but there has to be a reason why you believe that.

you seem to be more fixated on wanting to know my reason for me believing it rather than for finding out if it in fact is the way I say it is

I don’t even know how to go about investigating those kinds of questions. I apologize if I’m coming across as some sort of pompous ass. I am genuinely curious about your conclusions.

well for a starting example the very nature of this topic is evidence that people treat it the wrong way as I suggested

People with a 135 IQ are thick. My IQ is 159.9. Is the logical conclusion that I'm thin?

This is more or less what IQ tests do; test our "ability to work things out". — Down The Rabbit Hole

No. They test our ability to work out particular things. Sometimes time pressure is involved. The things to be worked out are abstract and analytical. Abstract problem solving by abstract analysis. It's the question though if problem solving, be it abstract like in math, or practical, is a sign of intelligence in the first place. The assigning of a value to intelligence is already a sign to see the kind of intelligence that is addressed in the IQ test.

My IQ is 159.9. Is the logical conclusion that I'm thin? — EugeneW

No, I said 'thick' not thin. If weight loss is needed, try cutting back on sugar. You probably know that, with a high IQ and all. :razz:

I meant thin. If all thick people have 135, and I have 159.9, can we logically conclude I'm not thick? Is liking sugar a sign of not being intelligent?

well for a starting example the very nature of this topic is evidence that people treat it the wrong way as I suggested — MAYAEL

Could you clarify what you mean by “nature”? And also would you mind presenting your understanding of what the nature of this topic actually is? Otherwise your sentence will continue to seem somewhat ambiguous.

Kinda jumping into this after reading through posts and replies and speculations so I'm tagging the people I specifically am addressing so you all know I'm thinking of things you personally said while replying to the group.

First let me address the linguistic problem. Whether it's slang or jargon the simple fact is that language does a severely abysmal job providing the contextual clues children use in development to build cognitive links around the concept of intelligence.

Be warned, this will be a long post because it's a complex topic that aims to deal with a subject that is notoriously difficult for children to learn in the same way they learn everything else.

The concept is as diverse as the human brain and that particular object happens to be the single most complex physical object in the known universe (known by man at least if that isn't obvious).

I don't want to bore people so if you already know how amazing it is you can skip this next part. It's intended to just gush about how cool the brain is anyhow.

DATA DUMP

For any of you who might think I'm being hyperbolic, consider this: a microprocessor (current generation) is a single dye (piece of silicon) containing a gating bridge, at least two "cores", control logic and connections to L1 and L2 cache (L3 is only on dye in Xenon procs) and each core is hard-encoded instruction sets for about 12 different specially stacked instruction sets (dictionaries of operations) from the x86 architecture to MME and SSE architectures. Essentially all of them are 64x64 operator/operand intersections.

Even with all of that, it's still only binary operations where 64 bits define the operator (instruction set) to work on the other 64 bits (the working set) and the output (bit) can be 0 (neutral) or 1 (charged).

In comparison, the human brain has a sodium ion channel, a potassium ion channel, neurotransmitters (like amplifiers) and neural inhibitors (like resistors) and hormones (can activate or deactivate additional neural clusters as well as affect the release and uptake of tranmitters and inhibitors).

Those varied operations each act like 1 channel in a cpu by carrying one informational factor, so that's roughly 4 factors (equivalent to 8 possible values of 'bit').

Next, the human brain has evolved over time with stacked layers. These have names like occipital, temporal, prarietal, hypothalamus, limbic region, Broca's region, Wernicke reg... ok maybe I'm going too far.

The point is, each one of those is a large enough mass of neurons to be easily seen and held by the human eye and hand.

Packed into each is anywere from a few hundred million to a billon neurons.

Each neuron has a primary output (ganglial tail) and a cloud of synapses (like hairs on the other end) that bond them 1:1 or 1:n to other neurons (or even multiple times to a single neuron). Each one of those synapses and the ganglia transmit all 4 variables of state to their neighbors or possibly to a nerve cluster or to the lymbic region for connection to a whole other region of the brain.

So, instead of a 64bit processor you have a 4!*100 processor (2,400 channels). There are definitely signs that each neuron can even make some decisions on operations internally, not merely as part of the overall cluster, but I'm trying to simplify so I'll let that lye there. So right now we have about 24 billion possible configuration channels on the low end to about 24 trillion for larger structures like the prefrontal cortex (and you have two of them).

That is the instruction set of the brain if you will. The operation set is the neuronal network itself (the series of connected and reinforced pathways between neurons.

Each operation instruction (all those trillions of configurations) take place over a series of fractional seconds while the 400Hz oscillating pulse (theta, beta, alpha waves) continues. That basically says that unlike a CPU the operator scales over time (then falls off) instead of initiating a state change instantly. The very analog nature of the operations, however, can be used to double the state of operations as a whole new operand too.

The inference from this "summation" of the complexity is that even though the brain operates at a MUCH lower "clock speed" than a processor it still achieves many orders of magnitude faster processing because it covers its entire compiled data set 400 times per second while a modern CPU takes the better part of 45 seconds to process it's entire executable memory space and that is only about 2GB on average or about 18GB on a desktop running many applications.

Have you ever noticed your PC running very slowly while indexing files or when you have too many tabs open on the browser? Also your computer has all that information in descrete and unassociated chunks while the human brain has to hang everything it knows on an associated framework.

NOTE: The whole reason people can't remember memories before about 2 or 3 years of age is because your entire adult memory space is hung on a compatible framework that developed about that time. The things that came before just don't make sense any longer.

BREAK DATA DUMP

As I've mentioned in other posts, the study of the human mind as an empirical discipline (said with a huge amount of tongue-in-cheek) has only been around since about the 1930s so it's a very very very new "science" and a whole lot of it isn't science at all due to some problems during the cold war leading up to a total ban on many (most) forms of experimentation in the West since the 70s as unethical/inhumane. Of course that ban hasn't done a whole lot of our knowledge of how the brain works and develops, but there is still progress if slow.

One fantastic (and very new) bit of research done is about how information absorption affects perceived intelligence. Your brain needs you to read - Pocket Article. (study is referenced in the article, I can link it if anyone wants).

I'm going to take a break here because this is already long and I have other things I need to do.

For any of you who might think I'm being hyperbolic, consider this: a microprocessor (current generation) is a single dye (piece of silicon) containing a gating bridge, at least two "cores", control logic and connections to L1 and L2 cache (L3 is only on dye in Xenon procs) and each core is hard-encoded instruction sets for about 12 different specially stacked instruction sets (dictionaries of operations) from the x86 architecture to MME and SSE architectures. Essentially all of them are 64x64 operator/operand intersections. — SkyLeach

I literally can’t comprehend this information.

Each neuron has a primary output (ganglial tail) and a cloud of synapses (like hairs on the other end) that bond them 1:1 or 1:n to other neurons (or even multiple times to a single neuron). Each one of those synapses and the ganglia transmit all 4 variables of state to their neighbors or possibly to a nerve cluster or to the lymbic region for connection to a whole other region of the brain. — SkyLeach

This is all Greek to me.

I don’t want to criticize you because I really do appreciate your participation in this discussion but an important part of communication is being able to tailor your message to the needs of your audience. My understanding of the subjects you discussed is simply not at the level that would be required for us to meaningfully engage in any dialogue.

that was absolutely unneeded and probably not only didn't help the topic but most likely harmed it as there's pieces of people's brain everywhere from trying to read that and I know the fallout is going to be unimaginable. With that said there are so many ways to interpret how things are and the one I hate the most is scientific method it's so cold and non-unique it just lacks any form of real artwork to it (very robotic pun intended)


But regardless of that I'm not sure exactly what you were attempting to accomplish but you did make a very nice salad

cats do cat things dogs do dog things because it's in their nature and so the cat sitting on the couch prefers to sit on the couch while the dog prefers to play fetch because it's in their nature


Likewise the nature of this thread that was started implies that the concept of intelligence was taken the wrong way by said topic starter

Likewise the nature of this thread that was started implies that the concept of intelligence was taken the wrong way by said topic starter — MAYAEL

I disagree. Taken the wrong way by who?

I don't know how else to explain it to you. I guess my point is you're viewing intelligence as a thing in itself that can be given the credit for accomplishments and or failures and be given as a reason for why a thing was done or accomplished

and what I'm saying is it's just semantics because of the things would have been accomplished or created or done by anyone persons and easily have been accredited to a different concept and a different word because it's just mankind's innate habit to chop sections apart off of a greater thing and categorize it into smaller things

but those smaller things don't actually exist in the real world without the social construct that it was created in and so intelligence wasn't the reason Mr x completed y and z and yet people wrongly the credit intelligence for it

intelligence wasn't the reason Mr x completed y and z and yet people wrongly the credit intelligence for it — MAYAEL

I never gave a definition of intelligence or suggested that it was the reason for anything. I’m trying to figure out what it is. You say that it is a social construct that doesn’t really exist but I haven’t heard any argument to support this conclusion. You make claims but you don’t support them.

I guess my point is you're viewing intelligence as a thing in itself that can be given the credit for accomplishments and or failures and be given as a reason for why a thing was done or accomplished — MAYAEL

This is not my view of intelligence. I’m trying formulate my view. I don’t have any position on the subject yet.

"g"

A definition I would give is "how well one is able to process information"

interesting.

how well one is able to process information — InvoluntaryDecorum

What exactly do you have in mind when you say process? Do you mean something like the development of an interpretation?

I don't know how else to explain it to get it through your thick skull. The simple fact you presented the topic alludes to the fact that in your head you hold a certain opinion and belief about the concept and word intelligence and it's proof because you made the post asking the question meaning you value it in some way or form and acknowledge its existence this is a fact not my opinion


And so I proceeded to point out how it's not even worth that because it's just what I've already said it is.

Now nevermind I don't care about the topic anymore you've killed it through your dense skull thickness and your inability to view life metaphorically or in any other complex manner other than your apparent block of wood style that you use right now. Best of luck.

I see what you’re saying. I’m sorry if I upset you but that wasn’t my intention. I wish you luck in your endeavors.

The simple fact you presented the topic alludes to the fact that in your head you hold a certain opinion and belief about the concept and word intelligence and it's proof because you made the post asking the question meaning you value it in some way or form and acknowledge its existence this is a fact not my opinion — MAYAEL

If you don’t even think that intelligence exists I’m not sure why you decided to discuss this subject in the first place.

I also didn’t appreciate your ad hominem attack.

The opposite, rather aiming for pure objectivity with as little subjectiveness as possible. Then being able to recognize patterns, predict, and so on

I like your definition but what metrics should be used to detect “pure objectivity”. Many people will claim to be “purely objective”. How do we separate the fraudulent claims from the genuine article? Please forgive me for bombarding you with these questions.

This is not my view of intelligence. I’m trying formulate my view. I don’t have any position on the subject yet. — Average

Is it important to have a view on intelligence? I tend to think of some people as being adept or gifted in certain contexts. There's not much more I need to know. This notion of intelligence as a form of essentialism is a subject covering multiple domains and is contested by many. The efficacy of applied intelligence has featured in so many books and movies and journalism (from Hannibal Lecter to Elon Musk), that the notion is romanticized out of all proportion and is almost useless as a criterion of value.

I honestly don’t know where to begin. Should I tackle the essentialism question first? Or should I provide my thoughts on whether or not it is important to have a view on intelligence before I address the essentialism subject?

also I want to warn you in advance Tom that my discussion of these subjects could become tangential.