• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

What is intelligence?

what makes a probability different from a guarantee if you can run the simulations infinitely?
 
If there is a definite answer, its only right or wrong, so long as its the right question for the context. A second investigation should not produce a different result if you have arrived at truth. Its not like roulete where the answer each round keeps changing.
 
but we're already dealing with an 'if' so...

"A second investigation should not produce a different result if you have arrived at truth."

what is your definition of truth?
 
KamMoye said:
but we're already dealing with an 'if' so...

"A second investigation should not produce a different result if you have arrived at truth."

what is your definition of truth?
Click to expand...


lol. I am not really looking for a philosophical debate on semantics.

While there is variation from person to person, and we would certainly go beyond the scope of our model if we got into non-human intelligence or anomalies and mutations.....Generally speaking we as humans have similar faculties, and the skill sets for a given task will be fairy uniform from person to person, most likely in my opinion.

I believe, based on my perception, that while there are some common faculties which apply to math and music, that does NOT mean that somebody who is good at math will be good at music, or that hand-eye coordination will be their only limitation. Music is not purely a mathematical equation.....art, beauty, aesthetics, imagination.....these are not quantified objectively the way numbers are, and they rely on different faculties.

Music can be measured and counted and timed, just like math, but that does not mean that its nothing but math anymore than counting produces matter from the void. It doesnt. Measuring something does not create it.

I think the faculties involved in music include faculties that are not required for math, regardless of whether music improves cognition that in turn improves math skill.
 
have been pondering this a lot this week.
My conclusions are, that intelligence is subjective.
It is describable but not definable.
When talking about intelligence in the human race, things become a little easier, but a broader view of intelligence surely must encompass all living beings that possess grey matter.
Of course there is the matter of A.I too, which must also replicate some of these atributes.

Fundamentally there are 3 abilities which constitute intelligence, no matter how advanced or how basic.

1)analytical abilities
2) creative abilities
3) practical abilities

* Analytical Abilities - include skills of (analysis), evaluation, judgement, and comparison.
* Creative Abilities - include skills of (creation), invention, discovery, and imagination.
* Practical Abilities - include skills of application, utilization, implementation, and activatation.

Thats about as far as I can see intelligence defined.
 
I think that intelligence is for the most part a myth. Rather, I think that people have various types of skills in various domains. To the extent that these skills correlate together, they might draw on a shared aptitude to conceptualize from immediacy and to arrange such concepts creatively into a coherent system (and maybe apply said system to exemplars). :P
 
coffee said:
It's pretty well accepted among cognitive scientists that the parts of the brain that are good at math also are highly affected when listening to enjoyable or beautiful music.
Click to expand...

This is not true. When I was working in cognitive neuroscience (~2003-4), it was unclear which neural circuits prove most crucial in mathematical reasoning, whether arithmetic, algebra type stuff, and formal logic share such circuits, whether such a thing as mathematical/numerical short-term memory exists, etc. fMRI experiments suggest that people reason through math more idiosyncratically than with other tasks too.

ebola
 
Is the nature of intelligence absolute and quantifiable?

I am currently coming down from a particularly philosophical trip on 25mg 4-Aco-MiPT and 2g of Piracetam. For a little background info, I have a notable acquired tryptamine tolerance, and this was a moderately intense, but none-the-less entirely manageable dose for me. Shortly following the peak of the trip, I wrote down the following list of bullet points on my computer (although the original was slightly less coherent and had quite a few typos). I am curious to find out what you fellow bluelighters think about these questions.

• Can intelligence be measured in absolute terms?

• Can intelligence be quantified?

•If so, how closely would the measure for intelligence we currently use (IQ) compare with a quantified absolute measure of intelligence that was 100% accurate?

• Could comparisons of a quantifiable nature be made between beings if intelligence is not an absolute trait, in the sense that the element of consciousness that we call intelligence is fundamentally different between, for instance, individuals of two different species, or to take it a step further, between all sentient organisms, even those of the same species?

I'm still tripping a little bit so I'm not 100% sure that this all makes sense, but I think that some of these points raise some legitimately interesting questions, so post back if you would like to share your thoughts on the topic.

Cheers,

-Saucy
 
^^ i dont think it can be absolute.. its definitely relative

but i think it can be quantified
every intellegent person can create and solve their own problems
they dont have to rely on other people to tell them how to think
 
I think everything is ultimately absolute and quantifiable. So then intelligence would be too.
 
I'll throw in another vote for intelligence being a group of abilities, which vary independently of one another. I think the only thing all of the abilities we call 'intelligence' have in common is this: they involve mounting complex adaptive responses to complex stimuli.

I'm a person that people meet and immediately label 'smart'. But although I can compose a sonnet in five minutes and kick anyone's butt at Scrabble, I'm no good at chess. In other words, I have unusually high verbal intelligence, but my abstract logical reasoning skills are average at best. Does that mean I appear smarter than I "really am"? Depends who you ask.

I think it's very hard to delineate a definition of intelligence that isn't a value judgement. In other words, whenever we stimulate someone and grade their response for its ingenuity, we're making a statement about what complex mental abilities we find valuable. This is going to vary considerably between different groups of people, depending on what abilities they've found indispensable for their group's wellbeing and survival. There are some cultural and professional circles where someone who is extremely sharp at picking up and reading subtle facial movements in other people is considered the brightest, because this skill translates into success within that group. There are others where having the ability to learn and execute complicated, demanding motor skills very easily is a mark of mental prowess.

I refuse to take an IQ test, because I don't feel I have to prove what an IQ test proves. I believe on principle in recognizing the high-level abilities each of us possesses, regardless of whether they're the ones the IQ test measures. I agree with those who say that IQ tests are culturally biased -- they test for those complex response abilities that the Western educational system, and educated Western society in general, deems valuable. An IQ test might give you a rough guideline to your chances of success in higher education (and jobs that make use of it) in the Western world, because it tells you that you possess the specific skills needed for this. The fallacy is to see the results of the IQ test as indicative of your global value as a sentient being, and the sum total of your ability to succeed at anything anywhere.

I think the most important ability for anyone to have is to realize that one's actions have consequences, and to consider those consequences in light of their effects on other people and the larger world. Anyone who can do this consistently is not a fool, as far as I'm concerned.
 
Absolute & quntifiable, certainly not over time.

Intelligence is something that is going to vary over time within the same individual. having meningitis, intoxicated, dementia, low blood sugar, sleep deprived, would all likely cause IQs to be lower by testing or by real world functioning. Having intelligence absolute and quantifiable seems about fitting the to a personal aesthetic than about working with reality.
 
Intelligence as in IQ intelligence is pure bullshit. At one time Binet had to develop a test for students who would need additional help in school and from that day intelligence is defined as 'what the IQ test measures'.

I read today an interesting article about intelligence of bacteria and after reading it, I must say that intelligence is nothing more but the ability to solve problems.
 
I've been pondering that intelligence is a great symbol of how language is meant to divide.

Intelligence is used as a static personality trait when what it attempts to symbolize is the opposite.

Clever is a much more efficient word.

IMO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top