On Saturday, June 14, 2014 5:34:10 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 6:43 AM, <ghi...@gmail.com <javascript:>> wrote > >> >> > A lot is understood about intelligence in humans >> > > Almost nothing is understood about intelligence in humans, otherwise we > could double our IQ... > You're one of the people I almost always relate to in terms of thinking/science. I'm interested in this subject. There are some context issues going on John. You have just mentioned I.Q. which is a specific kind of measure. Would you be willing to clarify where you stand on the science behind I.Q.?
The reason is that we live in a time where there is large pressure on people to toe certain lines whether they believe its true or not. If I can know whether you/others are toeing that line, then I will steer clear of the things people would rather not look at. Reason I think you might be in that category....is.... > [ .......]by knowing which modes of thought are productive and which just > waste time and lead nowhere. > John this statement appears to suggest I.Q. differences between individuals are a matter of good or bad philosophy in modes of thinking. There's a huge amount science that is tied to thousands of large scale tests on the one hand, and hundreds of some of the strongest neurological science, that has settled fairly firmly these last 30 years on I.Q. difference being 0.8 heritable, and 0.2 uncertain. A huge amount of work has gone into study of whether I.Q. changes through life. Basically, the answer is yes, from about 0 to 5 or 6 years old, kids can lose ground or gain ground. However, by about 8 these fluctuations restore to expectations on other measure and *never* fluctuate again. We talk about past generations who stood up for what was true and all the rest. But every generation faces this. Right now, a whole science is being overturned by pressure and 'scientific' arguments none of which have EVER explained the empirical evidence, OR conducted a SINGLE survey ... i.e. an empirical test involving tests or whatever, that has backed up their postulations, or failed to verify the science of IQ. So what are we talking about here? Are we talking where the hard science is, or are we talking about something else? I need to know, because I'm committed to science, whatever. That's where I am. > >> > we can do things like make a list of life outcomes that are most >> strongly tied in with intelligence >> > > And if a machine can obtain more of those outcomes than I can then the > machine is smarter than me. > Yes ...with the same constraints and limitations as well. But John...,we have no means to do this with a computer as now. While we do have means to do this with ourselves. So for that reason, the problem itself is not equal because the means are not equal. Certainly the underlying problem, with means controlled, may well be. We don't know. But why not. > > > > you've said the hard problem is intelligence and not consciousness. >> > > Yes, that's why so many people on this list have a consciousness theory > but not one has a intelligence theory. > Sure, but I would normally assume we are speaking first and foremost about scientific knowledge. Of course, laypeople don't necessarily understand intelligence and may not be interested in that so much. Consciousness is focussed in lay population precisely because there is no hard science. So that's reasonable. It's good that people don't try to come up with theories while ignoring the science - which is the definition of a crank. But there is something with the same characteristics as a 'crank' but when the motivation is due more to coercion or misinformation. Are you for example, in your theory (of the status of cognitive science) consciously or unconsciously ignoring the science? > There is no easier job in the world than being a consciousness theorist > because any theory works about as well as any other, and even if you happen > to stumble upon the correct one there is no way to know that you have. On > the other hand there is no harder job in the world than being a > intelligence theorist, but at least if you happen to stumble upon the > correct intelligence theory the fact that you've suddenly become the > world's first trillionaire is a pretty good hint that your theory is on the > right track. > I totally agree with your observations about consciousness theory. But your conclusion that this is the mark of easiness...I would argue you are missing a layer at which an important distinction separates the same observations into both 'easy' as you say, and 'hard'. That distinction is between scientific knowledge and the history of that, and layperson /philosophical knowledge and the history of that. All hard won scientific knowledge started out as dismally as consciousness theorizing. Discovery chemical involved impossibly hard problems that no one even had the first clue about for so long. So point being, in your theory, you really need to make that distinction and if you believe your theory is true for both paths - science and layperson - then you'll need to make two different cases. > > >> > humans can learn skills by repetition and we have to be able to say >> whether these correlations are about learning skills or intelligence. >> > > More pathetic sore looser rationalizations, you didn't win because you're > smarter than me, you're just more skilful. And so it came to pass that > after outmaneuvering 8 billion people the last surviving member of the > species Homo Sapiens turned to the Jupiter Brain 4 seconds before the > Godlike computer sent it into oblivion forever and said "nevertheless I > still think I'm *really* smarter than you". > love the use of abstract symbol metaphor..I see your point. But I was intending to be in the very narrow context of statistical law. All I'm talking about is the suite of statistical tools that allow humans to correlate, in a disciplined way, such that it is understand how to identify and control for ambiguity. I could have listed dozens of controls, not just hard work or learning skills. What about privilege? There no value in correlating 1000 outcomes (individuals) in fields where high performance cognition is a premium, unless you are going to filter out people who get jobs because of rich parents or ethnic networks, and spend a lot of their career being 'carried'. That's all I was talking about. controls. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
