Originally posted by nefardec
that would be a first for you
Maybe you should bust out a sob story for every occasion. I'm not debating over someone's father, especially since doing so requires massive guesswork on my part.
Trance-MB
quote:
Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
That was my point. One of the commonly held ideas of IQ test advocates is that your IQ score remains the same. I don't think that's true. I think that if I spent my entire life doing IQ tests I'd develop a higher IQ than if I never did so.
Or very extreme, someone who can't read or has difficulty with that, will have a very low score, but it doesn't tell you anything about his/her IQ. Also you always can guess some questions right. On a lucky day you could have a higher score. Doing many tests should level this, but the perfect IQ test doesn't exist, probably never will too.
PETRAN
quote:
Originally posted by Trance-MB
Or very extreme, someone who can't read or has difficulty with that, will have a very low score, but it doesn't tell you anything about his/her IQ. Also you always can guess some questions right. On a lucky day you could have a higher score. Doing many tests should level this, but the perfect IQ test doesn't exist, probably never will too.
True!
(after all the blob of text im so glad to respond with one word! Oh wait...)
neatski
quote:
Originally posted by PETRAN
It wouldn't be surprising if this mechanism was a physiological long-term change of the chronic effects of attentional processes or perceptual segregation. Check this abstract, it could be of some relevance.
Thanks for the link :)- it looks like that study came out just before the big breakthrough studies on efferent pathways, so it's likely that hearing scientists would currently explain those results away as an efferent reflex effect, i.e. what you said, a physiological long-term change in processing resulting from experience. However, I am totally with you in that dynamic top-down processing probably plays a much bigger role in perception than changes in cochlear tuning. For the sake of the argument, I conveniently omitted the fact that while I am doing my degree in hearing science, my advisor is a cognitive psychology guy, so I am personally specializing in attentional effects on hearing perception, lol. I think a great majority of hearing scientists get so caught up in the brainstem and reflexive neural activity that they completely ignore the effects of cognition.
P.S. We here at the University of West Suburban Church of Christ Kansas City endorse only the scientifically sound "Intelligent Design" theory.
euphoria
great thread
habman6
quote:
Originally posted by neatski
P.S. We here at the University of West Suburban Church of Christ Kansas City endorse only the scientifically sound "Intelligent Design" theory.
lmao....Im such a nerd, I love science jokes
PETRAN
quote:
Originally posted by habman6
lmao....Im such a nerd, I love science jokes
April fool's?
smellyblack
do you blame my being 50% deaf in one ear on playing music you dont enjoy:p
PETRAN
quote:
Originally posted by smellyblack
do you blame my being 50% deaf in one ear on playing music you dont enjoy:p
Hey freak...i enjoy your music man...i sometimes listen before i go out on a saturday night...in the toilet as well...:wtf:
PETRAN
quote:
Originally posted by neatski
P.S. We here at the University of West Suburban Church of Christ Kansas City endorse only the scientifically sound "Intelligent Design" theory.
To throw a bit more fun in this thread (it was april 1st after all)
this has reminded me of that video.
:stongue: :stongue:
nefardec
quote:
Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Maybe you should bust out a sob story for every occasion. I'm not debating over someone's father, especially since doing so requires massive guesswork on my part.
lol, that wasn't a sob story, it's the common result of having a stroke, and invites discussion as to the necessity of that 'chunk of grey matter' you want me to remove by myself, and by implication discussion of the the physical existence of the so-called 'soul'. there's nothing personal about that, i just happen to be familiar with it because it happened to my father.
why are you so angry on the internet? your attitude adds very little to any discussion. i've read good posts from you as well, but as i said in the past, you seem to have a fetish for attacking me personally.
SYSTEM-J
You realise a stroke can affect a person in a vast number of ways, to varying extents on different parts of their cognition, and I don't have slightest ing clue about your father's medical history? A stroke can cause a coma and/or death, and in that case invoking it as proof of a soul is utterly redundant.
I knew someone once who'd had a stroke and had severe learning problems as a result, not to mention partial disability. His "training" was most certainly impaired, and so apparently his soul could not reach maturity through this infliction. Posting "I know someone who had a stroke and he was fine" proves nothing one way or another, regardless of how personal or intimate that anecdote is.
Physical damage to the right parts of the brain can incapacitate or impair certain senses. Cut the right bits out and you won't be able to think certain things properly. Or let's look at it another way: a training in music, language or any of life requires certain senses. Even if you want to invoke the mysteries of the brain, you're still dependent on the physical organs of the eyes, the ears and so on.
Show me a single thought divorced from the corporeal vessel. You can't, where as I can show the requirement of thoughts on the material. Occam's Razor, for me, says the conclusion drawn from observed evidence is simpler than one that requires inductive reasoning from without, reasoning that must battle it out with a near-infinite multitude of contrary strains of inductive reasoning, all clinging to that one link to plausibility: "You can't disprove me" but none with any tighter grip on reality than the next.
quote:
why are you so angry on the internet? your attitude adds very little to any discussion. i've read good posts from you as well, but as i said in the past, you seem to have a fetish for attacking me personally.
If I'm going to be angry somewhere, the Internet is a much better place to do it than anywhere else. I'm not one for repressing irritation when it occurs.
