Please define intelligence.
Printable View
Please define intelligence.
ability to analyse, fastly, logically, the big picture of different things and make the right decision in the right time
I wondered about this once, and as I tend to do I first looked for other uses of the word for a clue. In the military intelligence means the gathering, storage and transmission of relevant information so it can be studied and used effectively. I think the exact same definition applies here.
Would that make DNA a form of intelligence?Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
I would say intelligence is being able to store and process data in a specific manner. As that I would call, lifeforms, DNA as well as computers a form of intelligence.
Being more intelligent means to be better at processing information. It might be more fitting though to describe subcomponents like DNA or processors of a "sentient lifeform" something different like logic level though.
It just depends too much on how I see it for the moment to get to a conclusion.
If information is in the form of words, then DNA would be sentences. Not intelligence or intelligent, but rather a medium in which information is encoded and stored.
How do you distinguish a medium through which information is stored (and also utilized for action) and intelligence in itself?
Well yeah, but did you ever see sentences rewrite or copy themselves according to the situation?Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
Intelligence is the ability to comprehend the connections between things. Artificial intelligence is (as of now) out of our reach because we can tell a computer:
A) Rain makes you wet
B) Being wet is Bad
C) An umbrella keeps you dry
With this information the computer will never think to actually use the umbrella to keep itself dry in the rain. You would have to tell it straightforward to Use an umbrella when it is raining. This is because computers are unintelligent and cannot make the connection themselves.
On the human side, making connections within subjects, between seemingly unrelated subjects, between subjects and ones life (and so on and so forth,) is intelligence. The more connections you comprehend, the more intelligent you are.
The ability to recognize patterns and solve problems.
Natural Selection is a form of Guess and Check problem solving, could you agree? How does an intelligent being solve problems? There is definitely a functioning logical system capable of making connections but this is really just another tool that's been naturally selected. It's not the only tool, we also come complete with an imagination function allowing us to test ideas out and follow them to their logical conclusions. But is this system, in itself, intelligence?Quote:
Originally Posted by Invader
Sorry, I should have clarified. This is still based on how I understand intelligence and may not reflect the view of others:
Problem solving, when being done without prior knowledge of how to solve that problem, occurs when knowledge is being applied based on recognized patterns in the given information and can also include novel applications of prior knowledge. By this I mean that you can have two scenarios in which a problem is being solved. Problem A is one in which the method for solving is known but depends first on understanding the kind of problem it is (pattern recognition) such that this particular method can be applied. Problem B is one in which the method for solving is unknown, but based on the given information, relevant knowledge can be applied such that a novel method can be obtained.
Natural selection is a process that involves neither the recognition of patterns nor the application of knowledge to arrive at a solution. "Guess and Check" problem solving is a method that arrives at a solution by consequence of "random" behavior. That said, it is not what I would consider indicative of intelligence.
Can you explain how that is significant?Quote:
but this is really just another tool that's been naturally selected
As with many things, we have trouble defining intelligence because the word is based on an idea we get. A feeling we get when we meet different people, that they are on different levels mentally. We can define boundaries, but there are going to be exceptions, and we're going to find problems with any specific boundaries we set.
Basically this.Quote:
Originally Posted by RebelSeven
It's being able to understand concepts and link those concepts, even though they may seem unrelated.
I see no difference between intelligence and creativity. As I define them in the same way.
Creativity is the same thing, except actually applying those connections you have made in to some form.
Whereas people usually think intelligence is just a high aptitude for figuring out those connections, helping you learn new things much more easily.
I'm just trying to piece this abstract concept together into something more definable. Your response was as valid as any other, I suppose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Invader
>Implying intelligence is inherent in somethingQuote:
Originally Posted by RebelSeven
If that was all the information available to a human, they would not be able to make the connection either.
Intelligence is about being able to learn. If you give something input and the ability to store and manipulate information to react to its input, intelligence is when it can learn from its mistakes. Assuming its environment can allow it to make mistakes.
Intelligence in standard English context refers to the individual's capacity to process information in any situation and deduce logical explanations and/or a response to said situation.
I don't see any motive for stretching a definition of a word any farther than I just did, as people have done before me. This thread asked a simple language question, and It has been answered.
Because that definition encompasses things which are not considered intelligence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreams4free
The ability to consciously gather and interpret information, and relate it to a multitude of other "things", scenarios, past experiences, and hypotheticals.
The "consciously" part is important in my definition, as a computer can gather and use information for a variety of things, but a computer without sentience/consciousness is simply a processing machine. Whatever is "intelligent" must be consciously aware that it is processing the information.
We cannot with any degree of certainty assert that other humans are capable of conscious subjective experience so how can you deduce that computers are not conscious?Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePreserver
I can't be 100% certain that computers are not conscious, but for the time being it's highly unlikely.Quote:
Originally Posted by stormcrow
I agree. My point wasn't so much to say that "because we cant with certainty deduce that computers are conscious therefore they are conscious." but what I mean is humans are not the ultimate measure of who is and who is not conscious, keep in mind that many cultures believed animals to be automaton because we could not place ourselves in their subjective experience. I do not know many people today who still believe animals cannot possess subjective qualities like the capacity to feel pain, emotions, etc. Likewise we cannot place ourselves in the subjective experience of another human being.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePreserver
When I prick someone with a needle and they cry out in pain, I do not feel their pain but judging from their response I can infer that they do experience pain because I react in a similar manner when I am pricked with a needle. But the skeptic in me says there is a possibility that they were programmed to respond in that manner similar to a computer when its output of information is determined by the input. Of course I do actually believe that there are "other minds" and treat humans and animals accordingly but I have to be skeptical about that which I cannot experience (namely someones else subjective experience). KookyInc shares a similar view which he has discussed in other threads as well.
It's all about patterns, pattern recognition and pattern manipulation. It's why those people who never do their work or study can get B's on everything.
You can train a dog to recognize patterns, as long as the patterns relate directly to getting fed. You can also program a computer to recognize patterns.
And as Stormcrow said, consciousness cannot be used as a necessary quality because it's impossible to define what has it and what doesn't since it's innately subjective.
Yes but the dog cannot manipulate them of his own free will that's the key, putting the patterns into action (there could be a genius who never shows it and you would never know), also patterns is the closest word to what I'm going for but maybe not exactly it. That's pretty much all of my useful (I hope) input, so I will stop now thanks for reading.
Look at what's common, everybody says intelligence is an ability. I think you are asking what intelligence is intrinsically, on its own. There would be no such thing as intelligence without being aware of it (or the ability) at the same time and so it draws back to the quality of awareness prior to the ability, which I guess is otherwise undefinable without relationships to the tangible world where it is applied or infused. If you hear about somebody who is remarked as merely "intelligent," you suppose he has some ability at something, but it's the meaning that has been brought out of that ability. Intelligent how is then the question. In other words...Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
...similarly, perhaps intelligence is closely related to what consciousness is, after all it seems nobody can "define" intelligence to your satisfaction; it comes across as subjective too, subjective as it is the holder or mediator of all objective qualities, not subjective as in personal opinion. By defining it we picture it in relation to "forms" of intelligence, which are only meaningful inside consciousnesses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
I suppose if we didn't have intelligence nobody could read a word of this thread, but we must know of that core of intelligence already, as it is present inside us. So can we really "define" it as we would like? Will an illiterate person be able to read and understand the question?
EDIT: Ok I'm just going to conclude this: Intelligence itself = consciousness itself! What is intelligent: the relationship between consciousness interacting with the world. Consciousness gives meaning to the world, consciousness makes humans "able"; intelligence is in abilities. People who make meaningful things (etc.) can be described as "conscious" and "intelligent". Ok but not all people are intelligent? Yes, in the same way not all people are as conscious as each other; i.e. that is concordant to the nature of consciousness.
/END THREAD
NEW THREAD: "What is consciousness" XD
I don't believe the two are married, neither in common use of the terms nor in actual definition. I agree intelligence is something observed through action and cannot be described as it is, but this also means that there's no solid line separating intelligent from non-intelligent, nor conscious from non-conscious. If you want to make a consciousness thread, be my guest.
To be crass, what the f**k are you talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
Intelligence is the individual's capacity to process information in any given situation and deduce logical explanations and/or a response to said situation.
that is intelligence.. what "things" do you think I am talking about when I say individuals. Every living organism that has the capacity to process information in any given situation and deduce logical explanations and/or a response to said situation is by the very definition an "intelligent" composition of matter, matter that must consist of hydro carbons.
how god damn specific do i need to be lol
humans defining intelligence! ha! going on our track record we are asking the wrong species. : )
is asking a self destructive creature what intelligence is like asking a priest to describe the intensity of making love? with an adult.
"behind every cynic is a disappointed idealist"
ok, what about... the ability to react to your environment?
intelligence is the ability to do cognition and act (choose) upon it appropriately based on previous cognitions (learning)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreams4free
So single celled organisms and computers, to some degree, are therefore intelligent.Quote:
Originally Posted by shafri
yes to some degree and within their own domain. man made "info processing" devices such as computer, roomba cleaner, robot toy, if programmed correctly with intelligence, will be called "artificial intelligence", artificial means = man made. naturally born/emerging organisms, if they can act appropriately using their sensories (implicitly means "information processing"), will be called intelligent mostly for survival purposes. but "human intelligence" is something different, human can be intelligent and can be a fool at the same time. crazy people walking stray on the street is not intelligent since he cannot act something that can benefit himself, he can kill himself or do nasty things. human got extra intelligence (not sure about other organisms) that is called meta-cognitive (or cognition) which is the ability to judge himself, or question their reality or God existence which in turn capable of inventing a new thing or concept, and even deviates from the norm.Quote:
So single celled organisms and computers, to some degree, are therefore intelligent.
So you would define human intelligence as awareness of yourself?
recognizing that fact is one part in our inteligence ability. who knows the exact mechanism? esp in metacognitive part.
"http" "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metacognition"
"http" "gse.buffalo.edu/fas/shuell/cep564/metacog.htm"
"http" "education.calumet.purdue.edu/vockell/edPsybook/Edpsy7/edpsy7_meta.htm"
ps: sorry i cannot make the proper link since i'm a new member. so pls use your "intelligence" to follow the links if you care ;)
Our consciousness, or philosophically speaking, our second level desire (primary motives), is not intelligence. It is essentially the reason why we think we have, or possible do have, free will. Arguable, without consciousness and conscious choices external from the instincts of our body, free will cannot exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
I don't really think you're concerned with exactly what intelligence is, more so that you are curious about the idea or existence of artificial consciousness and consciousness in general, which I guess will exist someday (AIC). From what I have studied, human consciousness seems to just be deeply complex algorithms that guide our decision making process, at its most empirical form. Algorithms that are capable of building on themselves and constantly modulating to stimuli.
Then again, in my concept of human consciousness, whether or not an algorithm can be sophisticated enough to establish "freedom" is the next question. I think the answer to that question is no because in traditional programming the best I would be able to think of would purely be an illusion of freedom: i.e simultaneous probabilistic framework.
Another theory I have postulated is that if we could have 2 layers of algorithms running simultaneously we could probably simulate a "conscious" being. The first level represents our instinct, our desires, and other immediate wills of that arise in a typical human being. The second level would be the rational level framework of what is ultimately desired in a day. Arguable, there could even be third level called "consciousness", or just what I like to think which is the illusion of consciousness created by the overlap of what we may call layers 1 and 2. If I had to create that third level, consciousness, I would essentially try to emulate free will through radically ethical nihilism. So what you have is layer 1 - animal, layer 2 - rationality and objective ethical/moral code to be followed, layer 3 - constant doubting and testing of layers 1 and 2 to justify and predetermine way of life. In a way, this model is how the typical human lives, as far as i am concerned.
Truly interesting stuff. I don't claim to have any idea about what I am talking about, just to put that out there. This is just fairly poorly substantiated theory derived from my programming, philosophy, and math background.
I'll admit on consciousness I have a preconception that the entire universe is conscious. It makes more sense to think it's all conscious and that intelligence is derived from evolution of consciousness, not the other way around. But it's a little difficult to prove this idea. It just seems more likely.
Sure, when you look at the macro level scheme of things, its easy to say a chimp may have a consciousness or at least a low level of it. But how can we say that a electron is conscious, for we can dictate many of its actions from probabilistic theory and electromagnetism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
Saying the entire universe is consciousness is saying all matter is consciousness, to one degree or another. That is just impossible according to our definition of consciousness. That means that cup of coffee next to me has consciousness.
Intelligence comes before consciousness, not consciousness before intelligence, if there was any sequence to the two ideas. :sleepmeditate2:.....
Intelligence is very primitive, very simple. It is identifying patterns, processing what is happening and establishing logical interpretations of said events and how handle them. Consciousness, in respect to intelligence, is the decision "I" make after reasoning. In a way we are slaves to reason :shock:, which i can't say is a bad thing, I hate to be a slave to illogical impulses.
Sure, when you look at the macro level scheme of things, its easy to say a chimp may have a consciousness or at least a low level of it. But how can we say that a electron is conscious, for we can dictate many of its actions from probabilistic theory and electromagnetism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
Saying the entire universe is consciousness is saying all matter is consciousness, to one degree or another. That is just impossible according to our definition of consciousness. That means that cup of coffee next to me has consciousness.
Intelligence comes before consciousness, not consciousness before intelligence, if there was any sequence to the two ideas. :sleepmeditate2:.....
Intelligence is very primitive, very simple. It is identifying patterns, processing what is happening and establishing logical interpretations of said events and how handle them. Consciousness, in respect to intelligence, is the decision "I" make after reasoning. In a way we are slaves to reason :shock:, which i can't say is a bad thing, I hate to be a slave to illogical impulses.
Not really sure where I am going with this, but basically it is our disagreement between two very old modules of philosophy.
When we process stimuli, how do systematically evaluate a response. Does it go Instinct - Reason - Consciousness or Instinct - Consciousness - Reason.
I tend to think the first module.
Then why it is so widely spread, researched and argued topic in psychology?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreams4free
because it is not understood fully. stating the meaning in a simple term is... simple. but to explain the detailed process is... not simple.
http://www.dreamviews.com/f36/iq-tests-121992/
Another thread that goes close with this. Read if interested. There is also my response about intelligence.
Spoiler for My wall of text:
I suppose I respectfully disagree with your definition of consciousness then. I don't think it has anything to do with "I." I think "I" is an unnecessary aspect of humanity that we evolved into by chance. It may be necessary, but it certainly is not permanent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreams4free
Consciousness is the capability of observation, and observation is not separate from what is being observed. The separation is an illusion.
I never defined consciousness in that excerpt, so I don't know why you used that passage Omnis Dei.... confused the shit out of me when I tried to write a response.
I've been talking about the consciousness of our actions, while you are concerning yourself with whether or not consciousness is possible without the self.
You want to say that robots and computers are conscious? Why not label the thread "Artificial Consciousness" instead of "Define Intelligence"
What I'm trying to say is there is no difference between action and manifestation. The action of a conscious being (in the way we view it) is the simple accumulation of causations. In much the same way, the manifestation of the universe is causality.
an accumulation of actions usually lends itself to a manifestation of sorts. In other words, my neurons fired, my muscles twitched, my arm moved = the actions, my arm moved = the manifestation (to us humans). However all of these actions manifested themselves on some level in time and space. Manifestation is just used for observable matter. I don't think this is relevant to consciousness though.
Exactly. Consciousness is completely unnecessary to life the way you're describing it. The way I see it, the observer is one with the observation and the separation we have between what we see and the thing that sees it is a complete fabrication.
Ok this helped me understand the focus of the conversation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
You are suggesting that consciousness is an ambiguity associated with the different manifestations of an act..
So let us examine the decision making process of a "conscious" act.
I see an apple, I realize that I am hungry and want to eat the apple, but rather than dive into the apple, I am on a diet and refrain. "free will" is exhibited and I consciously avoided my instinct, as the devil advocate would argue.
This is still just simplified to a more sophisticated reflex of me being able to see into the impending doom of eating an apple and not being able to be as capable of mating because I am overweight and therefore I avoid this apple to survive, or improve my chances of survival through better capacity to mate.
Rather than perhaps a second level observer that judges my emotions and reasons through them, we could view this as a highly developed intelligent act of me being able to associate my patterns and change them before the situation becomes bad very very far into the future.
Perhaps what we are really looking at is the evolution of the "instinct", as it were. Back to being a fatalist......lol.
This is a good example, let's keep it simple so we can talk about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreams4free
An animal with the same kind of cognition we attribute to humans would not think in terms of diet in order to refrain from eating food, but it would be pressured by other conditions such as feeding its young or simply not being hungry.
If humans were free of thought, then we would have no need of this idea of "diet" as we would simply stop eating when we are full or die, thus removing our genes from the pool and with it, the instinct to over eat. But be cause we have thought, we also must make conscious decisions in order to wade our way through a maze of indiscernible impulses to figure out what's best for us. I propose this is simply a more complicated version of what any organism goes through in its contemplation of action. In the end, we are responding to stimulus and though the stimulus goes through a maze of thought in order to manifest as action, the only difference between a human and any other organism is that maze of thought. Consciousness is still existent in these less evolved organisms. They just never stop and think "I am" as they do it.
If you actually stop and imagine everything you see as yourself, the illusion of separation between you and your observations becomes readily apparent.
There's not a lot of substance here. Wouldn't you think that if intelligence can only be observed through action, then surely it does not apply to things that do not or cannot act? E.g. Inert objects, which are arguably both unaware and unintelligent, or in your words, non-intelligent and non-conscious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
The quote: "...but this also means that there's no solid line separating intelligent from non-intelligent, nor conscious from non-conscious. " does not really show me how you think the two terms are not "married" either.
That which serves certain ends.
Well that's why my main point is that intelligence does not exist. Only consciousness. Everything else is just arbitrary semantics.Quote:
Originally Posted by really
Let me see If I understand your idea...Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
If we were to compare a man of average intelligence to say, someone like Earnest Rutherford, while many say that Rutherford is more intelligent (which I think in the common conception of what intelligence is, is highly likely) you would see as just semantics to the real root "intelligence", i.e consciousness. The notion you would suggest is that his intelligence is a manifestation of his highly perceptive and aware brain that connect logical patterns and reasoning that ground the framework quantum mechanics of electrons.
In this model of intelligence, knowledge would then be what people are mistaken as intelligence. Which of course, we see all the time, very "knowledgeable" people being mistaken as having high conscious capacity (or what we would call intelligence).
I don't really think this is trumps the idea of "intelligence", it just puts it in a different, arguably, more appropriate context in our language; and of course, the clearer our language is, the better.
If I am completely missing the point please guide me, you don't really seem to elaborate a lot on your reasoning and your views for the deeper point you were trying to make until now, which is that intelligence has different connotations and for all intents and purposes does not "exist" or apply in the contemporary context of capacity to reason.
An intelligent person is a collection of evolved neurons ranging into two capacities of evolution. The first is genetic and houses a collection of genetic memories that guide it instinctively and unconsciously through life. It does not understand most of these impulses and though study and examination can unlock many of them the mystery is always there, creating a separation between one and their unconscious motivations.
The second form of evolution is tradition which carries a memory based on teachings and observations. This one influences people on a cognitive level they can think about and utilize consciously but also carries a mass of unconscious impulses and habits which are utilized because of evolutionary conditioning upon the culture. This is also intelligence, but it's habit, not necessarily just words or logic. It can be just as sophisticated but it cannot be learned through logical apprehension nor cognitive thought.
That's your main point? Where is this thread going? :shakehead2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
Define consciousness.
To me what you have suggested is quite vague and sound a little too similar to call two different forms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
It sounds like in both situations you are describing our unconscious impulses that are driven by our genetic code and previous memory (which are imbedded in our DNA, so there need be no distinction)
But from what I gather from your idea here, is that one progresses intellectually by simply surviving longer. "An intelligent person is a collection of evolved neurons ranging into two capacities of evolution".
What I find interesting about how our neural networks evolve is that many scientists have suggested ways to model the evolution through genetic algorithms. That is why if we could create algorithms complex enough to model the evolution of our neural networks, we very well might be able to create a artificial intelligence that for all intents purposes "learns" and "evolves" through observation and analysis, arguable as we do.
http://www.idsia.ch/~tino/papers/gomez.gecco05.pdf
take look at this research, this is a lot of where my perspective is coming from.
It be very interesting if we could come up with an accurate mathematical for how we essentially evolve on the neural scale.
We could really challenge what it means to be human once we get artificial intelligence that starts discovering "new" knowledge and integrates it into its "thinking". Thinking at this point could even be model algorithmically in conjunction with our genetic code.
As much as I love somewhat arbitrary speculation, I must refrain :D.
since you admitted it. i have to admit that you do exist, alive and concious, but not intelligent :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
We'll see how those mathematicians with their algorithms do surviving in the desert like an aboriginal or surviving in the snow like an inuit and you'll understand what I mean when I say not all intelligence is cognitive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreams4free
because that experience never encountered and learnt, so thats why most people will act inappropriately in life threatening situation such as in those extreme weather/land condition.
You're not sounding very sophisticated here, to be honest... Nor are you making any sense what so ever. In a serious conversation, I expect more than ambiguous/cynical remarks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
It sounds like, from what little I sense I could extract from what you wrote, that you don't believe that algorithms could be sophisticated enough to replicate an intelligent/conscious being. Which is fine, we haven't done it yet nor is there any substantial reason to assume it is possible.
In addition to the crude formatting, you seem to be loosely grounded in the contemporary denotation of words like intelligence, consciousness, cognitive, perception, and thought.
If you want to engage in a worthwhile philosophical conversation, clarity and focus are going to be your two highest concerns. We are circularly treading around a vast amount of different ideas while simultaneously trying to establish an agreement on the definition of words, considering we are dealing with very broad subject matter, we need to slow down a little and make sure we addresses a lot of the subtleties in the definitions that deriding the course of the discussion.
I would say the pace is just find as it is, but you have a fairly tailored diction. The focus is I don't even know what anymore. Our primary concern is "what is intelligence". We should keep reiterating this idea in our conversation.
For the most part, you don't believe that intelligence is completely grounded in "thought" or cognition. Your basis for this seems to be that you think that "unconscious" behavior is not thought and is part of our intelligence. This is sensible, is that what you are suggesting? It takes a lot of work for me to decipher what you write....
After reading this over a little more, I think you are suggesting that tradition is intelligence? That is a highly controversial opinion. I could have a tradition of lighting my socks on fire before I go to sleep, and by that logic I would be "intelligent".Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
I think it is worth further discussing the connection between cultural behavior (habits) and evolution.
Also, how can some agent cause me to think about something and reason through it, yet not be learned through my thoughts and my reasons. That a contradiction.
For example, we observe someone who has a disgusted reaction to a gay couple. They think about this reaction "why is this disgusting", eventually they just conclude that it is an arbitrary reflex and they don't dispute whether or not having a disgusted reflex is right/wrong good/bad because they are told that this is a bad practice and it is discouraged and people will treat you differently.
This is a good example for you to use in defense of your argument. You see here, we have "evolutionary conditioning upon the culture" and the habitual reflex (avoid gay people/non approval). It would be reasonable at this point to suggest that we have learned only through teachings that being gay is wrong, but then we have a problem. The "master teacher", if you will, the person who decided to tell other people that being gay was wrong could not of been taught. He must of learned through some other medium rather than teaching. We are left with observation then......
When we observe something, we think about it and how it associates with other things. Our person saw a gay relationship (lets say the first gay relationship ever in caveman times) and didn't have a conditioned habit/reaction to this behavior. Therefore, with no unconscious motivation or preexisting bias, he logically came to some conclusion about the practice.
Therefore, this reflex we have to gay relationships is in fact conditioned on a mass scale, as you may say, but the master teacher could only have come to this knowledge through his own reasoning.
Same argument with God being the first mover. Not to bring in theology but It is fairly analogus.
aint nothin i never hearda
some kinda book lernin thing maybe
OD's gotta make longer, more intelligent (haha) posts. This has gotten a little drab.
I'm too lazy to vomit a bunch of words out that say nothing. What is missing from my explanation of the role our genes and traditions have in our intelligence? Dreams4free used examples where tradition is illogical to debate my claim that tradition is intelligence, as though apples were oranges and logic can be used to understand tradition. Tradition proves valuable through time, logic is limited to our current paradigm of understanding and often fails to see events as they work through time the way our traditions, habits and genes are able to do.
Let me try another example: Disease. Immunity to disease is a form of intelligence because the antibodies are programmed to recognize patterns in order to distinguish different foreign input and recognize the harmful ones. You can't use logic to fight disease but what use is your abstract definition of intelligence if it's unable to survive?
I'm not really motivated to continue the conversation after reading this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
I don't know why it is so difficult to take an extra 5-10 minutes to clarify your writing to save me the 2-3 days of confusion caused by the lack of mutual understanding. So be it I guess, this left much to be desired....
I don't know man, you don't speak very clearly, it's a little frustrating to read your posts. You could have said everything you tried to say in your last paragraph of that post:
Yes, I am saying intelligence is not limited to cognition.Quote:
For the most part, you don't believe that intelligence is completely grounded in "thought" or cognition. Your basis for this seems to be that you think that "unconscious" behavior is not thought and is part of our intelligence. This is sensible, is that what you are suggesting? It takes a lot of work for me to decipher what you write....
Ok read this and see if we are on the same page.
This should of been in your original post..... >.<. Could of just focused my resources on just defining a couple words and easily reaching some verdict that we could agree/disagree on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
For this discussion, I think you go further and even go as far to say as conscious = awareness = pattern recognition
perception of an act or object would just consummate to either a positive or negative pattern that we recognized. we then associate
a response that if positive would make us desire the act/object, or if negative would make us fear or avoid the act/object.
We can call this instinct, rather than habits or tradition.
running off of what you are saying, as I sit here "thinking", I am not in some separate realm but rather consciously critiquing my experiences, my future, and what
behavior I should be exhibiting right now, behavior that will be determined by what my body has associated with "good" or "bad". After I "evaluate" what future behavior I should exhibit (behavior that is associated with good associations), I execute this behavior while consciously and unconsciously observing and perceiving the results. If this result is unfavorable, I adjust. If the result if favorable, I continue my exhibiting the same response to the same goal.
therefore all actions, "thoughts", and motives are all essentially driven by instinct (or historical perceptions/habits/traditions what ever term you wish to use). We are always looking to be satisfied, which is our body's way of telling us to pursue objects and actions that have historically resulted in favorable outcomes (through the use of releasing chemicals when we do such an action is how our body does it). When new phenomena occurs, we scan our memories (i.e exercise consciousness i.e use pattern recognition) to find what good or bad associations we have (the most similar scenario is probably used if the same exact scenario doesn't appear, which as technology and society telescope rarely does) and go with it.
I think all the hard work I put into this post has concluded my part in the thread. My validation is that if we define consciousness as pattern recognition, for all intents and purposes, we can disregard the idea of intelligence.
This is why I made that comment about fatalism earlier, because in a lot of ways, this theory strongly advocates it.
And about my posts being "frustrating", I like to explain how I arrive at my conclusions in great detail so everyone understands me and if there is a disagree it can be very clear where. Sorry if you find that frustrating.
And before you comment on my horrendous grammar, I'm tired from all this consciousness (lol).
I suppose some may find your way of writing better than mine. I can't stand it, I feel like you excessively elaborate to the point where I can't help but think "no shit" the whole time I read. But to be fair, I'm also a pretty impatient person with repetition. My pet-peeve is people that take a long time to say something very simple. However, the reason I'm responding to you rather than anyone else is because you're the only person not trolling this thread right now so you do get bonus points for that.
I would agree with your statement and include Backwards Rationalization which is the act of using logic to justify illogical or non-cognitive instinct. I not only think instinct is an integral aspect of our intelligence, I think it is the most prominent force of our decision making and many of the excuses behind our decisions are merely backward rationalization. The advice behind this is to trust your instinct. It is more intelligent than your logic. It has millions of years of experience it leans upon, your cognitive capacity is much more limited.
I also think, from a psychologist's standpoint, it's important to remember the balance between nature and nurture and not equate every unconscious motivation with instinct. It suited the purpose of describing my argument but can ultimately be misleading since instinct is considered behavior which requires no learning while I'm trying to make a claim about the nature of learning itself.
I would hardly find what we are talking about simple. There is much variance in the language that we use, and philosophy demands that this language is highly clarified. In order to satisfy this condition, I take extra long to make sure that I am clear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
In fact, I'm glad you are saying "no shit", it means that you are at least able to understand the majority of what I am saying and when I get to my logical leaps or big jumps if you will, the pieces come together fairly easily. It would be nice if I could justify answering in a lot less words, but the truth is, I am being as concise as possible.
I see that you are trying to make a statement about the nature of learning itself.
And my opinion is that every decision we make goes through a systematic sort of process:
1. unique situation occurs (I should do my work)
2. we recall similar situations and assume apply old patterns loosely to this new test hoping for a closely replicated outcome.
3. the response is stored and our instincts have been influenced.
So when I am in that exact situation again, say 10:30 AM on a tuesday
I will pretty readily remember the last time it happened, what I did, and how it panned out.
I'm so god damn tired lol.
As much as I like to have conversations at 3:00 AM I am going to retire.
Go for it, this message will be here when you wake up.
Here's my take on the order of reaction.
Input
Response
Rationalization of response (if positive result)/Learning from result of response (if negative result)
Perhaps this is revealing on the way we've been arguing through this thread though. I make intuitive statements based on what I know and then explain them while you work every idea through logical mechanisms to arrive at a result. I'm not throwing random guesses out and hoping they stick, though, I just cannot completely describe the reasoning behind my ideas at all times. Much of my decision making takes place with bits of data that were not taught verbally and must be transformed into words in order to describe.
So I am doing all the work, sounds about right XD.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
Yeah. I agree with input / response / learning, I think that is pretty objective.
You are essentially describing how your ideas and opinions on the subject matter have arrived mainly unconsciously.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
Whether or not our ideas arrive consciously or unconsciously, the important element to consider is the logical structure of the idea so it can be transferred, worked on, and effectively become a more solid and coherent concept in discussion and analysis of the idea and what connotations it has on other ideas.
We can't justify ideas on intuition, lol. We need to explain them with great detail in order have them answered clearly and specifically.
You should aim to be able to explain the logical reasoning behind any information you post because I am assuming that your writing has logic behind it.
If you are just simply posting intuitive ideas, they haven't really been consciously evaluated. Which in that case, It would seem sensible that I am doing a shit load of work and finding a lot of errors and adjustments to turn your lasdg;laksd;gkasd;lgkasldgka;sldkg;asldgk into legible points.
You're doing work you want to do. It's got nothing to do with me. I usually don't feel the need to backwards rationalize my ideas. Not every idea must be concluded logically. Logic is just one tool, but there's an entire life experience of powerful insight available to you.
:?Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
If you honestly think Logic is the ultimate form of truth then I feel very sorry for you.