• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

High IQ Christians

QvQ

Member
Aug 18, 2019
2,381
1,076
AZ
✟147,890.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
True, yet; "The kingdom of heaven is within you."
And while seeking Him in His creation may be fun, it can be rather like the blind man and the elephant.
Yes,
However:
God has an objective reality.
That is the Truth.

Faith is by the Grace of God. Faith is to know, love and serve God. (Soli Deo Gloria)

That said:
Seeking God in creation is fun.
Providence is the shadow of God.
A blind man carefully mapping and measuring the elephant could arrive at a fairly accurate picture of elephant
Helen Keller, blind and deaf, could map her reality with accuracy and communicate effectively with it.
Don't know if that correlates... but physicist are doing exactly that, mapping and measuring the physical world that is akin to a blind man and an elephant.
Those methods can be applied to the God question

The Bible says, Matthew 7: 7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
Does God exist?
Interesting question
Interesting answer
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

bèlla

❤️
Site Supporter
Jan 16, 2019
22,363
18,895
USA
✟1,070,574.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
In Relationship
I find most religious types uncomfortably cloaked. The fear of exposure haunts them and they do much to hide their sins.

That's the beauty of intention. When you can jump on a stage and lay everything bare that's priceless. There's nothing I've done I can't admit before a crowd and that was intentional.

~bella
 
Upvote 0

Gregory Thompson

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.
Site Supporter
Dec 20, 2009
30,058
8,459
Canada
✟873,332.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Apparently boasting of your weaknesses is one way for Christ's power to rest on you.

So if one reads the scripture and uses "high IQ" ... perhaps they'll notice a more efficient way of doing things .. and then get labelled a heretic . lol .
 
Upvote 0

Palmfever

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Dec 5, 2019
1,155
679
Hawaii
✟302,814.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Yes,
However:
God has an objective reality.
That is the Truth.
Of course, He is the truth.
Seeking God in creation is fun.
Providence is the shadow of God.
A blind man carefully mapping and measuring the elephant could arrive at a fairly accurate picture of elephant
I knew I should not have used that analogy.
Those methods can be applied to the God question

The Bible says, Matthew 7: 7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
Does God exist?
Interesting question
Interesting answer

"Theories, ideas are wonderful, but to me, they become established when passing tests," he continued.
"Theories of course, any bright physicist can make up theories. They could have nothing to do with reality.
"You discover which theories are close to reality by comparing to experiments. We just don't have experimental evidence of what happened earlier."

One of these theories is known as the "inflation model," which holds that the early universe expanded exponentially fast for a tiny, tiny fraction of a second before the expansion phase.
"It's a beautiful theory," said Peebles. Many people think it's so beautiful that it's surely right. But the evidence of it is very sparse."
Top cosmologist's lonely battle against 'Big Bang' theory

Hawking
"I think the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing, according to the laws of science," Hawking, who died in March, wrote. "If you accept, as I do, that the laws of nature are fixed, then it doesn't take long to ask: What role is there for God?"

The proposal that you can get something from nothing is incredible to hear coming from such a great mind. It's also horse pucky.
Science evolves as new discoveries are made.

This may be behind a paywall so here is partial text.

There have been two changes to the way physicists think about this cosmological timeline. The first is that research on inflationary models, which study the exponential expansion of space-time, indicate that inflation may be an eternal process. As in, the universe may not have had a beginning moment, and we may live in what is called an eternally inflating universe, one that was expanding exponentially even before what we call the big bang. Mathematically, this seems the most likely scenario – assuming inflation is correct.
“The universe may not have had a beginning and we may live in what is called an eternally inflating universe”

Second, these days, people often use “hot big bang” to refer to a time period, rather than a single moment. The story goes that in the early stages of our corner of space-time, what we might call the visible universe, the universe was very hot and dense. This hot big bang era was filled with an energetic goo from which atoms would eventually emerge and begin to cluster, along with dark matter, into the structures we observe today: stars, galaxies, planets and, yes, people.

In a recent email to me and my editor, one of these people structures – a thoughtful reader – sent in a question that points to this transformation in how we think about the big bang. The reader noted that, for a while, it was fashionable to publish articles about the big bang and these days there are fewer. While I can’t speak to publishing choices by the editors at this magazine or any other, I can say that in recent years, there has been more (if not total) consensus in the cosmology community about the likely scenario for the inflationary universe – that our space-time went through a period of rapid, exponential expansion. A plethora of data supports the inflationary picture, which mathematically favours an eternal scenario.

There are, of course, detractors. Paul Steinhardt, one of the early thinkers on inflation, has since become one of its most vocal critics. But even in his competitor model of the universe, the big bang is replaced by a big bounce and a cyclic universe. The key point, ultimately, is that physicists don’t like singularities, and the search has always been on for a more satisfying model. Much as the idea of a “beginning moment” might satisfy the intuition we have developed in a world where some of the most dominant religious traditions teach us that there is a definitive beginning, from a scientific point of view, the singularity is a mathematical problem to be solved.

Models of the very early universe are hard to test directly. That doesn’t stop people from trying. For example, an eternally inflating universe implies that we live in one space-time bubble of many. Astrophysicist Hiranya V. Peiris, famous for her work on the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, has with co-authors proposed that CMB data can be used to test interactions between our space-time bubble and others.
Why the big bang may not have been the beginning of the universe

Could we live in a quantum multiverse without ever noticing its oddness? A simulation suggests that the answer may be “yes” surprisingly often.

“We live in a quantum world, as far as the experiments we do can tell. So then why do I end up having all these [non-quantum] classical experiences?” says Joseph Schindler at the Autonomous University of Barcelona in Spain. He and his colleagues explored this question and found that even in the multiverse, if the microscopic world is quantum the emergence of a non-quantum world may be nearly inevitable.
To reach this conclusion, they started with the equations of quantum theory, which don’t offer clear descriptions of objects and their behaviours, but rather describe them as a fuzzy set of possibilities that become something definitive only after you observe the object. At that point, it is also seemingly impossible to say what that object was doing just moments prior. Quantum theory can look like it is constraining us to only ever be in the now, says team member Philipp Strasberg, also at the Autonomous University of Barcelona. But that doesn’t match our experience of the world.

The “many-worlds interpretation”, which asserts that the universe contains infinite parallel worlds, dispels quantum fuzziness by positing that all possibilities are real but happen in separate worlds, one of which may be our classical world.

The team worked with this idea combined with the framework of “decoherent histories”, which states that every physical process can be broken into a sequence of steps that happen at definite times, thus allowing quantum objects to have well-defined records of past behaviour. The researchers used a mathematical model to evaluate how often the multiverse can provide such sensible, unambiguous histories.Our reality seems to be compatible with a quantum multiverse

Much to consider
Suppose you have two closed, opaque boxes, one holding a marble and one containing a quantum particle, like an electron. If you open the box with the marble and measure its position, you can rest assured that not much was different before you took a peek. In contrast, because the electron must follow quantum rules, there is no simple way to connect its out-of-sight past to the moment of measurement. Physicists instead must describe the particle’s past using the wave function, a mathematical formula that only offers the probability of finding the electron in one place or another. Before you lift the lid, the best you can do is imagine the electron as a cloud of possibilities.

The challenge of interpreting what this really means is known as the measurement problem – and it is a gauntlet thrown down at the feet of realism. If an electron is real, why doesn’t it behave like a marble? “People should be thinking about this if they’re interested in the nature of reality,” says philosopher of science James Ladyman at the University of Bristol, UK.

Why entanglement is so strange​

Reality’s credentials look even more dubious if you consider a pair of particles. These can be quantum entangled, which means their characteristics correlate even when separated by distances so vast that no signal could conceivably travel between them. This flies in the face of a principle called locality, which says that for things to influence each other, they must be physically close. The fact that entanglement was “non-local” greatly bothered Albert Einstein, who called it “spooky action at a distance”.

So what are we to make of this decidedly unreal picture of reality? You could side with Bohr and say there’s no real problem. Forget reality itself, all we can know is what we know about reality. Many of Bohr’s contemporaries, including Einstein, were incensed by this idea, as were generations of scientists that followed. Like Spekkens, they were and are realists. For them, if quantum phenomena seem weird, then we must be missing a piece of the puzzle.

“Realism is, loosely speaking, the belief that the world exists independent of us and that there is a truth about how things ‘really’ are,” says Sabine Hossenfelder at the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich in Germany. “It is a philosophical position, not a scientific one, though I suspect that most scientists are realists.”
As realism is more of a philosophical stance than anything else, physicists often instead discuss the more concrete and experimentally testable notion of “local realism” – a combination of localism and realism, where Einstein’s “spookiness” is explicitly forbidden.

Reclaiming realism
There have been abundant efforts to create a tweaked version of quantum mechanics that adheres to local realism. Yet none has been successful enough to truly tip the scale. “The fact we have not yet achieved broad consensus on how to interpret the formulas of quantum theory means that none of the proposals on the table have got it right,” says Spekkens.

This isn’t purely a philosophical debate for Spekkens, it is practical too. One of the headline goals in modern physics is to combine quantum theory with Einstein’s general relativity, and so find a unified theory that explains all the fundamental forces of nature in one go. But despite decades of effort, there’s a sense that progress has stalled. Spekkens blames this on our lack of understanding of quantum theory as it stands. “The way you think about the formulas of quantum mechanics will impact very significantly how you approach that project,” he says. “Not having the right interpretation is going to impede you.”

He isn’t the first to try to rescue realism. Starting decades ago, scientists have been pursuing the same ends through so-called hidden-variable theories. Here, physicists assert that there must be some hidden variable – a factor that, by definition, we can’t know or measure – that would explain the transition a particle makes when we observe it snap from nebulous wavefunction to definite position. In the 1960s, however, physicist John Stewart Bell came up with a mathematical test of a whole swathe of local hidden-variable theories – a subset that also requires that the world be local – and its results weren’t promising.
Can we solve quantum theory’s biggest problem by redefining reality?

There is so much more to learn.
 
Upvote 0

Palmfever

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Dec 5, 2019
1,155
679
Hawaii
✟302,814.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
continued from above...
Perfect it may not be, but science is our best route to objective knowledge. Through observation, experiment and mathematical abstraction, it strives for a third-person perspective, a view from the outside of whatever we investigate. That is perhaps most obvious in physics, which seeks to describe things at every scale. “We take ourselves out of the system to stabilise [it] as an object that we can think about,” says Jenann Ismael, a philosopher at Johns Hopkins University in Maryland.


This separation of scientific understanding from subjective experience began in the 16th century, when Galileo Galilei showed it was possible to describe the movement of bodies on Earth and in the heavens according to mathematical laws. And you can’t say it hasn’t worked. Today, physicists can look proudly upon a vast tower of ideas and equations that closely predict how reality works at almost every level, from the grand narrative of the origins and evolution of the universe to the minutiae of the elementary particles that comprise it.


But in recent years, a growing number of physicists have come to realise that this notion of an objective universe, independent of our experience of it, is an illusion. “We get so excited about our capacity to abstract and extrapolate that we forget that physical models are not reality,” says cosmologist Marcelo Gleiser at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire.
That is a problem, he says. We fail to recognise that our subjective experience is part of the universe – that our models are the product of our insider’s perspective, rather than a faithful representation of reality – and this can lead us astray.

Why facts are relative in quantum theory​

The flaws in assuming we can have a purely objective perspective are clearest when you consider quantum mechanics, the famously strange set of rules governing the behaviour of subatomic particles. Quantum theory says – and countless experiments have confirmed – that you can only know whether a particle will be here or there, say, when you measure it. Different experimenters carrying out the same single measurement will end up with different results.
“Quantum theory is really screaming at us that observers matter, that facts are relative,” says Daniele Oriti, a theorist at Ludwig-Maximilians University in Germany. “The relationship between our minds, our models and the world… it’s very subtle.”


This calls into question the pursuit of a neat set of equations that describes the universe as a whole, known as a theory of everything. “Let’s call it an abuse of power,” says Gleiser, whose recent book The Blind Spot – co-authored with astrophysicist Adam Frank and philosopher Evan Thompson – argues that physicists’ “hubris” about the meaning of mathematical laws is actually preventing us from understanding the true nature of the universe and our place within it. “We must not forget that these tiny characters, we ourselves, are also the authors of the narrative,” they write.
In practice, this means that perhaps we shouldn’t think in terms of a single, objective view of reality. Ortiti thinks of reality as intersubjective; it might lie in the information relating different perspectives to one another.

Similarly, Gleiser increasingly views the cosmos from the perspective of “systems thinking”, which makes sense of the complexity of the world through the interconnections between parts. He is among those who suspect the key to that could be a better understanding of emergence, where properties that don’t seem to exist when we look at the individual components of a complex system suddenly take shape when we see it as a whole, even from the inside.
This new approach to cosmology would look very different to the status quo, says Gleiser, having more in common with the study of biospheres than black holes. “It’s a different ball game,” he says.
One thing, at least, has become clear. “If you’re asking a question that demands an external view of the universe,” says Ismael, “then you’re not asking a question that makes sense.”
Is it possible to fully understand the universe while living in it?


I hope you are able to access these articles. A lot going on.
 
Upvote 0

Palmfever

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Dec 5, 2019
1,155
679
Hawaii
✟302,814.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
These two quotes intrigue me.
The God question and the Theory of Relativity are two of my enduring interests.

If reality is a field of forces that generate mass and energy, then there are rules that govern that. Because there are finite limits on both the size and the "energy" of the field.

Reality would be an amorphous mass if the fields/forces were infinite or the basic structure were merely probable. There are forces which shape reality into a coherent, cohesive whole. There are laws governing the structure of reality. A game of marbles is a "probability" of where the marbles have been or will be but the marbles are all within a field of forces that interact and can likely be measured very accurately.

Laws are descriptions of the limitations both for expansion and contraction within the field.
If a marble (electron) can move freely within the field then the motion is governed by gravity, mass; physical conditions defined as set laws
However, if the marble (electron) has a cumulative mass of many marbles confined in a bag, then the motion of that bag of marbles in the same field will be entirely different.
Nothing can be determined about quantum by behavior unless the underlying forces (fields) are understood.
And we don't understand where that electron will be or has been because we don't know enough about the effects or nature of the fields to predict it's motion, any more than we can predict the roll of a single marble.
We barely understand the motion of planets (large mass, big bags of marbles) in a field (gravity).

Meanwhile, if I give you a marble you can't tell me where it has been or where it will be.
We are always in the now. The world does not age, it moves. All the mass and energy that is right this minute is the sum total of all the mass and energy that ever existed. And there isn't any way of knowing where it was or where it will be so quantum theory is actual macro fact. We know for an absolute fact we cannot predict the future. It is also an absolute fact that we cannot predict the past.
I read a lot. I'm actually a high school dropout. The theories that are being investigated now are beyond the 'Big Bang.'
Finite to me is so huge finding the boundaries would be difficult. An interesting new one is, all the material spewed forth from a black hole and perhaps another before that.

On a different subject, here is something closer to home to consider.

Bacteria and viruses penetrate the blood - brain barrier. Hopefully this will give some hope to those in the future that will suffer from dementia.

Until recently, however, the existence of a brain microbiome seemed far-fetched. Our central nervous system is protected by a membrane called the blood-brain barrier, which is supposed to filter out any potential pathogens before they can damage our neurons. What’s more, the brain has its own private immune system with foot soldiers called microglia to deal with any intruders. While some viruses and bacteria were known to penetrate this fortress and cause symptoms of severe illnesses such as encephalitis, infiltration was thought to be a rare occurrence. It seemed inconceivable that the brain could host a whole population of diverse microbes.
Read more
Microglia: How the brain’s immune cells may be causing dementia

A few years ago, when one of Christopher Link’s graduate students at the University of Colorado Boulder mentioned this possibility, Link was shocked. “I stopped him and I berated him,” he says. Afterwards, however, he decided to take a look at the literature, discovering that the evidence base was already much larger than he had imagined – although most of the studies focused on dementia rather than the brain microbiome more generally.

As far back as the early 1990s, Ruth Itzhaki, then at the University of Manchester, UK, had sequenced the genes in post-mortem brain samples from people who had had Alzheimer’s disease. She and her colleagues found that the tissue was often riddled with the HSV1 herpes simplex virus – the microbe that causes cold sores. This appeared to be no isolated incident, with further research showing that Porphyromonas gingivalis, the bacteria behind gum disease, was similarly prevalent in the brains of people who had died with dementia.
Until recently, the existence of brain microbiome seemed far-fetched
Such findings were initially greeted with scepticism. Some suspected that the microbes were a result of contamination of the samples in the lab. Others suggested that they may have only entered the brain in the late stages of dementia, as a result of the individuals’ failing health. “Maybe it’s all after the fact,” says Link.

Such doubts began to disappear in 2010, when the late Robert Moir at Harvard Medical School and his colleagues took a closer look at the beta-amyloid plaques that characterise Alzheimer’s. These sticky bundles of protein are toxic to neurons and have long been considered the primary cause of the condition, yet the team’s research revealed they had an unexpected function. “Their role is to entrap and kill pathogens,” says Lathe. “They are defending the brain.” And the discovery that beta-amyloid is found across amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals suggests that invading pathogens have been a considerable threat to the brain’s health for much of evolution. What’s more, it indicates a clear mechanism through which microbes might influence the development of dementia. “It was a turning point,” says Lathe.
The mounting evidence leads him to suggest that dementia can result from an increased burden of microbes in the brain as we age. In our younger years, our immune system is strong enough to prevent too many of these organisms reaching our neural tissue. As we get older, however, our defences weaken – a process known as immunosenescence – allowing certain microbes to breach those defences. The beta-amyloid deposits may be a sign of the brain’s continued struggle to keep these organisms in check. Once the toxic plaques have formed, however, they may cause collateral damage to the surrounding tissue, resulting in continued cognitive decline – although this is a matter of debate. “I’m certainly interested in entertaining the idea that maybe, even before you’re sick, there’s this sort of continual challenge from microbes that enter the brain,” says Link.

We still don’t know how all these microbes end up in the brain, but Lathe notes there are several possible ways they might gain access. Organisms could use our own immune cells as a Trojan horse, for instance. “They could infect macrophages which permeate straight into the brain,” says Lathe. Others may have enzymes that allow them to squeeze through small gaps in the blood-brain barrier. Or they might travel along the nerves from the nose and mouth, some of the few direct entrances into our neural tissue. We also don’t know whether some of our brain’s inhabitants are beneficial. After all, certain microbes in the gut help with digestion, so it is possible that others in the brain aid thinking and reasoning. Link and Lathe are both open-minded about this. “It’s not obvious, but it’s not impossible,” says Link.

Do bacteria play a role in dementia?​

To get the bigger picture, Lathe recently attempted to take stock of the brain microbiome in people with and without dementia. Working with colleagues at the University of Edinburgh, he examined genetic material from 79 neural samples held in brain banks in the UK and US. The analysis revealed a remarkable diversity of organisms, with as many as 100,000 species per sample. The community included viruses, bacteria and fungi. The researchers even found the remnants of a plant or alga-like organism, though they admit it could have come from pollen that somehow got into the brain. Intriguingly, this microbiome was a subset of the microbes found in the gut – representing about 20 per cent of the species found there.
But even if a dysregulated brain microbiome only underlies some cases of dementia, it may still play a role in other neurological conditions. One finding hinting at this is that the alpha-synuclein proteins associated with Parkinson’s disease also have antimicrobial properties. “When you knock them out in the mice, the mice are more sensitive to brain infections,” says Link. Like beta-amyloid, alpha-synuclein may enhance survival in the short term, but – for reasons that are currently unknown – the process could spiral out of control in some people.

Although many questions remain, the discovery that microbes are implicated in neurodegenerative diseases already suggests potential new treatments. One obvious approach is to protect the body from pathogens that have been linked to Alzheimer’s. Researchers at the National Defense Medical Center in Taipei, Taiwan, for instance, followed people who had received a course of antiviral medication to treat a herpes simplex virus infection. The result appeared to be a dramatically reduced risk of developing dementia over the following 10 years.
This raises the question of whether some of the microbes in our brains come from the gut. A recent study in mice found that some pathogens, such as the fungus Candida albicans, can slip through the gut lining, hitch a ride with the blood and breach the brain’s protective membrane. However, these relocating fungi were mostly found in mice with impoverished gut microbiomes. “The bacteria in the gut [normally] compete with the fungus and prevent it crossing into the rest of the body,” says Aimée Parker at the Quadram Institute in Norwich, UK, who led the study. “So, in healthy people, we don’t really get fungal translocation.” Nevertheless, Lathe’s team did find that Candida was among a variety of organisms – of unknown origin – that were more prevalent in people with dementia than in those without. “We see well-known human pathogens such as the bacteria Staphylococcus, Streptococcus, as well as the fungi Cryptococcus and Candida are all over-represented in Alzheimer’s brain,” says Lathe.
The discovery that microbes are implicated in neurodegenerative diseases already suggests potential new treatments
Other research suggests that the presence of any single pathogen may be less important in causing dementia than the overall composition of the brain microbiome. Jeffrey Lapides and his colleagues at Drexel University College of Medicine in Pennsylvania recently examined post-mortem brain tissue from 32 individuals, half of whom had had Alzheimer’s. Like Lathe’s team, they found a large variety of organisms. But they also learned that particular combinations of microbes were associated with different stages of the disease. A group of bacteria known as Comamonas, for instance, were considerably more prevalent in people without dementia, while Methylobacterium and Cutibacterium acnes (which causes teenage spots) dominated the distribution during the later stages of Alzheimer’s. We can only speculate about the reasons for these changes, but Lapides suggests that interactions between the different species might put additional strain on the brain. “The chemical results of their competition may be toxic,” he says.

Of course, there are other hypotheses that attempt to explain Alzheimer’s. However, the idea that the brain’s microbiome plays a role need not be at odds with these. “I suspect that there are different things that induce Alzheimer’s in different people,” says Link. He points out that even having a gene associated with the disease, such as APOE4, doesn’t dictate how it might develop: “If you’re APOE4, then you are at a higher risk of cardiovascular problems, you also have lipid transport problems and you also have alterations of your immune response.” Each one of these mechanisms may offer a different pathway for Alzheimer’s to emerge, he suggests.

Other measures could bolster the brain’s defences against a whole range of invaders. For instance, the BCG jab – most commonly used as a vaccine against tuberculosis – seems to ramp up the immune system, reducing the risk of many infections besides TB for up to a year. Quite remarkably, and presumably as a result of this, some studies indicate that the injection can cut the prevalence of dementia by as much as 45 per cent. Excitingly, several other vaccines, including flu jabs and the shingles injection Zostavax, appear to offer similar protection.

If dementia results from a problematic brain microbiome, it may even be possible to completely reverse it – a prospect that is unthinkable with our current treatments. Schultek’s recovery from her rapid decline inspired her to search for similar case studies. Working with other members of the Alzheimer’s Pathobiome Initiative (AlzPI), the research group she set up, she identified reports of 86 people who had been diagnosed with dementia and then subsequently benefitted from antimicrobial treatments. The pathogens responsible included many that are over-represented in the brain microbiomes of people with Alzheimer’s, including Cryptococcus fungi. Tellingly, she also found a handful of cases involving B. burgdorferi – one of the bacteria implicated in her illness. “It was kind of eerie,” says Schultek. “These case reports came from clinicians around the world, but the conclusions were the same nearly every time: that infection testing should be a part of the differential diagnosis.”

Reversing cognitive decline​

Schultek suspects these case studies only capture a thin slice of the people who have recovered from cognitive decline in this way. “The majority of clinicians who treat patients don’t publish the results,” she says. She also believes that rogue microbes in the brain may be the cause of neurocognitive issues in many people. Unfortunately, screening the brain’s microbiome without invasive surgery remains a challenge. But cerebrospinal fluid, taken through a lumbar puncture, provides traces of its occupants that could be used for diagnosis. “My personal hypothesis is that if we were to screen everyone, we would find evidence of ongoing, active infection in a significant portion of dementia cases,” says Schultek.

Interest in the brain’s microbiome is certainly growing. In July this year, the AlzPI held a day-long symposium on the topic, and the Infectious Diseases Society of America now offers funding for Alzheimer’s studies. Understandably, the link with dementia still leads research efforts, but, more broadly, there is still so much about the brain microbiome that remains to be discovered. This even includes the identity of some of our brain’s inhabitants. “We sometimes see RNA sequences that are not present in any of the genome databases,” says Link. He calls this clandestine community the “dark microbiome”. “There are probably lots of viruses and other things out there that we don’t know anything about.”

I've subscribed to several scientific magazines. This now seems to be my favorite. A weekly for around 100.00 annually.
 
Upvote 0

Palmfever

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Dec 5, 2019
1,155
679
Hawaii
✟302,814.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Does IQ mean having answers or questions
More questions than answers. Depends on the complexity of the questions and the foundation of he asking the question. Fortunately the Gospel is simple.
 
Upvote 0

Palmfever

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Dec 5, 2019
1,155
679
Hawaii
✟302,814.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I feel it should be pointed out that "IQ" isn't quite real. Or rather, scoring high on an IQ test is not a proper measurement of intelligence, just as scoring low on an IQ test isn't.

And the problem with the way we treat IQ scores is that we act as though some people are just innately more intelligent than others. A position that I've always had an issue with as it ignores environmental factors as well as the fact that some people are drawn to different topics of interest. Someone may a great deal of competence, knowledge, and exercise a great deal of intelligence with one topic, but may be entirely ignorant of another topic. That lack of knowledge and competence in certain subjects does not render a person unintelligent.

Even further, since our brains are all wired slightly differently, we may find that one person has difficulty in one area of knowledge, but finds another area much easier. For example, I have always struggled with math. I can learn math, obviously, but it's a struggle.

I've studied a lot of history, so I know a lot about history (but I'm also always aware that there is more that I don't know than I know); but I don't think that makes me smarter than someone who hasn't studied much history. It just means that I've learned through study. By the same token, I know nearly nothing about automobiles, open up a car to let me look at the engine and I can find the radiator tank, figure out how to check the oil, and then everything else looks like a bunch of mangled metal that makes zero sense to me. I don't think my lack of knowledge about cars makes me dumb, it just makes me ignorant about cars.

IQ measurement is a pretty outdated idea, a left-over from some pretty awful racialized pseudo-science of the 19th and early 20th centuries.

The abbreviated version of this post: High IQ scores only measure how well one can score on an IQ test, not as a valid metric of real intelligence.

-CryptoLutheran
From here;

excerpt:
... Psychologist Lewis Terman later revised the test, and became known as the Stanford-Binet. While Binet's original intent was to use the test to identify children who needed additional academic assistance, the test soon became a means to identify those deemed "feeble-minded" by the eugenics movement.

Eugenics was the now debunked belief that the human population could be genetically improved by controlling who was allowed to have children. By doing this, the eugenicists believed they could produce more desirable inherited characteristics.

This shift in how the test was used is notable since Binet himself believed that the intelligence test he had designed had limitations. He believed that intelligence was complex and could not be fully captured by a single quantitative measure. He also believed that intelligence was not fixed.


What determinants have an impact on our IQ? The answer is multifaceted, encompassing both our genes and our environment. Indeed, genetic factors play a considerable role in determining IQ, with heritability estimates ranging from 30-80%. However, identical twins raised in different environments tend to have IQs that are less similar compared to those raised together, highlighting the significant effects of environmental factors on IQ. Some key determinants that can impact IQ include:

  • Access to quality education
  • Nutritional status
  • Socioeconomic status
  • Parental involvement and support
  • Exposure to stimulating environments
  • Cultural and societal influences
It is important to note that while these factors can have an impact on IQ, they are not the sole determinants and individual differences in IQ can still exist within these contexts.

One such environmental factor is nutrition, which significantly impacts IQ development. Additionally, the architecture and activity of our human brain, such as the volume of gray matter and the metabolic rate of glucose, play a role in the variations of intelligence among individuals. Even our current emotional state can influence our performance on an IQ test.
 
Upvote 0

Richard.20.12

Well-Known Member
Dec 13, 2020
656
229
Vancouver
✟48,532.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Charles Murray (who wrote the Bell Curve about IQ) has observed that at the start of the 1900s IQ was fairly well distributed in a population such as farmers, housewives, shop keepers, etc. It was just after WWII that IQ came to be a sought after commodity that could be profitable in corporations such as to offer more money. This resulted in universities To transition form meeting places for the wealthy to find spouses to factories to collectivize those with high IQs to be processed for utilization.

In a way those who were drawn to this path can be pitied for having their pride elevated, their ambitions sharpened, and their faith often crippled. I had hoped that more people would have been able to escape this sort of conveyor belt to destruction. Andrew Brietbart once said that he had escaped some of the more destructive programming he would have been exposed to in college by being mostly drunk.

Since the world is run by Satan (for now and insofar as he allowed by God) (Eph 2:2), we should expect his collectivization (as he needs this structure to leverage his influence). That he has effectively rounded up many with high IQs and influenced them to be ashamed of faith or even join his hostility towards it, may have been necessary for him to have the tools developed that he intends to use to make his play to take over the world.

If this had been his plan, it may be nearer completion and he may intend for us to destroy ourselves and thus not be a potential obstacle for his further plans.

I had not anticipated the hostility the mere mention of IQ would trigger. I do appreciate the contributions of those more capable of reasonable discourse.
Scientists are realizing now IQ or ability can be measured in many different areas. And when we are brilliant in one area it sure doesn't mean we are brilliant in others. In fact it can almost guarantee the opposite. Often we are very gifted in very specific, narrow areas. We all know people like this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ForgiveMeGod
Upvote 0

timf

Regular Member
Jun 12, 2011
1,403
569
✟123,515.00
Faith
Non-Denom
IQ is a composite measurement of several neurological processes. It might be considered similar to measuring height or an athlete's speed.

One would expect to find as much diversity among any IQ group (high, average, or low) as with any other group. There are the pompous, vain, greedy, fearful, and courteous as with any other group. There was a Mensa guy I knew who had his picture taken for an article in the local paper. In the photograph he had set up a table with books in front of him as an obvious posturing of intellect. I recognized one of the books which was titled "The origin of consciousness in the breakdown of the bicameral mind". A friend who was working on his doctorate in Anthropology had recommended it. I gave up reading it after the first few chapters because the author had intentionally written it to sound intellectual. Each paragraph could easily be reduced to a simple sentence or phrase. I find this sort of posturing to be offensive.

However, IQ is not the only reason people can posture. Whatever the group, most people learn to avoid those who posture and preen.

In Christian circles there are also those who present themselves as superior. I find this sort of posturing equally offensive. However, as with the posturing in other groups it can also be attributed to the immaturity of one who has found comfort in self delusion. This was why Jesus warned his disciples about the "leaven" of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Herodians (hypocrisy).
 
Upvote 0