Youre still referring to a norm, which is necessarily subjective. You need to understand that sometimes your opinion doesnt count, and those value judgments are not grammatical. Like when a harley with straight pipes drives past, it isnt "missing" a muffler even though I would prefer it to have one. You dont get to decide what the norm for brains is, nor do you decide who conforms to it.

Do you prefer the term uncommon? I could substitute 'abnormal' for 'uncommon' in every post up till now and the content would not be changed. 'abnormal' means 'uncommon'. Uncommon is not subjective, although there are degrees of commonality.

If someone has a physical property that less than 1% of the population has, do you think anyone would seriously object to it being considered uncommon or abnormal?

Every single person on earth has physical properties that are uncommon. I'm not sure how useful it is to refer to refer to "commonality" of body parts unless the topic of discussion is organ-transplant-related. Which I can dig.

"do you think anyone would seriously object"

I guess it depends on the context. Olympic track runners are uncommonly fast.

the point is, why are you telling the guy with palsy who never leaves his house that he is "uncommonly spastic?" its like when people (who happen to be evolutionist/atheist) will remark upon observing an individual who (they believe) has an extra chromosome. You walked right past the 6'4" dude with red hair and green eyes, but this one deserves mention! Are you an anthropoplogist? A tourist?

we arent so far removed from a society that decides that certain humans arent fit for life. This is ungrammatical as well. Humans that are alive do not need to have their existence approved by anyone. If you believe in an ideal standard of humanity, then you are religious.

This entire time I have been entirely descriptive. As a moral fictionalist I am not making an argument that there is anything wrong with being uncommon or that 'brain abnormalities' are wrong. I am not even making the argument that behavioral disorders (by which I mean behaviors that are produced by specific abnormalities in the brain) are 'wrong' and need to be fixed. That is up to each individuals personal evaluations.

But to argue that, in circumstances where people don't mind the symptoms, the abnormality disappears is frankly wrong.

 

"I'm not sure how useful it is to refer to refer to "commonality" of body parts"

It turns out to be very useful in cognitive science and psychology because abnormal/uncommon brains tend to produce abnormal/uncommon behavior, the study of which helps us both understand how these brains work as well as how our own 'normally functioning' brains work.

Your descriptions themselves refer to a subjective standard as if it were objective. This is ungrammatical, not to say wrong qua wrong but simply not preferred.

also, human behavior isnt a subject that one can evaluate from a medical perspective. Its simply not within their domain to conjure into symptoms. Like pms.

""It turns out to be very useful in cognitive science and psychology because abnormal/uncommon brains tend to produce abnormal/uncommon behavior, the study of which helps us both understand how these brains work as well as how our own 'normally functioning' brains work.""

when you refer to "uncommon behavior" do you mean like hoarding junk or like going to school for 20-30 years so you can cut open brains? You cannot seriously tell me youre using abnormal or uncommon to refer solely to statistical likelihood of occurrence. Is snowboarding the result of an abnormal brain?

Of course I don't mean stuff like that. I am talking on a lower level of abstraction, things that effect emotional reactions and decision making, as well as perception. These things influence and color a persons behavior. Someone with a damaged left-frontal lobe, for example, will make a variety of different decisions. Not "I used to snowboard but now I don't". However, they can affect more fundamental things such as addiction, risk avoidance, sexual appetite etc.

There is a great body of research on the brain and how specific areas interact in order to produce types of perception as well as behavior.

"You cannot seriously tell me youre using abnormal or uncommon to refer solely to statistical likelihood of occurrence."

Of course I am. Synaesthesia is a statistically unlikely symptom of statistically unlikely brains. It is also one that has some potentially beneficial effects. You once again can't get over the fact that abnormal is not necessarily a value-laden term. Life is abnormal. Intelligence is abnormal. You are the product of a long history of accidents. When you look at the big picture, you are EXCEEDINGLY abnormal.

The whole point of studying abnormal brains is so that

1. You can treat it if desired

2. You can further understand how brains work

In the same way that you can learn how a system works by removing one part and observing what happens, you can learn how a 'normal' brain works by studying the tendencies of brains that are similar in all but a few ways. That is why it is a useful discussion, morality has nothing to do with it.

Someone with a damaged left-frontal lobe, for example, will make a variety of different decisions. Not "I used to snowboard but now I don't". However, they can affect more fundamental things such as addiction, risk avoidance, sexual appetite etc.

Yes, people with head injuries act differently than they would without the head injury, even unto avoiding the risk of further cranial trauma. How is that different from ceasing to engage in snowboarding? Anyway, with an injury there is an ideal uninjured head you can refer to. Thats something we can agree on. But earlier it seemed like we were discussing common or uncommon brains. Now its baout brain damage?

There is a great body of research on the brain and how specific areas interact in order to produce types of perception as well as behavior.

no where in any of this research did they manage to identify an objectively correct brain, so that you could refer to other brains in relation to that one.

"Yes, people with head injuries act differently than they would without the head injury, even unto avoiding the risk of further cranial trauma. How is that different from ceasing to engage in snowboarding? "

Some people with brain damage change their entire personality. Some become uncontrollable emotionaly, some become violent, etc. It's not the same as changing one's activities, its changing one's temperament.

 

"Anyway, with an injury there is an ideal uninjured head you can refer to. Thats something we can agree on. But earlier it seemed like we were discussing common or uncommon brains. Now its baout brain damage?"

Sometimes genetic variation produces brains that are similar to ones with brain damage. But, that is besides the point. Damaged brains are uncommon brains as well.

 

"no where in any of this research did they manage to identify an objectively correct brain, so that you could refer to other brains in relation to that one."

Objectively 'correct' is a misnomer. You are trying to lead the conversation back to where you have a point. 'Correct' has nothing to do with biology.

The kind of brains that they study ARE uncommon. They are rare, and differ from 'average' brains (can be determined using random sampling) in measurable ways.

 

I think you are trying to hard to justify your objection to the language.

 

 

Of course I am. Synaesthesia is a statistically unlikely symptom of statistically unlikely brains. It is also one that has some potentially beneficial effects. You once again can't get over the fact that abnormal is not necessarily a value-laden term.

it refers to a norm that doesnt exist. Since youre not getting me, I googled some numbers: schizophrenics, 1 in 100; synaesthetes, 1 in 2000; neurologists, 1 in 26,000; neurosurgeons, 1 in 65,000. Now tell me how this is value-free analysis? They should be studying each other.

Life is abnormal.

referring to what norm? Life is normal for living things, thats kind of a truism. You are begging the question and you dont even realize it.

Intelligence is abnormal.

again, referencing what norm? Youre asking me to assume your premise. I dont import false bases of comparison into my language if I can avoid it. Its abnormal for thinking creatures to be unintelligent? How?

You are the product of a long history of accidents.

I am quite certain you know nothing about me or the circumstances from whence I have arisen. As for your characterization "accidents," surely youre not suggesting that something else was supposed to happen?

When you look at the big picture, you are EXCEEDINGLY abnormal.

I honestly dont even know what you mean? Whats normal, in the big picture? Break it down for me.

The whole point of studying abnormal brains is so that

1. You can treat it if desired

2. You can further understand how brains work

how do you decide what is "normal" for a brain? With regard to "undamaged" or uninjured specimens. What constitutes the bounds of normality for a brain in its congenital state?

In the same way that you can learn how a system works by removing one part and observing what happens, you can learn how a 'normal' brain works by studying the tendencies of brains that are similar in all but a few ways. That is why it is a useful discussion, morality has nothing to do with it.

well theres one problem, morality should have somethng to do with it. As in, dont establish norms for undamaged human structures. "you can learn how a 'normal' brain works by studying the tendencies of brains that are similar in all but a few ways" wouldnt it be more accurate to say "by studying several different brain structures, we can gain insight into how and why those brains perform as they do."?

It's not the same as changing one's activities, its changing one's temperament.

is there a laboratory test for temperament or is it something a scientist measures in the field?

Sometimes genetic variation produces brains that are similar to ones with brain damage. But, that is besides the point. Damaged brains are uncommon brains as well.

How are you measuring commonality here?

The kind of brains that they study ARE uncommon. They are rare, and differ from 'average' brains (can be determined using random sampling) in measurable ways.

everyone's brain is measureably uncommon. You are expressing a preference for specific metrics. Justify those metrics.

I think you are trying to hard to justify your objection to the language.

I am trying really hard to communicate this concept to you, but you dont seem to realize that "abnormal" necessarily implies a norm.

Neurologist and neurosurgeon are careers. Synaesthesia is a perceptual disorder. One is studied by cognitive scientists, the other isn't.

The point isn't to just study uncommon behavior, as that can be the product of many different things, most being irrelevant to the neurologist's trade. The point is to study 'rare' brains (1 in 2000 counts as rare, I suspect, to everyone who isn't being intentionally thick) and search for systematic, statistically significant patterns of behavior.

 

If you parse 'abnormal' as anything but 'statistically uncommon, rare, not average' one more time, this conversation is over. I'm not going to beat my head against a wall in attempting to persuade someone who is intentionally misinterpreting everything I say.

 

My point is simple. Certain statistically uncommon brains percieve/react/value differently than brains that do not share their physiology. These perception/reaction/valuation differences are not random but caused by their physiology. This leads to observable, measurable differences in behavior and personality.

Assuming that Szasz was not referring to 'abnormal' in a normative sense in his quote that 'abnormal behavior is not a product of abnormal brains', he is wrong.

 

If you parse 'abnormal' as anything but 'statistically uncommon, rare, not average' one more time, this conversation is over. I'm not going to beat my head against a wall in attempting to persuade someone who is intentionally misinterpreting everything I say.

Neurologist and neurosurgeon are careers. Synaesthesia is a perceptual disorder[sic]. One is studied by cognitive scientists, the other isn't.

apparently I am paying more attention to what you write than you are. I am pretty sure that a (conduct of a) neurosurgery career is a "systematic, statistically significant [pattern] of behavior" so you can explain to me what a pattern of behavior needs to do, besides being rare, in order to qualify for your assessment as "abnormal/uncommon." does it have something to do with conformance to pre-existing norms? You tell me what makes one pattern of behavior important and another one unimportant. Or declare victory and go home, doesnt matter to me.

The point is to study 'rare' brains (1 in 2000 counts as rare, I suspect, to everyone who isn't being intentionally thick)

again, all brains are unique. You are expressing a preference for certain metrics, while ignoring other metrics. You need to explain this preference.

My point is simple. Certain statistically uncommon brains percieve/react/value differently than brains that do not share their physiology. These perception/reaction/valuation differences are not random but caused by their physiology.

No two brains are the same structurally, neither do any two individuals perceive/react/value the same. Essentially, without the reference to meaningless metrics, you said that different brains think differently. Which we already knew. But you cant put down your desire to pass judgment on certain people's physiology long enough to see that.

This leads to observable, measurable differences in behavior and personality.

there is no competing theory that alleges everyone has the same behavior and personality. Thanks though.

Assuming that Szasz was not referring to 'abnormal' in a normative sense in his quote that 'abnormal behavior is not a product of abnormal brains', he is wrong.

behavior is a product of agents, not brains. Brains produce coded emissions of energy.

How specific are you going to want me to be?

If I said

"Subjects with a uncommonly functioning fusiform gyrus, whether by genetics or injury, when compared with the average functioning temporal lobe (approximated from years of random sampling data across all populations), exhibit exceedingly uncommon perceptual symptoms and behavior.

would you want more detail?

Some detail on the characteristics under discussion would be nice

You might want to read some actual academic papers then.

BTW, brains produce 'agents' (or the illusion of them) which produce behavior. So...

edit: behavior does not mean activities. For example, people with injuries to specific parts of the frontal lobe become hopelessly addicted gamblers. Does this mean the frontal lobe determines if you are a gambler or not? Not directly, the actual behavioral change is that of thrill seeking and risk avoidance, namely more of the former and less of the latter. This behavioral change can be expressed in many different ways, and gambling addiction is just one of them. If they lived in the Alps with no casinos around, those same individuals would probably be doing this.

That's why I said that these things affect temperament.

You think brains "create" people, and the like?

""You might want to read some actual academic papers then.""

so you cant explain why relatively frequent patient-reported sensory percepts aka "synaesthesia" is the product of an abnormal brain but (by comparison much more uncommon) 3 decades of compulsive behavior that results in legal authorization to saw crania and pronounce on "normal and abnormal brains" is not? Color me surprised!

I think brains 'create' consciousness and agency, or the illusion thereof. As do the majority of cognitive scientists/biologists.

I could explain the physiology of synaesthesia, prosopagnosia, and many other symptoms of 'uncommon' brains. The work has already been done for me, however.

 

"This behavioral change can be expressed in many different ways"

so its even easier to plausibly connect potentially unrelated things! Thanks scientific method, for takng a break!

I think brains 'create' consciousness and agency, or the illusion thereof.

but you said the brain creates "agents." which is not true. Agents create behaviors with their actions, the brain processes information.

As do the majority of cognitive scientists/biologists.

That would be uncommon behavior.

I could explain the physiology of synaesthesia, prosopagnosia, and many other symptoms of 'uncommon' brains.

however you could not explain why those brains are "uncommon" and that is what we were discussing.

Don't pretend you know anything about the scientific standards these studies hold themselves to, it's not like you've read any of them.

Oh wait, I forgot that this community is now infested with conspiracy theorists and science-skeptics.

They are uncommon because their prevalance in their relevant population is like 3 standard deviations from the mean!

edit: I need to start compiling my disbelief to one post, in case it looks like I'm spamming.

The brain processes information, as well as determining physical actions. I'm not sure if you are trying to be clever or if you actually think there is anything else 'in control'. I think you know what I mean.

Don't pretend you know anything about the scientific standards these studies hold themselves to, it's not like you've read any of them.

I would be the first person to testify that I do not know ANYTHING about the "scientific standards" that whatever studies you speak of allegedly held themselves to. Thats kind of the point of me asking you questions.

Oh wait, I forgot that this community is now infested with conspiracy theorists and science-skeptics.

are you implying that it would be somehow preferable to have faith in (whatever it is one happens to call) "science"? Skepticism is a bad thing, since when? And dont forget to poison the well, you person who doesnt support the troops!

zefreak:

They are uncommon because their prevalance in their relevant population is like 3 standard deviations from the mean!

 

Thats a truism. If you cant answer the question, which conclusion seems inescapable at this point, just bow out gracefully.

"Thats a truism. If you cant answer the question, which conclusion seems inescapable at this point, just bow out gracefully."

Hah. You asked how I knew that brains that exhibit syaesthesia were uncommon. You accept as a truism that a sample 3 standard deviations from the mean is uncommon. 1 in 60 people have colored grapheme synaesthesia. That is beyond your accepted threshold for being classified 'uncommon'. The physiological peculiarity that causes colored grapheme synaesthesia is known. Therefor that physiological peculiarity is 'uncommon'. The brain that has that physiological peculiarity is 'uncommon'.

 

"so its even easier to plausibly connect potentially unrelated things! Thanks scientific method, for takng a break!"

Right, you are not implying anything about the scientific standards held by cognitive scientists. Just asking questions.

 

"are you implying that it would be somehow preferable to have faith in (whatever it is one happens to call) "science"? Skepticism is a bad thing, since when?"

Motivated skepticism is a bad thing. For example, someone who has done 0 research into cognitive science who is 'skeptical' of the scientific veracity of its findings is not being a skeptic, they are being lazy. Just an example.

Hah. You asked how I knew that brains that exhibit syaesthesia were uncommon. You accept as a truism that a sample 3 standard deviations from the mean is uncommon. 1 in 60 people have colored grapheme synaesthesia. That is beyond your accepted threshold for being classified 'uncommon'. The physiological peculiarity that causes colored grapheme synaesthesia is known. Therefor that physiological peculiarity is 'uncommon'. The brain that has that physiological peculiarity is 'uncommon'.

that wasnt so hard, was it? Youre almost done. "uncommon" within what population?

"so its even easier to plausibly connect potentially unrelated things! Thanks scientific method, for takng a break!"

Right, you are not implying anything about the scientific standards held by cognitive scientists. Just asking questions.

well I do think its nontrivial that your definition of a single behavior is recursive to include disparate behaviors that have a single similarity, while arbitrarily excluding behaviors that are more uncommon by orders of magnitude. But we already know you dont like skeptical inquiry as it applies to cognitive science so go wild.

Motivated skepticism is a bad thing.

I would like to parse this but I dont know where to begin. I am guilty of "skepticism with intent"? You would rather me question you for the hell of it, rather than to discern truth? Or did you only intend to refer to certain motives?

For example, someone who has done 0 research into cognitive science who is 'skeptical' of the scientific veracity of its findings is not being a skeptic, they are being lazy. Just an example.

well call me crazy, I kind of thought the burden of proof was on the person making the claim. I guess from now on whenever anyone says anything, I will go find my own reasons to believe or disbelieve them, rather than ask them mean questions about why they believe the things they believe. I'm sorry made you discuss a subject you obviously have an interest in, I hope it wasnt too painful for you.

The brain processes information, as well as determining physical actions.

I'm hesitant, because you dont like questions, but I am going to ask anyway: how do you conclude that the brain "determines" physical actions? Is this science or faith?

http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Motivated_skepticism

 

As for the rest of your questions, if you were educated enough in the field to have a general understanding of the basic findings/reasoning behind their conclusions, we could debate specific points. At this point, the amount of information I would have to spoon feed you is honestly too much for me to bother.

Maybe it's your method of arguement that is the problem. I would much rather you state your objections clearly than bullshit around asking me leading questions as if I had all day to reach your point for you. I recommend doing a little reading about cognitive science, it's general findings and the methodology they use. It's not one study that the conclusions regarding the relationship between brain and personality/behavior come from. It's thousand of individual findings that coherently support one another, each additional finding adding confidence to the hypothesis.

As for how I conclude that the brain 'determines' physical actions, the heuristic used is called 'Occam's razor' and its modern mathematical form is Solomonoff Induction. Of course, you would have to do plenty of research on the subject in order to build up the evidential basis to the point where you are persuaded, and I don't expect that to happen. If you have any specific objections however, or any data points that you think cannot be explained by materialistic determinism, please bring them to my attention.

Well, I tend to think that bias is inherent in human thought, so I disagree that motivated skepticism can be avoided. And I am educated enough to be aware of some limitations on modern scientific inquiry, there isnt really a debate about any of that. I'm sorry that you felt my inquiries were abrasive, I guess I should learn to be more respectful of other people's belief systems. I will tell you that I am familiar with parsimony I dont feel that makes your case for you. As for whether materialistic determinism explains anything at all, the day is too short for that. But it was fun have a good day zefreak.