Kissed by God

You may wish to research the term, "environmental shaping", before your next spew, ol Barry.

 

La_Piedra, what I mean specifically by mathematics is quantitative evidence.

If you have cancer, we can quantitatively find cancer cells in your body. If you have a mental disorder, the mathematics of diagnosing that illness are practically non-existent. There seems to be some evidence of brain scans, but generally the disorder is diagnosed by a clinical psychiatrist (Barry please correct me if I'm wrong here) based on physical expressions of the disease, not based on a clear scientific diagnoses such as diagnosing cancer, aids, or any infectious disease that is not purely a mental disorder.

This is likely because the science or neurology is, as Barry has stated, lagging behind the rest of the biological fields. This is because the brain is still poorly understood (although more and more), whereas, the heart or any other organ has a very distinct and quantitative nature to being healthy or not. A diseased heart can be quantitatively described. A diseased brain from a mental disorder, not to my knowledge.

Hopefully that makes sense. All science is at it's crux based in mathematics.

My background is as Merx stated, although I would add that I also hold an undergraduate degree in computer science and I am currently a graduate student in computer science studying bioinformatics. That narrows down my person pretty well as there are not many people with those credentials that I am aware of ... Don't stalk me weirdos LOL!

 

I prefer "history does not repeat itself, but it rhymes"

 

Also, I would argue against brain scans being quantitative evidence because we clearly do not fully understand those scans, and they can therefore not be used for anything but speculation and further research.

 

Well, prepare yourself, because it will and without fail.

You, and all, may enjoy this entire article. I have only scanned it. The following excerpt sums up my stance:

http://www.sociologydiscussion.com/environment/heredity-and-environment-meaning-and-effects/2222

 

humans are sad.
Andy surfed good.

 

Well, the first thing I think of when you say "quantitative evidence" is something concrete, such as a brain scan that shows an anomaly in a particular part of the brain.

But then, you go on to state that such a scan is really not "quantative" or definitive. Confusion ensues...

But after a brief research of "bioinformatics", would I be very far off base in presuming that the mathematical equation you refer to has more to do with actual genomes and how those genomes may or may not be responsible for certain behaviors?

 

I would, if we were talking about diseases in rodents.

 

I agree with that.
Contingent of course, on how the scans are used and what is the primary end-point of the study using them. The last brain scan study I was trained on was to show structural similarities in schizophrenics and heroin addicts. The deterioration similarity was remarkable. Measurements were also taken, but I cannot recall the confidence interval.

 

I believe you are correct in that assertion. However, keep in mind, I have been retired for several years now, and the field is evolving rapidly. I too, am now somewhat out of date, I am sure.

 

I have always thought the "ring of fire" scan was pretty cool!



As for rodents and disease, man is part of the animal kingdom.

Review this, ya rigid ole mule:

"In spite of over a hundred years of research and many billions of dollars spent, we still have no clear evidence that schizophrenia and other related psychotic disorders are the result of a diseased brain...."

http://medicaluofg.blogspot.com/2015/12/is-schizophrenia-really-brain-disease.html

Same for the rest of all the quackery...we don't know.

 

No, I was not attempting to apply any bioinformatics to this topic My work is predominantly in mathematics and software development, as opposed to biology. For example, Biologist might have a problem that some advanced math technique could help them solve, such as analyzing the structures of amino acids in low resolution electron microscope images and making accurate determinations of what the amino acid is based on the underlying structures (what the researchers before me in my department have focused on). Biologist are rarely mathematicians, and they also are not generally computer scientist. A computer scientist can take that math problem that a biologist is working on and turn it into an algorithm that a computer can solve, saving the human time and reducing error. I'm uniquely suited for this field of work, I suppose, but a computer scientist does not need any biological background to work in the field of bioinformatics.

Regarding the brain scans, it's understandable you are confused. Yes, brain scans ARE quantitative by their nature. That's very true, and it's precisely why I added the caveat regarding them. My argument is not that brain scans are not quantitative, but that their results are not definitive. For example, you cannot take a brain scan of a person and determine if they have mental illness. There are correlations, supposedly, between patients suffering from similar mental illnesses, but that correlation has not been proven to be quantatitve evidence of mental illness. So while brain scans are quantitative, their data has not yet been determined to be useful to faithfully diagnose brain disorders.

 

Ok. Clear as mud lol.

I learned one thing though, and that this conversation is way above my pay grade...But I'm curious about the subject and I wanted to pick your brain a little bit. I mean, where else can a surfer go for the best medical/fashion/political advice but SwellInfo? It's where the bestest experts reside.

I forgot what this thread is about.

 

HAHAHAHA!! In a biology-medical discussion you quote a reference from "sociology"???hahahaha!!
You cannot be serious....

 

Now you are responding to or being sucked in by witchcraft......

 

What are you talking about dude? Humans are the most awesome and resilient creatures in the universe

 

I'm having trouble with this part. I doubt anyone would argue that human existence today is extremely different than it was 1000 years ago, maybe even changing at a faster rate (although I'm not sure how one can objectively define rate of change...comparing the ability to write software or leave the planet vs. ability to start fires or fashion tools out of iron on some sort of "rate of change scale) than it did during the previous 1000 years, and the previous 100,000 years, etc. The part i'm always curious about is the "true existence" part. It implies that at some point we left "true" evolution behind and began changing in some "false" kind of way.

Explain.

 

???

 

I have to be honest here. When I read the title of this thread (three times) I read it to be " kissed by dog".
Do I have something else on my mind?