Ooops!

I am currently moving 500 gigs interrupting many operations sorry

Animal Research

Argument in favor

Animal research is necessary because some information cannot be had any other way. Animal research provides valid and useful information because of the advances in medicine that it has help develop. Animal research is beneficial to the subjects because the care and habitation conditions are held to a higher standard than pet ownership.

Research involving experimenting on animals is necessary if certain information is to be obtained. For example, all information on medicating children is pure guesswork; even proper dosage is only a best guess extrapolation from clinical trial experimental information culled from adults. Those guesses about dosage modification from adults to children must be assisted by the experimentation upon animals; the alternatives are a) to do clinical drug trial experimentation on children or b) to discover toxic effects on development and teratogenic effects of drugs in the same manner as the teratogenic effects of thalidomide were discovered. Irrespective of kids’ plasticity, adaption and adjustment, the minimal suffering of an innumerable number of laboratory animals weighs less than the suffering of one child poisoned by medical guesswork without the knowledge provided by comparative physiology.

Animal research is beneficial because, even though we need not concern ourselves with a psychosomatic ‘placebo’ effect on animals, we still must use placebos, but the necessity is to discover the baseline stress effect of the administration method. That is to say the animal must be forcibly removed from its environment and restrained for the administration of the medication or placebo. While they can be acclimated to be handled by humans, it is not in the nature of rats’ natural experience to be picked up and held down without being the subject of predation. To minimize this as a confounding variable, the successful researcher must learn to handle and test an animal in the most humane and gentle manner possible. The humane treatment of subjects of research whether animal or human is an integral part of the procedure. Inhumane treatment would introduce uncontrolled variables into the procedure that would render all information thereby gleaned useless. The skills and knowledge exists to prevent or reduce suffering that of noscomial infection. The habitation of subject animals is maintained is a salubrial condition (Carlson, 2005).

Animal research is beneficial because research is not the only purpose for which humans use animals. They provide us with nutrition, clothing, entertainment, and even medicine and companionship without consultation of their will in the matter. Laboratory research is held to a higher standard than pet ownership. And that is as is it should be if for no other reason than controlling confounding variables.

References

Carlson, Neil, R. 2005 Foundations of Physiological Psychology 6th Ed. Pearson Ally and Bacon Boston Ma.

Fischer, Alan E. June 1964 Chemical Stimulation of The Brain page 295-6 in Readings from Scientific American Physiological Psychology W. Ho Freeman and company San Francisco

Jouvet, Michel The States of Sleep Feb. 1967 (pp. 329-336) In Readings from Scientific American: Physiological Psychology W. Ho Freeman and company San Francisco Ca.

Argument in Opposition posted at http://wholesalememories.wordpress.com/

From the jungle to the new horizon a video history

slowing down

I am currently designing a web  page and as I am just beginning at this my output is some what erratic, but graduate school, gainful employment, and two small children can do that to one.  But as a beginner, my essay on Alzheimer's disease was selected as a featured topic on Bestthinking.com   to be posted here soon Alzheimer's

Is an intelligence quotient an illusion?

This practice is consistent with Spearman , but wholly inconsistent with Gardener

A Single IQ score is consistent because, The concept of IQ as a singular phenomena has been called into question The absent minded professor is nearly archetypal in popular culture. . There may well be some truth behind a concept so prevalent and pervasive in western culture. If intelligence is a composite of many factors then the image of an intelligent person behaving as a fool would not be incongruent.

Spearman’s concept of g was a theory of intelligence wherein “g” or general mental ability is a set of which many factors of intelligence are elements.

There are differences in the way people deal with problems of daily life There is a positive correlation between tests that observe mental processing, retrieval or manipulation of information and tests that measure cognitive ability. In other words, someone who does well on one kid of cognitive test is likely to do well on other different kinds of cognitive tests. Despite the fact that there is no agreed upon definition of intelligence, there is a continuum as such whereupon people differ.

Spearman, due to the consistency of scores across different tests, proposed a single entity concept of intelligence as a factor of general mental ability or “g”. Some theorists equate general mental ability as information processing.

Intelligence is an abstract concept. It is not even a metaphysical thing. Intelligence is, at best, a set of behaviors. General mental ability is systematic individual differences in the performance of tasks that involve the manipulation, retrieval, evaluation, or processing of information. General mental ability is related to basic cognitive and physiological processes, but it is not certain whether these underlying processes can be described. Behaviors can be observed, so intelligence can be described in terms of behaviors..

Scores on any cognitive tests are influenced by general mental ability or “g”. Correlations among test scores are due to each test presenting a partial measure of g. Each test measures some factor of g and is also influenced by measurement error. For example, the score on a test measuring intuitive geometry is affected y measurement error and the test takers level of intuitive geometry and the individual test taker’s level of g. This theory asks us to make intelligence tests highly g loaded, that reducing the influence of measurement error and the influence of any specific factor of intelligence will give better results. The upshot of this is that an intelligence test could be measuring some aspect of intelligence and not general mental ability per ce. There is considerable evidence that intelligence is generalizable. There are broad and general differences between individuals on a broad range of cognitive tasks and a general factor arises out on nearly every analysis, One’s standing or level on this general factor is the best single predictor of performance on any cognitive task. Once g has been factored, there are no specific abilities that add any predictive reliability or validity.

Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences is that the concept of general intelligence is not useful as people can be intelligent in many different ways.

Global comparisons between people or groups emphasizes only a small part of intelligence. The single score might be a composite score made up of many disparate factors.

Other theorists posit other types of intelligence from the existence of other abilities such as a ballet dancer or basketball player said to possess bodily-Kinesthetic intelligence.

While there may be some justification for considering intrapersonal intelligence, the capacity for empathy and compassion are more that just a bridge between the two. Furthermore the linguistic intelligence from the mathematico-logical intelligence and musical intelligence could well be spurious, as it is often said that mathematics is also another language. Concepts are concatenated in language. Subtraction is merely the addition of negatives. Sentences are diagrammed into formulae noun plus adjective plus verb plus adverb = statement in logic concepts are manipulated like integers in math. AND the later career of Ludwig Von Beethoven demonstrates the congruence of music and mathematics. Are these multiple intelligences of Gardner merely different facets of the same jewel? As is said in the Rig Veda, “the truth is the same, the sages know it by many names.”

Sternberg's triarchic theory of intelligence

Sternberg however divides intelligence horizontally instead of vertically into context, experience and process. I would argue that context is no more than the predeterminants of intelligence and process is after all a process. Once again we are not looking at different jewels here, but looking separately at the cut, clarity and quality of a single gem.

The why, what, and how can be lost if one concentrates too much on g, but multiple intelligences lack empirical support. Mental activities have components and different components are used to acquire different sorts of information. Adaptation to the environment is the critical measure of intelligence. Intelligence is coping and coping is self efficacy. Intelligence is more than information processing.

Sub theory one: componential theory is concerned with how intelligent behavior ias generated.

Sub theory two: contextual theory deals with what behaviors are intelligent in what context

Sub theory three: experiential theory when is a given behavior intelligent.

Theories of the nature of intelligence will influence the designing of intelligence tests.

However, we should be thankful for these attempts to divide the indivisible, for without them our concept of intelligence and attempts to manipulate that concept would be too simplistic for practical usage. On the other hand the opposite extreme has practically issues also. Shall we develop eight different measures for eight different intelligences? How can any other test besides a performance measure evaluate bodily kinesthetic intelligence? On the other axis, how shall we measure the experience strata of an individual’s intelligence? Shall we do a longitudinal study of each individual to measure their intelligence?

If our focus is to be education then let us confine ourselves to mastery and adaptability and relegate all questions of intelligence to a naval contemplating sidetrack wherein the waiting itself will bring about the new universe of peace and love.

creation myth

In the beginning there was Entropy.  Since entropy encompassed all, it was an infinite sphere.  As Entropy transcended itself through its internal identity the naval of the NON Individuality and Divergency were born, therefore this and that came to be such.  As thisness came to be itself and congealed it came to be the other to that and vice versa the opposition of thisness to thatness gave birth to twins likeness and unlikeness likeness gathered, unlikeness dispersed likeness and unlikeness alike worked together to homogenize individuality and diversity likeness brought forth mass and density, unlikeness brought forth molecular agitation and rarification these two in merging created Osmosis.  Now osmosis, was much beloved of both unlikeness and likeness and thus was given power over the dispersal and collection of matter and the off-ice thereof.  Osmosis assumed the goal of the resurgency of homogeneous entropy, however individuality and divergency were not pleased at their plotted absorption into the world soul.  they came in unto mass and density and took them by force this resulted in the birthing of form and substance.  Individuality diversity and substance were absorbed by osmosis but form resisted absorption by countering with stamina static inertia and adsorption.  Entropy who had transcended into evolution by absorbing substance along with diversity and individuality enspelled form with a defense against osmosis in that form without substance is immaterial and thus immune to Osmosis.  The elements gathered and took counsel on this matter.  It was decided that the absence of form in entropy had brought about their own existence instead of another cycle of cosmic implosion the inevitable result of a truly universal homogeneous entropy it was therefore decided to introduce a mortal into the equation in order to keep and maintain the balance to which they owed their existence. Earth provided a body water gave the body motion, air gave the body pneuma-ruach, fire gave psyche-nephesh. Thus a new thing was seen in being, a man.  As Andros needed, he thought.  If he hungered, he thought of sustenance.  The perfect co-operation of the elements shaped his environment as he desired it. they had a grander scheme in mind.  Although they knew that it would spell the eventual end of their concert, they brought forth a woman and did not bring them together immediately the counsel of individuality and diversity operated thuswise.  It was desired that the humans have time to develop themselves before they were brought together, it was also felt wise to wait for the rebirth of Entropy-Evolution.  They on the other hand had no wish to be reborn, contrariwise it wished to merge with mass in order that gravity might come into being who would prevail against osmosis in the tug of war over the existence of substance Then and only then with gravity and substance in existence and form not necessarily attached nor detached from them as mankind spread and grew and multiplied, evolutionary entropy saw that man was ignorant, thus provided with them with gods to lead them "Expedience" and his mate "Utility" who gathered men into groups in order to promote the general welfare and when the fruits of this divine marriage were born they were found to be twins (the divinity being highly fecund), a boy Law and a girl Order They were given dominion over the groupings of man.  There does exist rumors of the alleged infidelity of utility with Social Contract or Common Consent.  But those who perpetuate such slander are subversive guttersnipes who wish to degrade the honour of the gods in order to absolve themselves of their own guilt or do we evade the question do we degrade the honor of the gods when we shackle them with our limitations which are based upon mortal survival in a physical world.

taxation with representation

The reason that the Gods of ancient myth practices incest was not to glorify it; but to give object lessons in family unity, to demonstrate the inevitable evil results. Taxes must be kept pleasing to the populace in order to maintain a contented payment motivation. In respect to present-day taxes the populace would like a "soak the rich" program and steps to that effect would appease them, until they learn the price of negative economic growth. Taxes must not be too heavy. Solomon extracted heavy taxes in order to raise Israel to its highest pinnacle of prominence. However, when his successor Rehoboam chose to continue this practice at an accelerated pace, the revolt of the ten northern tribes was the subsequent result. Also, taxes must be adequate, as the Sumerian says, "The city that is weak in armaments, the enemy will not be driven from its gates." Without taxes Solomon would not have had the money to but the cedars f, gold and silver from Hiram with which to build the temple, palace, and other architectural ornations for the land and more, especially the pride of Israel. Herod the Great (circa 6 b.c.) in later times would never have rebuilt the temple or the amphitheaters and the other cultural retreats for the Israeli populace that his reign was noted for, without tax money, but he kept the Israeli populace satisfied enough to forestall revolt for half a century. TAX GROWTH, NOT CAPITAL!

Aristotle

Aristotle says, in effect, that humanity (mankind) it's not "present" in a person because one person does not contain humanity. That is to say the existence of humanity is possible separate from a single individual. A colloquial interpreter would claim that this excludes the individual from participation in the class of humanity. This is the sort of quibbling that brought about the entire realism versus nominalism debate of scholasticism. Yet, in Aristotle's case it was not so much quibbling as putting some sort of brake on Platonic other-worldliness. So then mankind is predicated of the subject this man. This would seem to be a much better example of a statement wherein the predicate is contained within the subject than the statement "sugar is

sweet" or the object of football is to score goals. In respect to the possibility of a priori synthetic judgments, we may be doing no more than treating words and concepts as shuttlecocks in a semantic game of badminton. The question remains whether, when we design a conceptual construct for the purposes of theory, are we ever doing anything else. From the categories of Aristotle, "Now the same relation which subsists between primary substance and everything else subsists also between the species and the genus: for the species is to the genus as the subject is to the predicate, since the genus is predicated of the species, whereas the species cannot be predicated of the genus.” First: primary substance, is this the ontological predicate? Is being a being or is being a thing? Is existence a phenomenon or are phenomena an aspect of existence? or merely its image? Which subject and which predicts which is object or, if you will, which is genus & which species? If the species cannot be predicated from the genus, where does that leave Natural Theology? Is God not present in creation because creation does not contain God? The existence of God is possible separate from creation. Creation is excluded from Divinity.

predication

In consideration of Aristotle's Categories, a definition of predication becomes even more necessary and mysterious than in Kant's critique Kart claimed that a predicate contained within The subject is meaningless, Aristotle claimed that The Two were mutually exclusive in That a characteristic, quality or condition (i. e. a subject) could not both be present in, as well as predicable of an object.

decay of democracy historical evidence

Caesarism only gave a name to a well established process in the fall of

the Roman Republic. The conflict between Caesar and Pompey was merely a
reflection of the class conflict left unresolved by Marius and Sulla. The
conflict erupted when the counter weight of Crassus was removed and the
familial ties between the men were broken. The artificial friendship between
Pompey and Caesar were plugs in a dam full of holes; a dam that had
consistently failed to hold back the flood of conflict. For a long time this
conflict was exacerbated by men seeking power and self-aggrandizement.
Conflict was avoided in the beginnings of the Roman republic. The head of
state was alternated between the original classes, the Romans and the Sabines.
The roots of this conflict were evident in the attempted reforms of the
tribuneship of the Gracchi brothers. The Gracchi brothers resorted to violence
in order to institute reforms; such as a repeal of the law against intermarriage
between the patrician and plebeians, land reforms, and extension of citizenship
to Italian allies. Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus both met their ends at the
hands of aristocratic mobs.
At the beginning of his career, Marius took pains to alienate the patrician
class. He purposely chose soldiers from the lower classes contrary to
tradition. Flushed with unprecedented victories over the invading Cimbri, he
embarked upon a political career feverish with actions against the patrician
class. His excesses were matched or exceeded by the aristocratic reaction led
by his rival Sulla.
Caesar was a nephew of Marius, who flouted the enmity of Sulla. When he
might have escaped to exile during Sulla's dictatorship, he stood for the
priesthood at Rome. He was elected Pontifex Maximus or high priest. In a
celebration, he had statues of Marius erected at the capitol at night. This
ploy fooled no one. But luckily for his safety, the aristocratic class
despised his youth; they would not listen when Sulla warned, “In this boy are
many Mariuses".
Pompey was the darling of the patrician class. He was born a patrician to
an illustrious family. He fought for Sulla in the civil wars leading an army
that he had gathered and trained while in exile. He had fought wars in Parthia
and Asia extending the eastern frontier of Rome. He was given absolute powers
to suppress piracy and to solve the resultant grain shortage.
They pledged mutual support for their candidates for office, for their
aspirations to provincial governorships, and for legislation to provide public
funds for their separate military campaigns. Pompey also loaned troops to
Caesar for use in Gaul. This friendship was cemented with alliances by
marriage. Caesar also sent troops home in order that they might vote for
Pompey and Crassus in return for favorable legislation upon their election.
Caesar learned much in Gaul. He learned military science, and that he was
a latent genius at that subject. He learned that he could amass the wealth
necessary to successfully conduct bribery. He was finally able to suborn
officials. When he camped south of the Alps for winter, so many people came
from Rome to visit and seek his advice and his bribes that at one time there
were 200 senators at his camp.
This balance of power remained because if they fought openly, Crassus would
have had opportunity to defeat the weakened winner. Crassus died from an
abysmally mismanaged military campaign in Parthia. Since his death was quickly
followed by the death of Pompey's wife in childbirth, and since Caesar's
granddaughter by Pompey did not survive her mother, their was no longer any
ties to hold back hostility.
The Senate became concerned over the rising power of Caesar. The latest
elections had gone against Pompey and open strife became conspicuous. The lack
of government was a reason that some gave for the need for a dictator. Many in
the Senate felt that a legal monarchy was preferable to government by the
sword. The Senate in the person of Cato also felt that Pompey would be the
milder and more tractable candidate for monarchy. They began to consider
proposals to disarm Caesar and to remove him from lucrative provincial
government. Accusations of malfeasance of public funds were made. Caesar's
envoys, men of rank and position, were attacked in the Senate. Worst of all,
to be stripped of his legions and to return to Rome a private citizen would
disqualify him from a public celebration, a triumph, commemorating his
victories in Gaul.
Caesar returned to Pompey the loaned troops. They acted as agents
provocateurs. They belittled Caesar's accomplishments, and the loyalty of his
troops to Pompey. Pompey had always despised Caesar's power, thinking that as
he had raised Caesar up, he could reduce him just as easily. Pompey also
counted upon raising troops seemingly out of nowhere, as he had been able to do
in the past, as he had done during the civil wars of Sulla and Marius. Caesar
also made counter-proposals. He proposed that he should be treated equally
with Pompey, either Pompey should disband his troops and they both present
themselves to the Roman people for judgment, or that if Pompey should retain
his provinces and troops, then Caesar should also retain his. These proposals
were received with joy by the people, and with contumely by the Senate. In
response, Caesar still offered compromise. He offered to relinquish all but
two of his provinces and all but two of his legions. This proposal was
rejected with greatest vehemence yet.
He halted his advance on the banks of the Rubicon. The river which marked
the boundary between his provinces and Roman lands, Here he stopped and
considered the hostility of the Senate, his probable fate if he acquiesced, and
the consequences to Rome and himself if he advanced. Reaching a decision,
Caesar suddenly advanced without waiting for his troops beyond the Alps to
arrive.
Caesar may have said, "let the die be cast." but the die was really cast
long before by Marius.