect human society.[/li][li]People only use X% of their brains. The number X has meaning and is useful in a scientifically descriptive sense.[/li][/ul]
By what evidence can the above two conjectures be justified? I am not asking you to prove them… all I want is enough information to make them worth discussing.
Ahhh… IQ tests. Your objection to them, I take it, is that they were created by psychologists rather than scientists? That seems to be the gist of the above paragraph. By what reason do you think they have no scientific basis, other than a bias against psychologists themselves?
There are, certainly, valid arguments against IQ tests actually measuring intelligence. One of these arguments involves the definition of the word “intelligence”. Another one finds fault with the poor correlation of IQ scores with real world achievement. There are also valid reasons why people want IQ tests to remain in use: Reliability, standardization, and the fact that we really don’t have anything better at this time.
I don’t really see IQ tests as being any less valid than your proposed method of measuring intelligence. Would you care to explain why you think your method would be much better? What do you think would be the predictive value of your brain usage number, i.e. how would it correlate to a subject’s behaviors?
I don’t actually believe they do. I considered looking for some references which detail both the strengths and weaknesses of standard intelligence tests… If you have an introductory psychology textbook in your home, I’m sure you can find this information by looking it up in the index.
So, am I correct in thinking that by your theory, intelligence is measured as a physical quantity, like blood pressure, but cannot be reliably inferred from the actual behavior of the subject? This would seem to go against the definition of intelligence most people are comfortable with… How do you define intelligence?
I have no idea, I’m afraid. And I won’t be bothering to research this point as I don’t see how it is relevant to the matter at hand, or for that matter relevant to anything.
The reference you gave me, or more specifically the english language reference provided by InkBlot, did contain nothing but metaphorical language. I did not intend that as a dismissal of his work, merely as a description of the sample provided to me.
Metaphorical language is not a bad thing, by any stretch of the imagination. It can even be quite useful. However, its application to scientific inquiry is quite limited.
There’s metaphorical language again, OneCell. We aren’t actually snails. We’re people. I know that you already know this. I just wanted to point it out as an example of the typr of language I was speaking about.
I am sorry that you are offended by my questioning of your “interesting conjecture”, but all sorts of interesting conjectures have been put foreward in the past which have had nothing to do with objective reality.
Are your ideas scientific? Do you wish for them to be scientific? If the answer to these questions is “no”, then I will have to leave you be. I’m not here to interfere with a person’s dreams and fantasies. If, on the other hand, you believe that your ideas bear some relevance to the real world, I hope you can see how I cannot help but continue to ask you questions.
It seems to me that you are engaging in a mixture of imagining and wishful thinking. There’s nothing wrong with that, of course. As I believe I mentioned elsewhere, yes the idea of your OP certainly is interesting. However, if you want to clothe your ideas in scientific language, they must be thoroughly questioned. If you wish to make assertions about reality, then I must challenge whatever assertions I feel to be weak, or that I do not see sufficient evidence for. Reality is boring sometimes. Fantasy is far more interesting, since there is no such thing as a right or a wrong answer, and anything is possible.
In what direction would you like this discussion to proceed?
One Cell, I direct your attention to the fact that this forum is called Great DEBATES. As in arguments. You should not be overly shocked that people will join the thread who don’t agree with you. It’s not “boring,” it’s the reason the board exists.