On Sunday, June 15, 2014 4:41:21 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, June 15, 2014 4:14:37 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Kim Jones <kimj...@ozemail.com.au> >> wrote: >> >> >> 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. >>>> >>> >>> >> > That guy was Edward de Bono. He was the first one to say that >>> intelligence is the horsepower of the car whereas thinking ability is the >>> skill with which the car is driven. >> >> >> If that's Edward de Bono's "theory" of intelligence then he might be able >> to get a job in a fortune cookie factory but not at Google or Apple or >> Microsoft, it explains nothing about why some things are intelligent and >> some things are not, it doesn't say a word about how intelligence actually >> works. And that's why Mr. de Bono is not a trillionaire. When a person (or >> more likely a machine) comes up with a good theory of intelligence YOU WILL >> KNOW, probably in just a matter of hours. >> > > The story all accumulated robust knowledge features radical layering > between 'details' , sometimes speaking to a foundational 'reduceable' > scheme, sometimes featuring as yet not understand laws of emergence, and so > on. > > It's arguable not realistic to assess the status of knowledge in terms of > some as yet not understood but suspected layer. Purely for the reason, your > position is necessarily non-distinct. There are going to be senses in which > you are right. As in..we don't understand the fundamental biological > architectural basis of intelligence. > > But there are layers of understanding notwithstanding that deficit, which > exhibit the characteristics of reliable scientific knowledge. > > What you seem to be doing John, is trying to make a position that > something is equal across distinct domains (like computers and humans), > that involves implicitly or otherwise dismissing both the reality of > difference in the current status of how major layers of hard knowledge has > in respect of, here 'intelligence' AND the accumulate characteristic > reality of knowledge that it is layered and that layers are typically > independent on some or other sense, and therefore robust in and of > themselves. >
p.s. I am interested in people and knowledge. So I keep an eye on the structure of their arguments. You are amazing strong in the area of physics and realism regarding a range of important matters. But....this exact approach to argument you make here on intelligence, you also make over on the climate thread. It could be coincidence. But on the other hand, it happens to be the case that, just as individuals will learn effective ways of doing others things, they also will learn effective ways of rationalizing when they feel they have to. Intelligence and Climate also happen to share an important - independent - characteristic between them. Both are 'controversial' in the same cross-domain kind of way. That is, not controversial within empirical science, but between empirical science and some sort of external - but very powerful - force -- 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.
