What are your experiences with short term vs. long term results

[TylerDurden]

Well, admittedly, I was rather leery of providing that link because I knew the western reinterpretation of the "Okinawa Diet" was mainly vegetarian-leaning in terms of bias and not really representative of the Okinawans' true diet. I was just too lazy to find a better link.

But there are  other totally opposed views of what the Okinawan Diet really is:-


http://www.tendergrassfedmeat.com/2011/03/01/eat-fat-live-long%E2%80%94the-real-food-of-okinawa/


It is interesting to find out that the Asians refer to Okinawa as "The Island of Pork" , making it clear that the Western reinterpretation of the traditional Okinawan Diet as being mainly vegetarian is somewhat bogus:-

http://mylastbite.wordpress.com/2008/12/16/shinokinawaizikaya/

Interesting to see, in the first link, how much the Okinawans loved to go in for raw goatmeat and raw fish.  Just proves the benefit of a raw, palaeolithic diet.


Not that I discount a high raw plant food, low raw animal food diet as being unhealthy per se. 100 percent raw plant food diets will cause problems in the long-term as plant foods are not complete foods but a few raw animal foods added would sort out any possible deficiencies.

[Dorothy]

Summary:
> Isn't measured brain sizes evidence regarding brain sizes, albeit quite limited by the small amount of evidence available?
> I'm not claiming proof of anything.
> Brain size does not equal increased intelligence, they are merely correlated, and my original point was more regarding brain size than intelligence, as intelligence is much more difficult to measure than brain and skull size.

Details:
Since when is measured brain sizes (based on molding material they put into skulls) not evidence of brain size? Do you have better evidence?
I don't recall ever claiming to present "proof" on this topic and I try to be careful in general not to claim proof, though I probably don't always succeed. If you see somewhere where I used that term, please let me know so I can correct it out. Suggestive evidence is not proof, though it's better than no evidence at all.
I just try to follow wherever the evidence, science and logic lead. As I said before, if you have better evidence, please share it.
Brain size doesn't equal intelligence, it is correlated with it. Correlation is not causation, it's only suggestive evidence that can point the way for further research. That equation goes well beyond the evidence. I even was careful to note the following:
This is a good example of why my standard approach is to try to avoid claiming to have "proved" anything (when I'm paying proper attention to my language) and I try to be careful to use language like "correlation," "the evidence suggests," "it seems that" and so on, rather than "this proves" or "this is absolutely the case" or "this must be...." I even created a thread on this topic where I advocated for not making absolute claims, especially not without evidence. I'm comfortable with uncertainty and open-mindedness. I try to go wherever the evidence leads me. Of course, different people sometimes interpret the same evidence differently, which is fine and which is what scientific discussion and debate is for. I find I'm persuaded more by the evidence that other folks present (which can include anecdotal evidence where appropriate--I'm not an evidence snob) than I am by opinions. You're free to your opinions, of course, just please don't expect me to be swayed much by them, nor do I expect you to be swayed much by mine.
I've never argued that one can't increase one's intelligence. Please note that I suggested the opposite was possible to Tyler above--that an improved diet might increase reverse brain shrinkage and thus increase intelligence--and I've read that doing mental exercises can help maintain mental ability into old age and reduce the damaging effects of Alzheimer's.
More intelligent than what, humans?

Thanks for the feedback, Dorothy. I tried to be as clear as possible and I hope I got the message across better this time. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks again and cheerio!

The first quote was from you saying (at least the way I read it) that brain size, tattoos etc. were evidence of intelligence/brain size issue. You were using brain size to make the same argument again and I didn't understand how any of the other things related to higher intelligence. That was probably just a little communication snafoo.

Ah - Dear Phil - it was YOU that used the word PROOF with ME first! Mine was the rebuttal. I understand you completely and as long as you don't use that nasty word with me I promise not to throw it back at you.

But I still don't understand what evidence you are presenting that makes the correlation between brain size and intelligence? Tattoos? Huh? I guess if we were to judge by them and the new fad of tattooing taking off - that would make us have the highest intelligence ever.

Birds have higher intelligence (as scientists seem to like it measured that is - including the all important verbal ability that we think makes us better than any other species and the use of tools - which many have said is our claim to human superior intelligence) than the big cats that were being spoken of before and most of the mammals with bigger brains compared to their body weights.  Again - this goes to what we use as measures of intelligence. They can talk, count, interact with us in ways that we understand and can measure and solve problems in similar fashions to us. They say that some species of parrots have the human intelligence of a 5 year old.

I think we both agree that Intelligence is a complicated issue, to measure, to understand in general and how it is related to brain size and environmental challenges and diet. If the brain is small or damaged or starved for fat or other necessary nutrients it is going to affect intelligence. I agree that there are some correlations regarding brain size and intelligence - as long as you take into account the exceptions. You certainly can't go beyond the capacity of your brain size.

At least for me - if I can unshrink this brain of mine as much as possible and use as much of it as I can well and more efficiently - that's really the issue. I'm pretty much stuck with my ancestry.... but I can eat more good fats!

[Dorothy]

Tyler - you hit the nail right on the head! If we aren't using IQ what are we using as a determination of intelligence? What is your definition? What are your indicators?

It makes no sense to go on talking about dogs and wolves. I mean - how about the dingo and how it has great survival ability in it's habitat? That conversation doesn't really speak to the issue. 

There was for the longest time in science until Alex the parrot came along the broad use of language and tool use as the indicators of our superiority and intelligence being way above that of animals.

Brain size is measured in relationship to body mass equally in birds, humans and whales and other mammals. Birds have smaller brains/to body mass ratios than the big carnivores - yet the big cats don't use tools or talk with their mouths in complex ways - even in the wild. Bird songs, sounds and communications between each other in the wild are very complex. But still - that's not what the scientists were looking at. They were looking at what they thought set us apart from animals and used that as their criteria.

If you say that a bigger brain is correlated to or eeks - "proof" of higher intelligence - how can you say it if you don't have a clear way of measuring intelligence and agree upon what the expressions of intelligence are?

In the studies they use IQ as their criteria for humans. For animals the use of language and tools is very high. What do you use or think that they should use? 

[Dorothy]

Thanks, Billy. I value the person with an honest, warrior spirit who provides me with useful info and I welcome honorable battle.

Hey Billy - I like debate and the useful info and truth as the goal part. I'll leave the warrior thang to my friend Phil and you though. 

[TylerDurden]

Like I said, before, you are seemingly unaware of the difference between training/education/mimicry and actual intelligence. For example, birdsong is generally gained from listening to other birds and then mimicking them and gradually altering from that. I also wince at  your suggesting that parrots are equivalent to a 5 year old human child. Reminds me of that ridiculous claim that Koko the gorilla had an IQ of 98, making him supposedly almost as intelligent as half the human race. Goes to show that IQ tests are often dodgy as regards Koko, but that doesn't change the fact that KoKo isn't as bright as humans.

As for IQ, I merely stated that current IQ tests are mostly bunk - I have heard, though, that there are more accurate intelligence tests out there which don't per se test numerical ability or other abstract things which can be learnt.

Re dogs/dingo:wolves:- It makes perfect sense as it involves my whole point that training and breeding for socialisation makes dogs superior to wolves in some cases, despite dogs being inferior in intelligence to wolves.
Dingos are also more intelligent than pet dogs:-

http://www.physorg.com/news195460315.html

As for what sets animals apart from humans , there is a clear difference:- humans have frontal lobes, animals don't, which makes humans more intelligent than animals. So, humans with bigger brains will (usually) also have bigger frontal lobes as well and therefore, likely, a higher intelligence(unless they have some unusual mutation etc. that distorts the size of a particular region of the brain and reduces the size of the frontal lobes or some similiar outlier).

[Dorothy]

Tyler - you don't seem to recognize when I'm agreeing with you. I was talking about how scientists tend to judge intelligence and saying that I did not agree with their ways of determining intelligence either! You get so condescending sometimes it makes me shiver.

So, you are back to the big brain = intelligence theory. Big frontal lobes are how you tell if someone/thing is intelligent or not. No way ever to increase intelligence, just mimicry. So if a human learns from their parents, teachers, extended family etc. to read and gets more excited and uses their brain in new ways and increases their abilities from an early age onward all the way up to becoming one of the greatest "minds" in history, that person would be exactly as intelligent if it were raised by wolves? Or, are you saying that the frontal lobes "grow" with increased challenge? 

Now, I know you have a hard time understanding the difference between me making a point and asking a question so I will state that what I asked above was a question indicated by the question mark at the end of the sentences.


 

[TylerDurden]

Re geniuses/raised by wolves etc.:-

I guess what I am stating is that intelligence potential can never change. One cannot turn a retard into an overall genius(idiot savants don't really count as geniuses since they come with severe disadvantages).

Your raised by wolves analogy is not valid, really. A mature human intelligence is assumed to have had a relatively normal upbringing. Obviously, lack of exposure to human language etc. would stifle the potential intelligence of a person. As for the geniuses in question, they would never have reached those  academic etc. heights unless they had the potential intelligence already at birth. In other words, excellent training/education cannot turn every human into a genius.

[Dorothy]

Ok, you are talking about potential. We all have different potentials based on the size of our frontal lobes.

All learning is basically mimicry or built upon mimicry was my point. I have to remember never to make analogies with you. They are a poor communication style choice with you - rarely received as they are intended.

Physiological limitations don't necessarily correlate to actual intelligence though. To say that one would have to do a study to find brains with the same size and size/density of their different parts and determine if they had the same level of intelligence.

It's a catch 22. You are saying that the only way to determine intelligence is by the size of the frontal lobe but how do you know that if you have never tested subjects with the same frontal lobe to see if they are intelligent according to other criteria?

And you didn't answer my question if you think frontal lobes can increase or not or if that is set at birth. If intelligence is determined by brain size and size of the frontal lobes alone and is set at birth (except for shrinkage because of dietary deficiencies) and there is no other criteria with which to judge intelligence - then this is a dead conversation with too much circular thinking for me to gain any new insights from.

I have still to read any evidence or support for the idea that brain size correlates directly to the size of the brain or frontal lobes or that intelligence cannot be improved (especially without using IQ scores or any other determination) besides the circular arguments.

So far all we have is intelligence being increased determined via IQ scoring, but if we take that off the table.... are there any indicators beside just stating a theory that big brains/lobes means higher intelligence?

Anyone have anything besides the "it's generally accepted" kind of statements? So many things are generally accepted that have proven to be totally wrong that I don't buy into that argument easily. Btw Tyler - that was last paragraph was more directed at what Phil has said before about anthropologists agreeing based on tattoos and such.

Btw, I never put forth that any arguments on brain size - I just keep on hearing here talk about brain size being larger in paleo times and how that means that we are getting dumber. I just don't see the argument. 

Might be true. Might not. Convince me.

I apologize if this post was too long. I don't have time to edit right now or get my thoughts more precisely expressed but didn't want to put off responding. I'll see y'all tomorrow! 

[TylerDurden]

I am stating that, logically, the skull prevents the frontal lobes from expanding further. All one can achieve is a little bit of thickening of neural connections within the frontal lobes and the rest of the brain, which has nothing to do with intelligence, just a case of experience "rewiring" the brain, but the basic equipment remaining the same.

[Dorothy]

Hi - while working on something else I realized that everyone here doesn't necessarily know Alex. I'll respond to you later Tyler - no time - sorry - but just a quick visit to post a video on Alex - and the researcher who worked with him, that really upset the scientific community and their claims about mimicry and intelligence when it comes to birds.

Alex The Talking Parrot

That was just a small portion of his abilities and now there are other parrots that have similar abilities that have taken his place. He was not a single case, but just the first to be educated and demonstrates a general intelligence.

[TylerDurden]

I've already seen that video before. I am perfectly well aware that animal intelligence has been seriously underrated and that notions that animals can't understand humour etc. are unfounded, but that does not change the fact that education/training does not per se make an animal or a human more intelligent. In this one case, it's clear, for example, that a parrot in the wild would have to be able to understand colour differences(else why would they have colour vision?)

[Dorothy]

I've already seen that video before. I am perfectly well aware that animal intelligence has been seriously underrated and that notions that animals can't understand humour etc. are unfounded, but that does not change the fact that education/training does not per se make an animal or a human more intelligent. In this one case, it's clear, for example, that a parrot in the wild would have to be able to understand colour differences(else why would they have colour vision?)

Parrots in the wild don't count up to 8.
Education is based upon already present skills and those skills get developed upon to create more intelligence when it comes to the parameters for intelligence used by scientists. I have still to hear what you use as a parameter for intelligence. You say that brain size is constrained by skull size and that the development of the frontal lobes would indicate the capacity for intelligence, but besides having opened a bunch of heads, having measured the lobes and used some other parameter with which to compare intelligence, I still don't understand how you propose that lobe size is in an indicator of intelligence. The parameters of intelligence used by scientists do not count for you and you have not indicated anything but frontal lobe size. Nothing much to talk about unless you provide some other parameter.

I will repeat again, if the scientists parameters for intelligence are not accepted by you - what do you propose as a parameter that can be measured?

Oh - and  that video wasn't for you Tyler. You might not be the only one reading this conversation and it was presumptuous and not kind of me not to add minimum information on Alex for others instead of making them go and try to find it in order to follow what I have said in the past.

I might add to that video for the benefit of others (if anyone else is reading this) is that what many do not realize is that there is no such thing as a domesticated parrot. Until recently most parrots were caught in the wild for the pet trade. Any single pet parrot is usually only a generation or two away from their wild roots and parrots are notoriously bad pets for most people as parrots have not been bred or have adapted much (if any) to life with humans. Owning a parrot is owning a wild creature - that is why the average parrot has 3 different homes while still at a relatively young age.

[TylerDurden]

Well, let's see, you don't like to accept my standards of intelligence. So, you can only prove that parrots are wonderfully intelligent/sentient once they can , for example, a)   work out the cube of every number from 1 to 10 without help b)  tap out an intelligent conversation on this forum etc.

Domestication is, admittedly, not as effective as years of training......

[Dorothy]

Well, let's see, you don't like to accept my standards of intelligence. So, you can only prove that parrots are wonderfully intelligent/sentient once they can , for example, a)   work out the cube of every number from 1 to 10 without help b)  tap out an intelligent conversation on this forum etc.

Domestication is, admittedly, not as effective as years of training......

Um - YOU were the one that doesn't want to accept the accepted standards of intelligence! You insist that IQ's don't count. You talk about frontal lobes only and can't defend it - you don't even try.

You don't answer questions that make a point because you seem to hate to admit whenever you can't answer it intelligently and then you resort to avoidance or insults instead of just admitting that you don't have a good answer. You respond to me in the most sarcastic and condescending way I have ever experienced on the internet. Being right seems to be of utmost importance to you. I'd rather understand and change my opinion when presented with other opinions  that make more sense because someone else thought of something I didn't or when I learn about data that I didn't know about it.

You seem unwilling to recognize what I was pointing out - that according to people doing research and THEIR parameters of intelligence, birds with smaller brains are smarter than most mammals with larger brains - not humans.

You might be saying that you think that language and math skills (in other words, just left-brain activities) are the only parameters of intelligence - or maybe you are simply being insulting without any point at all.  If someone cannot do math or use a computer that to me does not negate all other forms intelligence... but my impression is that you weren't trying to give me a serious answer - just being cutting. 

If you aren't going to even have a civil conversation and answer questions about your own remarks with basic civility without turning your own statements back on me - this is a total waste of my time.

[billy4184]

Hi,
I've been reading about adult stem cells, which from my understanding are cells which have no particular characteristics until the body determines the need for them. Apparently there are a lot of them in areas of the body which experience a lot of regrowth, e.g., fingernails, teeth.
I wonder if the brain doesn't have them too, and can utilise them to form additional growth and extended functions in the brain, if the correct stimulus (e.g. learning) is applied.
Furthermore, if these stem cells can be constantly produced, it would provide the necessary materials and environment for brain evolution, the only stimulus required being learning.
It would go a long way toward explaining evolution, for example. At least in addressing my own questions on the issue.
Cheers

[Dorothy]

Hi,
I've been reading about adult stem cells, which from my understanding are cells which have no particular characteristics until the body determines the need for them. Apparently there are a lot of them in areas of the body which experience a lot of regrowth, e.g., fingernails, teeth.
I wonder if the brain doesn't have them too, and can utilise them to form additional growth and extended functions in the brain, if the correct stimulus (e.g. learning) is applied.
Furthermore, if these stem cells can be constantly produced, it would provide the necessary materials and environment for brain evolution, the only stimulus required being learning.
It would go a long way toward explaining evolution, for example. At least in addressing my own questions on the issue.
Cheers

Hi Billy,

I remember back when I was regrowing my teeth and everyone said it was impossible - but later they discovered that teeth have stem cells. In a way I knew that all the time because I knew that my teeth could (and did) do what stem cells would allow. I don't doubt for a minute that your idea could be true about the brain and stem cells. When a part of the brain is damaged it has a phenomenal redundancy. Other parts that aren't usually used for that purpose often take over. My teeth won't/didn't grow back without the right food. I have felt similar things with my brain with food and stimulus. I wonder if besides the proper stimulus, if proper nutrition is not also a factor.

Thanks - I'm going to keep stem cells in mind when I do my mediation and brain exercises.

[billy4184]

I have felt similar things with my brain with food and stimulus. I wonder if besides the proper stimulus, if proper nutrition is not also a factor.

What you eat today, walks and talks tomorrow! Its so true.

[miles]

Dorothy could you tell me about how you regrew your teeth? I have a cap from where I snapped my tooth when I was 10y/o so I'm interested.

[Dorothy]

Warning - long post regarding re-growing teeth coming up. If you're not interesting in that subject you might want to skip this post.

Hi Miles - That cap of yours might get in the way. I've felt like my teeth need to be able to "breath" for the lack of a better word to heal. It's like they need for me to be able to care for and feed them properly. If an infection starts because I ate something wrong I can use colloidal silver so they don't have to fight that and I feel like my teeth absorb things they need directly in the mouth.

My teeth when I was regrowing them just had holes from cavities. When I was eating badly after that they broke and were horrifically painful. They no longer hurt me at all now as long as I don't eat anything bad - but I haven't been eating ideally so no regrowth has happened. I hope that can still happen with them more deteriorated than when I did it the last time. It's still amazing to me though how they react so directly to how I eat. My teeth keep my diet at least ok because if I get too far off track they give me a big kick in the teeth to put me straight. 

I would say Miles that there is no downside to eating what is ideal and right for you if anything happens with that tooth or not, because the teeth are a barometer for you health in general - especially your stomach and digestion - so whatever you do for them will benefit the rest of you.

I personally wouldn't take that cap off to see if you can regrow the tooth underneath unless you feel it is hurting you in some way. It takes tremendous commitment, self-restraint and delicate fine-tuning of the diet to get to the point where re-growth occurs and if you don't achieve it, the break down makes the upside not always worth the potential of the negatives with the downside of removing fillings or caps. Root canals though - can be very dangerous to one's health. If there is a root canal closed off under that cap - that's a whole different animal. You would have decide what to do after doing lots of research on the subject first. Thank goodness I never got a root canal done.

Glycerin in toothpastes is really bad I have heard. I found one in the store that feels really great for my mouth. It's called Bee Rescue Propolis toothpaste (gluten free). Ingredients: Water, baking soda, xanthan gum, propolis extract, grapefruit oil, clove oil and tea tree oil. It's the only one I could find in a store that didn't have glycerin.

I'm also growing horsetail plant to chew on later. It's supposed to do good things too.

I didn't use either of these when I had success - so don't be too worried if you can't get them. I just think that any extra knowledge from people that have studied natural tooth care and healing can't hurt.

Another trick is acupressure. Stomach 5 and 6 are powerful points to work if you have pain in your mouth. I bet working the stomach meridian would be helpful with healing teeth as well - but I haven't been trying that. When I get serious about regrowing my teeth again, I will use acupressure as it was one of the only things that could help with the tremendous pain when I ate badly and the regrowth broke down. I'm pretty sure now that the stomach meridian being clear is vital to healthy teeth and that is why diet makes or breaks teeth - so I betcha it is also something that could only help the healing process.

[billy4184]

Very interesting. I have a tooth with an indirect pulp cap, where basically they left some of the decayed tooth over the nerve and put a cap on. I will be avoiding root canal if I can. I eat raw garlic chopped into my salads which hopefully will prevent an infection.
Cheers

[PaleoPhil]

For those who may be interested (the author covers more than just cavities):

Cure Tooth Decay: Remineralize Teeth and Repair Cavities Naturally
http://www.curetoothdecay.com/