well....go on. i'm waiting. ;)

:cool:

I know what is NOT:

Religious fanatics...people like Jose Padilla and his American comrades...

who is Jose Padilla?

Intelligence can be defined by the alcholoics prayer.

Grant me the strength to accept the things I cannot change
The courage to change the things I can
and the wisdom to know the difference

Mental strength, mental courage, acceptance and wisdom. You will find that most people classed or judged unintelligent will be missing one or all of the above.

Of course the sign of true intelligence is to send me lots of money, in fact all your money plus all the money fom your family and friends and if you could sell your cars and houses and send me that money too that would be fine.

I thank you:D

there has never been a remotely common consensus on intelligence and probably will never be.

well....go on. i'm waiting.
look at me:bugeye:

I think actual intelligence is a 'sese of being'. I have said this before but it is the realisation that you are a 'thing' that cant interact with the environment. Any animal who learns that when it does something there is a result then it is intelligent. eg's a dog gives you its paw and recievs food. It will do this again and again. Dogs have some form of intelligence. Monkeys will poke sticks into a hole that they cant get their arm into to get honey. Dolphins- think of your own examples. I think this sums up intelligence.
Un-intelligent creatures.....- A worm. U cannot teach a worm (i dont think) to lift up its head to receive some kind of reward. Anybody else got any suggestions for intelligent/ unintelligent creatures?

I think true intellegence is bein able to handle people, meaning to be truely intellegent you need to be able to cultured, compassionate and understanding. Anyone can piss about with numbers, symbols and letters, following formula is easy in comparison to relating to people who have infinatly many eccentricities and ways.

Ink x

In order to define what turly is Intelligence one must fist ask the question: To what standard are we going by? That question can be answered in many ways depending on what type of Intelligence one is talking about. Someone could be a musical genius for example Mozart, Beethoveen, Rachmaninoff etc... We could also define someone as being Intelligent mathamaticaly or Scientificly, such as Einstien. There has been something that has always stayed with me for some time now: "The people who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world, are the people that do" that to me is Intelligence.

Thanks


S. Dalal

Which intelligence ?

Intelligence required to run the US ?
Itelligence required to tie a shoe lace ?
Intelligence required to eat algie ?
Intelligence required to be polite ?
Intelligence required to shoot the pizza delivery guy ?

look at me

and me, too:D

The ability to adapt

The ability to adapt But isnt adaptation natural!? It occurs withing a species over time (if it is the same type of adaptation that im thinking of) and therefore isnt really a sign of intelligence. I mean, species of worms may adapt but they arent actually intelligent are they?

Whoever invented pizza is the paragon of true intelligence. :p

Raphael Esposito made the first pizza it was called the margarita pizza named after queen margarita well find out everything else for your self ....well anyways true intelligence is about adapting being versitile, universal ,elevation higher level of conciousness

the margarita pizza has the colours of the italian flag in it,
green - basil
white - mozzarella
red - tomatoes.

another completely useless fact for you.

Originally posted by Adam
Whoever invented pizza is the paragon of true intelligence. :p

No...no...no... it is the egg roll my friend...:D

Or could be the anchovies with the pizza and a Tsingtao beer....:D

I'll have to disagree with both of you on that. :D It is, truly, the Chinese who are the culinary geniuses. Who else could have decided that testicle soup could help you "perform" better? Who else decided that "Hey, those bear claws look mighty delicious", and taken them for medicine? Where else can you find a larger larder of herbs, insects, and animal parts? :D Kudos to the Chinese!

Egg Roll is Chinese...even though invented on American soil....:D

:D! Like the spaghetti of the Italians - Chinese origins. It's kind of sad...China used to be the most powerful of countries, advanced in technology, medicines, and the arts. Until they became the underdog... :(

Just give them another 20 years...for Japanese it took 30 years. The Chinese have already used up 15, so another 20 would work - it is a bigger (mucho big) country.

anyone can learn things. Knowledge does not define intelligence, obviously. I believe that 2 things define intelligence on a simplistic level, Application of Knowledge and ease of knowledge intake.
I.e. Being able to memorize e=mc2 doesnt mean much, but being able to use it, to apply it means something more......

Intelligence is that which is capable of sustaing itself in its environment:)

Intelligence is only the abilitiy to take what you already know, and apply it to other things. Thats all it is. If you cannot make a connection such as getting food at a certain location like simple animals can, then you lack intelligence. Thats all, but the question is not what is intelligence, but how to categorize different levels of intelligence. There are many levels of meaning to everything. Just another form of common sense, on different levels. The ability to see deeper into things. But at what level are you at? What level can you see at?

S. Dalal, I liked your quote "The people who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world, are the people that do." Who said that?

Interesting task assignment.

Okay, first to be intelligent, you have to be self aware. So, prerequisite: Consciousness

That given: The ability to assimilate input in such a manner that it ensures that reaction to further input will be that which promotes subjective goodness. (note that survival is implicit, along with 'bad' can be good subjectively) The greater the ability to promote the subjective goodness, the greater the intellect.

To put it far more strangely: The more of your subjective experience (past, present and estimated future) you can be aware of at any point in time (the present), the more intelligent you are. In essence - you're smart if you live in a big old bubble of subjective time (compared to the intellects that is).

I guess that enables people to make keen observations. So I guess that means that what I described above is only the potential for free will. One still needs some type of motivation or ability to see into that 'bubble of time' before intellegence is establshed.

Eh, at least that's my stab at it for now.

Roman Civilization:

Were the people as a group intelligent?

Third Reich:

Were they?

Your looking at it too narrowly. Yes Shakspeare was a genius of theatre, but what about Rufus who cleans the park and laughs at all dem pretty little berdies, each are "intellengent". Its not the difference between smartness and being a damn moron. Any animal can recognise how to get food or a special adaptation. Just because a bunch of ants protects a plant to get a speacial reward of necter doesnt mean that the plant or the ants are "intellengent" they've merely adapted to better survive. Most animals do take things that they've learned and applied it to other situations. Its not so much what you can do or how big of thoughts you can develop, these are all after affects, its the heitened sence of awarness. The notion that theres more to life than mere survival. Like Pete said, its the recognition of self. Anything can use tools or build structures, can adapt to situations previously un-thought of, can respond to stimuly. But it is this awareness of all that is around us that sepperates us from our fellow beasts. You get what I'm sayin'?

Originally posted by kmguru
Roman Civilization:

Were the people as a group intelligent?

Third Reich:

Were they?

Of course they were. Both groups.

Then who was not?

Well, aside from 'malfunctioning' brains, I'd say that there isn't a 'who' who isn't.

Then it is easy:

Define true intelligence = Human creature

I think some other species are intelligent too.

of course everything has some form of intelligence or another, else they couldn't survive.

so intelligence is the direct bi-product of a 'survival instinct'?

Originally posted by Rainsmith
Intelligence is that which is capable of sustaing itself in its environment:) In that case, I'm less intelligent than a rock. (Many of you have known that since the day I joined this board.)

Intelligence is the ability to solve problems.. It’s that simple. The higher the intelligence the faster and better the solution. Human intelligence is geared towards solving human problems but has become so great that we can solve extremely abstract problems. (like going to the moon)

We foster creativity and exploration in our children, two skills needed for good problem solving (intelligence).

Two humans are far more intelligent then one, they can solve a problem faster and more efficiently then one. 6Billion humans are the ultimate intelligence. There are many systems that exist and made by humans that are beyond a single human understanding.

Intelligence is a term to describe a system not a human.

I'd say the ability to remember to enjoy life while you got it is pretty intelligent.

Nope, i don't think a rock is at all unintelligent!

Have you any idrea how complex the chemisrty and atomic physics of a rock being a rock can be?

You have more free will than a rock, but i doubt if you or i are as smart!

your rainSmith

Originally posted by Blindman
Intelligence is the ability to solve problems.. It’s that simple. The higher the intelligence the faster and better the solution. Human intelligence is geared towards solving human problems but has become so great that we can solve extremely abstract problems. (like going to the moon)

We foster creativity and exploration in our children, two skills needed for good problem solving (intelligence).

Two humans are far more intelligent then one, they can solve a problem faster and more efficiently then one. 6Billion humans are the ultimate intelligence. There are many systems that exist and made by humans that are beyond a single human understanding.

Intelligence is a term to describe a system not a human.

What about the genetic programming artificial ant problem? You want an 'ant' that eats as much food as possible. You set up an environment where 'ants' are a simple program based on a few simple instructions (move forward, turn left, is there food in front of me?). In this environment, ants that eat a lot of food tend to reproduce, while ants that don't eat much don't reproduce much. Sure, I set up the environment and started it all running, but it was the simulation that came up with the solution. Is the simulation intelligent?

Yes the system can be considered intelligent. That is not to say that the individual rules (ant behaviors) are intelligent but the system as a complete entity can solve simple problems,and thus is intelligent. This is not to say that it is Artificially intelligence for which the strict definition is to simulate human intelligence.

Genetic problem solving is becoming wide spread in various industries. It is used to calculate the most fuel efficient orbit transfers, create more efficient network configurations and hundreds of other applications.

1 + 1 = 11

true intelligence is when someone makes a decision completely based on their own thoughts, as in not told they have to do it, as in they make the choice of right and wrong and what they do and how they react upon those thoughts

true intelligence is when someone makes a decision completely based on their own thoughts, as in not told they have to do it

How can that be??? I'm told to get off my lazy ass all the time and I end up usually doing some intelligent things. Or maybe not.

Sorry, I think this threads progressed to this. I apologize on behalf of all the monkeys in this world. We salute you!!!

my definitions (http://www.mageo.com/home/GEORGE_71/index.html?g71p=define.html#intelligence)

hey guys,

this is what i believe:

Intelligence is the ability to see relationships between different things.

simple and neat.:D :cool:
don't you agree with me?!

Originally posted by TheAlchemist
Intelligence is the ability to see relationships between different things.

simple and neat.:D :cool:
don't you agree with me?! [/B]
When I place a button on a VB form, it can see its relationship with the form (the form is button’s parent object). Would you call that button “intelligent”? I actually like your definition but I understand that it may not be acceptable for many others.

Generally, intelligence is a tool and happiness is a goal. The tool is meaningless without a “need to do”. Intelligence goes hand to hand with uncomfortable feelings. An entity which is constantly 100% happy without doing anything (or something what has nothing to do with feelings) could be able to “see” some relationships but may not necessarily be intelligent according to many other definitions. The ability to think wouldn’t develop for such entities. It could just kind of blindly see relationships. Many definitions include learning, adaptability etc..

BTW if the time spent on thinking about the definition of intelligence would have been spent with active development of artificial systems which can think (and search for solutions of real problems) then the quality of our lives would probably be much higher.

Well then, let us create a kernel program that is scalable as the program runs - to create an artifical inteligent system. In the begining the Kernel will only take various input with a "suck it to me" sound. Each input has to be text, graphics, video, audio, chemical (pH), pressure, temperature etc like 100 different stimuli types.

Anyone upto the challenge?

Loading data into a system is (relatively) a piece of cake. But before you do that, you need to figure out:

(A) how to organize the data internally (it should be optimized for (C)),
(B) app's interface for I/O communication with the system (based on (A) and (C))
(C) AI algorithms itself.

Many existing systems are filled with a huge amount of somehow organized data but, obviously, that's not enough. Many people have AI ideas which look good from the high-level point of view but when they go into details trying to implement it, they are hitting walls which proved to be really hard to break. Read this (http://www.mageo.com/home/GEORGE_71/index.html?g71p=entry.html).

Originally posted by CuriousGene
1 + 1 = 11

1 + 1 = 10

:D

To define, anything, it is necessary to experiment with it first, and any experiment, if in reality be expected to yield outcomes which can be trusted, has to go beyond, the rational. If we step into the irrational world, or to be more presice, the world where things, like in real life are not either of A or NOT A, but possibly also A AND NOT A, then the definition has to be infinitely long, thereby making it an unfeasible task for you to go through it in finite time.
thus i suggest you not to try & define intelligence in any manner finite.

La VERDADERA INTELIGENCIA es la que entiende la diferencia entre lo abstracto
y lo real .Hay distintos niveles y solo el Ho.puede entender las 4 letras...DIOS !
Aůn no sabemos si las otras 4 letras AMOR las entienden animales como los
monos ň los delfines pero si logramos comprobar q`mueren de tristeza ! ! !
.....................ES UN TEMA INTERESANTISIMO

La VERDADERA INTELIGENCIA es la que entiende la diferencia entre lo abstracto y lo real .Hay distintos niveles y solo el Ho.puede entender las 4 letras...DIOS !

So, going by your own definition, you aren't intelligent?
Brave admission.
:roflmao:

PS reviving an 8-year old thread isn't exactly smart, either.

So, going by your own definition, you aren't intelligent?
Brave admission.
:roflmao:

PS reviving an 8-year old thread isn't exactly smart, either.

Aside from some of the original posters possibly no longer in residence, why would you suggest that reviving an 8-year old threat isn't exactly smart?

My definition of intelligence would include the ability to recognize the relationship between the past, present and future, with an ability to integrate, transpose and extrapolate any information into present and future utility and application.

Rather than start a redundant thread on my own, I will probably poke around in the archives and kick a few threads to see if there is any life left in them.

Regardless of how it reflects upon my perceived intelligence or lack of it. ;)

Pleased to meet you Dywyddyr.

Aside from some of the original posters possibly no longer in residence, why would you suggest that reviving an 8-year old threat isn't exactly smart?
It's frowned upon. If the topic hasn't garnered much interest in 8 years then let it die...


Rather than start a redundant thread on my own, I will probably poke around in the archives and kick a few threads to see if there is any life left in them.
Regardless of how it reflects upon my perceived intelligence or lack of it. ;)
Possibly. As often as not you'll get a "necromancy is bad" sticker and the thread locked. But it's up the individual sub-forum mod IIRC.


Pleased to meet you Dywyddyr.
You say that now, but wait a while to see if you change your opinion before expressing any pleasure. ;)

La VERDADERA INTELIGENCIA es la que entiende la diferencia entre lo abstracto
y lo real .Hay distintos niveles y solo el Ho.puede entender las 4 letras...DIOS !
Aůn no sabemos si las otras 4 letras AMOR las entienden animales como los
monos ň los delfines pero si logramos comprobar q`mueren de tristeza ! ! !
.....................ES UN TEMA INTERESANTISIMO

Hola!
Can't understand a word of that, but luckily I have Babelfish to translate.

Go ahead babelfish!

TRUE INTELLIGENCE is the one that understands the difference between the abstract thing and the real thing. There are different levels and the Ho.puede to only understand the 4 letters… GOD! Aůn we do not know if the other 4 letters LOVE understand animal to them as the monkeys ň the dolphins but we managed to verify q `die of sadness! ..................... IT IS THE MOST INTERESTING SUBJECT

mmmh...............still don't understand a word.

It's frowned upon. If the topic hasn't garnered much interest in 8 years then let it die...


Possibly. As often as not you'll get a "necromancy is bad" sticker and the thread locked. But it's up the individual sub-forum mod IIRC.


You say that now, but wait a while to see if you change your opinion before expressing any pleasure. ;)

Thank you for sharing your experience of such things with me, Dywyddr.

As for expressing my pleasure, I was raised to extend politeness, at least on the first exchange. I would not disappoint my upbringing in that regard.

It goes without saying that as I am new on this forum, there may be some who preferred the status quo.

I have noticed that you are a 'lock-happy' bunch at this forum. :D

One way to define intelligence is to be begin with artificial intelligence. Since true AI has not be yet been achieved, intelligence would be the ability to do things that current computers can not do.

Computers can't depart from their programming to create a new relationship. That is an example of intelligence.

Computers can memorize, they can calculate, etc., so this is not intelligence since it is not included as AI. Even without intelligence computers can do many things formerly assumed to be intelligent.

As for expressing my pleasure, I was raised to extend politeness, at least on the first exchange. I would not disappoint my upbringing in that regard.
The problem is that, like I said, you may come to regret expressing that pleasure at some point.
Watch, read, learn. Then form an opinion.
Much as I have been doing with you ;)

It's frowned upon. If the topic hasn't garnered much interest in 8 years then let it die...


There may be some reason why the subject is again of interest, and the old thread may have useful material in it.


Does anyone understand the Spanish thing about sad dolphins?
I hate hearing about that.
Poor dolphins.:bawl:

One way to define intelligence is to be begin with artificial intelligence. Since true AI has not be yet been achieved, intelligence would be the ability to do things that current computers can not do.
Riiight.
Recursive definition.
Since we have to know what intelligence is before we can decide that AI has been achieved. Fail.


Computers can't depart from their programming to create a new relationship. That is an example of intelligence.
Supposition. How do you know our "programming" doesn't allow for the new relationships we create?
How you know that we can depart from the programming we do have?


Computers can memorize, they can calculate, etc., so this is not intelligence since it is not included as AI. Even without intelligence computers can do many things formerly assumed to be intelligent.
Yeah, let me know when they can match a human for inane posts. Then I'll say we've achieved AI. :rolleyes:

True intelligence is turning thought into reality.

I'm surprised nobody has pointed this out (or I missed it), but current psychology and neuroscience currently accept the different types of intelligence (http://www.macalester.edu/psychology/whathap/ubnrp/intelligence05/mtypes.html):

1. Verbal – the ability to use words
2. Visual – the ability to imagine things in your mind
3. Physical – the ability to use your body in various situations
4. Musical - the ability to use and understand music
5. Mathematical – the ability to apply logic to systems and numbers
6. Introspective – the ability to understand your inner thoughts
7. Interpersonal – the ability to understand other people, and relate well to them.
8. Naturalist intelligence (http://www.thomasarmstrong.com/multiple_intelligences.php) - the ability to relate with nature and other living beings.
9. Existential Intelligence -sensitivity and capacity to tackle deep questions about human existence, such as the meaning of life, why do we die, and how did we get here.

Other resource (9 types) (http://skyview.vansd.org/lschmidt/Projects/The%20Nine%20Types%20of%20Intelligence.htm).

I'm surprised nobody has pointed this out (or I missed it), but current psychology and neuroscience currently accept the different types of intelligence (http://www.macalester.edu/psychology/whathap/ubnrp/intelligence05/mtypes.html):

1. Verbal – the ability to use words
2. Visual – the ability to imagine things in your mind
3. Physical – the ability to use your body in various situations
4. Musical - the ability to use and understand music
5. Mathematical – the ability to apply logic to systems and numbers
6. Introspective – the ability to understand your inner thoughts
7. Interpersonal – the ability to understand other people, and relate well to them.
8. Naturalist intelligence (http://www.thomasarmstrong.com/multiple_intelligences.php) - the ability to relate with nature and other living beings.
9. Existential Intelligence -sensitivity and capacity to tackle deep questions about human existence, such as the meaning of life, why do we die, and how did we get here.

Other resource (9 types) (http://skyview.vansd.org/lschmidt/Projects/The%20Nine%20Types%20of%20Intelligence.htm).

As you point out, Wisdom Seeker, there are many different ways to define and measure 'intelligence'.

Perhaps it is a flaw of our human ego that we tend to narrowly define 'intelligence' from our own perspective? :)

It's the only perspective we got...

It's the only perspective we got...

I grant you that.

Perhaps I should have elaborated to state that we may be in error of our understanding of what constitutes intelligence when we work from the platform of comparing other intelligences to ourselves as the baseline. There may be other intelligences that we are not even cognizant of.

I am quite intrigued by the manner in which colony and hive instincts manage their huge numbers to exist and interact cooperatively, though we tend not to accord them to have much 'intelligence'. :)

As you point out, Wisdom Seeker, there are many different ways to define and measure 'intelligence'.

Perhaps it is a flaw of our human ego that we tend to narrowly define 'intelligence' from our own perspective? :)

Hi scheherazade :)
Although the ego is constantly altering our perception of the world, intelligence is an innate characteristic of human beings that is developed with growth and, if nourished, it reaches a crescendo that only stops when we think that we have reached our limit. Each of us are intelligent in some way or the other, the part were the ego comes in here, is that it always makes us believe that we are somehow special compared to others, so it makes us degrade or underestimate other people’s abilities. The fact is: if you compare two people (intelligence-wise) it would be almost impossible that one would be superior in all aspects of intelligence, one will be good at something that the other is not so much and vice versa.
So what you say is right, our definition varies depending on what we think we are good at, and by the side effect of cognitive dissonance we normally wouldn’t take in consideration another definition that would make us “inferior” than other people (the type of intelligence we are lacking and probably below average).
For example: someone is a genius musician, and by cognitive dissonance he believes that the “musical intelligence” is somehow “higher” than the “mathematical intelligence”; but it is not, none is higher than the other and all types of intelligence are required for humanity to be an evolving force as a unity. One person could even be an “average intelligence” in all types, but that is also good and in that hypothetical scenario he would be an extraordinarily complete person but in no way “superior” to others who may be a geniuses in one type, but lacking in other.

Off course, that my perception may also be altered by the ego, so... :shrug: just my two cents.

What do you think the next great genius will accomplish?

What do you think the next great genius will accomplish?

Whatever he or she applies themselves to, IMO.

Awakening the greater population to the observation that the present status quo is not sustainable might be one priority. :bugeye:

Hi scheherazade :)
Although the ego is constantly altering our perception of the world, intelligence is an innate characteristic of human beings that is developed with growth and, if nourished, it reaches a crescendo that only stops when we think that we have reached our limit. Each of us are intelligent in some way or the other, the part were the ego comes in here, is that it always makes us believe that we are somehow special compared to others, so it makes us degrade or underestimate other people’s abilities. The fact is: if you compare two people (intelligence-wise) it would be almost impossible that one would be superior in all aspects of intelligence, one will be good at something that the other is not so much and vice versa.
So what you say is right, our definition varies depending on what we think we are good at, and by the side effect of cognitive dissonance we normally wouldn’t take in consideration another definition that would make us “inferior” than other people (the type of intelligence we are lacking and probably below average).
For example: someone is a genius musician, and by cognitive dissonance he believes that the “musical intelligence” is somehow “higher” than the “mathematical intelligence”; but it is not, none is higher than the other and all types of intelligence are required for humanity to be an evolving force as a unity. One person could even be an “average intelligence” in all types, but that is also good and in that hypothetical scenario he would be an extraordinarily complete person but in no way “superior” to others who may be a geniuses in one type, but lacking in other.

Off course, that my perception may also be altered by the ego, so... :shrug: just my two cents.

Very difficult to compare the various 'intelligences', I quite agree. Preferable also to have some aptitude and/or appreciation of all intelligences in seeking a balanced perspective for the journey. Most perceptive of you. :cool:

I'm surprised nobody has pointed this out (or I missed it), but current psychology and neuroscience currently accept the different types of intelligence:

1. Verbal – the ability to use words
2. Visual – the ability to imagine things in your mind
3. Physical – the ability to use your body in various situations
4. Musical - the ability to use and understand music
5. Mathematical – the ability to apply logic to systems and numbers
6. Introspective – the ability to understand your inner thoughts
7. Interpersonal – the ability to understand other people, and relate well to them.
8. Naturalist intelligence - the ability to relate with nature and other living beings.
9. Existential Intelligence -sensitivity and capacity to tackle deep questions about human existence, such as the meaning of life, why do we die, and how did we get here.

.

That doesnt take into account the massive correlation between the Verbal, Mathematical, and Visual on the IQ test. And the "Musical" portion I'm sure correlates well with IQ as well, as we know Mozart was pretty smart, and many of the areas of the brain involved in recognizing musical patterns are associated with IQ as well. 6-9 are either related to verbal and IQ capacities in general, or are unmeasurable.

Are you actually suggesting that there is no such thing as general intelligence?

I think before we can seriously inform debates about intelligence any further, we need a better understanding of the brain and how the things we associate intelligence with come about. Until then, it can't be anything more than heuristics and abstractions about what mental capacity or ability is, lacking any real way of associating and measuring said abilities.

On a side note, how many posts do I need to get an avatar pic and message that replaces "RegisteredUser"? [The website finds me incapable of posting my own threads, I hit the post buttons and get nothing but a white page, a clear error]

That doesnt take into account the massive correlation between the Verbal, Mathematical, and Visual on the IQ test. And the "Musical" portion I'm sure correlates well with IQ as well, as we know Mozart was pretty smart, and many of the areas of the brain involved in recognizing musical patterns are associated with IQ as well. 6-9 are either related to verbal and IQ capacities in general, or are unmeasurable.

You are right, the relation of the various types of intelligence has something to do with the development of right or left side of the brain. Also, higher degrees of a given type of intelligence can be measured in a person that has trained for that specific purpose (intelligence is innate, but the growth should be nourished for it to develop to its potential). So multiple intelligences are not fixed, you can train any type of intelligence yourself to become more proficient in that area.
Mozart was undoubtedly a musical genius, and probably good at other types of intelligence as well, but his interpersonal intelligence was low. Although Mozart had high mathematical and verbal abilities, he was in constant stress and had trouble relating to others.

Other Examples:
Einstein: high logical-spatial intelligence, low interpersonal intelligence.
Gandhi: high interpersonal -linguistic intelligence, low artistic intelligence.
Picasso: high spatial-artistic intelligence, low logical-mathematical intelligence.
Freud: high linguistic- interpersonal intelligence, low spatial-musical intelligence.

Take Stephen Wiltshire (http://www.stephenwiltshire.co.uk/biography.aspx), for example, he has an extremely high artistic intelligence, but extremely low verbal-interpersonal abilities (he learnt to speak at age 9). And probably would score low on an IQ test. In spite of that, would you say he is unintelligent?
Thomas Edison for example, was kicked out of school at age 12 because he was too dumb, did badly at math, and had trouble with words and speaking.

If you would measure the "general intelligence" of these folks (accounting all types), they would probably score somewhat average, but they were geniuses of their type of intelligence.


Are you actually suggesting that there is no such thing as general intelligence?

I’m not suggesting it; I’m just quoting the multiple intelligence theory that was initially developed by Harvard psychologist Howard Gardner.

There are types of intelligence that can be measured accurately, while others not so much currently as you stated; if you could design a test that measure all the types of intelligence accurately, and average the results you could say that that average would be the measure of the “general intelligence” of a person, as you put it.

Current IQ scores are very accurate for most types of intelligence (not so much the free tests on the Internet as you would probably score higher than what you actually have), and you can say in a quite assertive manner the higher your IQ, the more probability you have in succeeding in the corporate world. But high IQ does not necessarily mean you will do well in sports, paint a work of art, compose a great symphony, be aware of the natural environment (like farmers, hunters, gatherers), or even live a happy life.

Could intelligence be defined as being self aware and aware of how insignificant we truly are in relation to the cosmic ballet that is our solar system, galaxy, and universe?

Could intelligence be defined as being self aware and aware of how insignificant we truly are in relation to the cosmic ballet that is our solar system, galaxy, and universe?

An awareness of one's place in relation to the scale of the cosmos sounds like an intelligent starting point to me.

Where now?

Second star to the right and straight on till morning.

Take Stephen Wiltshire, for example, he has an extremely high artistic intelligence, but extremely low verbal-interpersonal abilities (he learnt to speak at age 9). And probably would score low on an IQ test. In spite of that, would you say he is unintelligent? I wouldnt necessarily say that his artistic abilities were intellectual abilities, especially if he scored low on all aspects of the IQ test. Artistic and musical abilities dont necessarily have to do with intelligence [/I]


But high IQ does not necessarily mean you will do well in sports, paint a work of art, compose a great symphony, be aware of the natural environment (like farmers, hunters, gatherers), or even live a happy life.
Relating art ability to intelligence is very hard because there are multiple definitions of "art" and what being "Artistically talented" implies. In the autistic savant case, how much of it was expressive art as opposed to a simple ability to capture and sketch his environment?

As for living a happy life, we already know highly intelligent people dont tend to live happy lives.

An awareness of one's place in relation to the scale of the cosmos sounds like an intelligent starting point to me.
ones place in relation to the scale of the cosmos is definately associated with parts of our current tests of intellectual abilities, so this isnt adding anything novel toour definition of intelligence.

In fact ultra high IQ children sometimes demonstrated high ability in the arts as well as the natural math/science/writing aspect. Kim Ung-yong, with an IQ measured by special tests at 210, was not only writing for the New York Times, solving differential equations, and studying particle physics at age 7, we was also writing adult level poetry. This suggests that intellectual pathways may be related to pathways involved in artistic talent. Although there is the case of children who are extremely talented in arts including painting and writing poetry, with strange spiritual beliefs, who dont have extremely high intelligence to go with it. The moral of the story: we need neuroscience to show us in more detail how pathways involved in intelligence and artistic talent get started so that we can better see their relationship and better assess an individuals abilities, and then come up with a better picture of how to define "intelligence"

The brain has a central CPU that is unconscious to most people. This is like the mainframe computer of the brain; inner self. The conscious mind is analogous to a PC-terminal, which can run its own programs, as well as access the mainframe CPU, using thought based command prompts. Intelligence tends to use the conscious mind more like a terminal than as a PC, taking advantage of the faster more powerful CPU.

Some tasks require extensive data processing. If you dis these calculations on a PC sized computer, it can still work, but it will be slow. On the other hand, if you could use the PC as a terminal and transfer this task to the mainframe, it can speed through the calculations, and return an answer much faster. This faster turn around is what we call intelligence.

A good analogy is connected to sports. Say you were a baseball player, who is at bat. The pitcher throws a fastball. You do not have time to consciously think or process all this information in a fraction of a second, with only the PC. You need the mainframe CPU to help do all the split second calculations for the needed muscle reflexes. The best players have terminal access and trust the mainframe problem solution.

Say we change the scenario. Instead of a fastball, we need to solve an equation for homework. Since time is not a major concern, like hitting the fastball, we can use the PC to process the data, trying to remember the learned rules and logically applying them to solve the equation. Some students can zip through this homework and can get the answer really fast, since they use the terminal command lines instead.

Sometimes, since the data crunching was done unconsciously, they may omit parts of the solution while still giving the right answer. This may be taboo, requiring that detach from the main CPU. They may be told to use only the PC, at its slower speed, so they can be more by the book.

Sometimes exam will be a three hour test that you have one hour to complete. This poses a time processing problem for the ego PC. Those who can use the terminal command prompts, are able to take advantage of the mainframe CPU and may finish early.

Although some gifted people are naturally wired as a conscious terminal, it is possible to develop this interface to the central CPU. There is a wall that was placed to prevent conscious access so the ego PC could evolve. Some people have natural permeability. The fine line between genius and insanity shifts one way when the mainframe processes too fast, and you don't have enough PC power to deal with the results; insanity. But if one can target the results, with conscious knowledge, we call it genius.

The brain has a central CPU that is unconscious to most people. This is like the mainframe computer of the brain; inner self. The conscious mind is analogous to a PC-terminal, which can run its own programs, as well as access the mainframe CPU, using thought based command prompts. Intelligence tends to use the conscious mind more like a terminal than as a PC, taking advantage of the faster more powerful CPU.

Some tasks require extensive data processing. If you dis these calculations on a PC sized computer, it can still work, but it will be slow. On the other hand, if you could use the PC as a terminal and transfer this task to the mainframe, it can speed through the calculations, and return an answer much faster. This faster turn around is what we call intelligence.

A good analogy is connected to sports. Say you were a baseball player, who is at bat. The pitcher throws a fastball. You do not have time to consciously think or process all this information in a fraction of a second, with only the PC. You need the mainframe CPU to help do all the split second calculations for the needed muscle reflexes. The best players have terminal access and trust the mainframe problem solution.

Say we change the scenario. Instead of a fastball, we need to solve an equation for homework. Since time is not a major concern, like hitting the fastball, we can use the PC to process the data, trying to remember the learned rules and logically applying them to solve the equation. Some students can zip through this homework and can get the answer really fast, since they use the terminal command lines instead.

Sometimes, since the data crunching was done unconsciously, they may omit parts of the solution while still giving the right answer. This may be taboo, requiring that detach from the main CPU. They may be told to use only the PC, at its slower speed, so they can be more by the book.

Sometimes exam will be a three hour test that you have one hour to complete. This poses a time processing problem for the ego PC. Those who can use the terminal command prompts, are able to take advantage of the mainframe CPU and may finish early.

Although some gifted people are naturally wired as a conscious terminal, it is possible to develop this interface to the central CPU. There is a wall that was placed to prevent conscious access so the ego PC could evolve. Some people have natural permeability. The fine line between genius and insanity shifts one way when the mainframe processes too fast, and you don't have enough PC power to deal with the results; insanity. But if one can target the results, with conscious knowledge, we call it genius.

Nice!

I like the analogy you have used. Well thought out and defined, and makes a lot of sense to me, as it fits with much of what I have observed.

The fine line between genius and insanity.....right on the mark.

well....go on. i'm waiting. ;)

:cool:

Well, ummm. True Intelligence is intelligence that is ummmm TRUE!

:shrug:

Intelligence is realizing that if a thread hasn't seen any activity is eight years, you probably shouldn't respond to it. I don't think that the Captain Crunch, the OP, has even been active on sciforums in 5+ years.

Intelligence is realizing that if a thread hasn't seen any activity is eight years, you probably shouldn't respond to it. I don't think that the Captain Crunch, the OP, has even been active on sciforums in 5+ years.

So what, the topic is still of interest to some and perhaps to those new here.

No harm in discussing the topic if people are interested and given the majority or on-topic posted there is definitely interest.

Way more interesting than the the global warming and christian/atheist bashing threads.

Nice!

I like the analogy you have used. Well thought out and defined, and makes a lot of sense to me, as it fits with much of what I have observed.

The fine line between genius and insanity.....right on the mark.

Unfortunately I don't like the analogy. The human brain, senses and nervous system is very very different than a computer system. It is very misleading to think of it that way.

Unfortunately I don't like the analogy. The human brain, senses and nervous system is very very different than a computer system. It is very misleading to think of it that way.

I would expect biology to be considerably different than technology in many respects.

Except for the inconvenience of emotions, there are certain logical functions of the mind that do fit, in a rough manner, into the computer analogy, in my simple conceptual space.

I would be very interested, also, in hearing other descriptions/comparisons from yourself or any others who may be following this thread. :)

Intelligence is realizing that if a thread hasn't seen any activity is eight years, you probably shouldn't respond to it. I don't think that the Captain Crunch, the OP, has even been active on sciforums in 5+ years.

"Everything old becomes new again."

I would hypothesize that the OP may not be the only person who had an interest in the topic.

Why does science dig up fossils and artifacts? They're dead. Move along......:p

Not everyone arrives at the same understanding at the same time, therefore some patience is required.

Sorry if 'digging up bones' offends you, Nasor. There are plenty of other threads at this hangout.....;)

So when I train in say... Martial Arts untill specific responses to a set stimuli become an unconcious reaction, i.e. blocking an attack and then countering, Have I in essence "hacked" my CPU and altered its programing?

So when I train in say... Martial Arts untill specific responses to a set stimuli become an unconcious reaction, i.e. blocking an attack and then countering, Have I in essence "hacked" my CPU and altered its programing?

Perhaps you have then programmed your biology to perform the function of a 'dedicated computer', one that specializes in specific 'programs'. :)

Intelligence is the ability to solve problems. Intelligence is a term to describe a system not a human.

I agree. I would like to add that intelligence is etymologically defined as...basically the innate ability to choose the best answers. Of course, the same problem arises, in which people question which answers are the best, but this is paralleled to problem-solving. It's a bit difficult sometimes to tell which solutions are best...but that's where basic logic is to be used.

Intelligence is the ability, and willingness to learn. The opposite of being intelligent is being a ingnaranus.

Intelligence is the ability, and willingness to learn. The opposite of being intelligent is being a ingnaranus.

Interesting.

This may well be one of the few times that google has but one suggestion to offer when asked to search.

I believe this is an example of a circular reference. :rolleyes:


http://www.google.ca/search?q=ingnaranus.&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=NJW&pwst=1&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=X&ei=AWUqTtzEFPTdiAKvuOivAg&ved=0CBUQvgUoAA&q=ingnaranus.&nfpr=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=3e5dc6f28f5ebf7e&biw=1600&bih=706

interesting.

This may well be one of the few times that google has but one suggestion to offer when asked to search.

I believe this is an example of a circular reference. :rolleyes:


http://www.google.ca/search?q=ingnaranus.&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-us:official&client=firefox-a#hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=njw&pwst=1&rls=org.mozilla:en-us:official&sa=x&ei=awuqttzefptdiakvuoivag&ved=0cbuqvguoaa&q=ingnaranus.&nfpr=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=3e5dc6f28f5ebf7e&biw=1600&bih=706

mama im famous!!!

true intelligence?
Some people are socially intelligent, some are not
some others have books intelligence some others have an artistic intelligence
others have an analyzing intelligence, wich allow them to have a social intelligent, some scientific one too, and maybe artistic too, etc...
It depends on what is that intelligence concentrated, according to the people personnality, so interests, and sicologic conditions, the kind of life that he have, etc.... many things..
(the genius people may be more special, since they were born with high intelligence, but still, each one concentrate he's intelligence in some domains, Bethoven in music and arts, Einstein in physics and maths, etc...)

So, what true intelligence?

Intelligence is the ability, and willingness to learn. The opposite of being intelligent is being a ingnaranus.

that too, the speed of he's "cpu"

What is true intelligence? . . . ---> ME! . . . . perhaps (ha! ha!)

In-tell-igence is when you refuse to tell someone something. :)

1 + 1 = 11


Seriously?!





1+1=56 :O

So are IQ tests a true indicator of intelligence? If you asked a person who scored highly in an IQ test to write a sonnet or an opera or paint a landscape how well would they go?
I guess each shows a different aspect of intelligence even professional athletes use a high level of body control, which requires intelligence.

So could we clone a super human who could excel at every aspect of intelligence?
I'm not sure because I've noticed that genius in one aspect of intelligence seems to be at the expense of another often as not.
A classic stereotype would be the Math’s genius who’s completely socially inept i.e. a nerd.
Is being a nerd the price he has to pay to be a Math genius? Is there a level of servantism in all aspects of genius?

Intelligence, in general, is based on the ability to adapt. When we take an IQ test, the test is a simulated intellectual environment we need to adapt to. The more ways you can adapt in that simulated world, the higher the IQ score.

There are also other human social mindscapes that require adaptative intelligence. A social landscape requires human adaptation skills with the more adapted able to move up the social ladder.

Even sports requires adaptive intelligences that places the body, heart and mind in a dynamic situation ,where other are also trying to adapt. This is not a standardized test but a fluidily changing mindscape.

Based on that adaptation definition of intellligence, the Renassaince Men were the most intelligent since they could do it all. They could adapt quite well to all of the emotional, intellectual and physical mindscapes of their day, being socialites, musicians, artists, scientists, philosophers, warriors, athletes, etc. You put them anywhere and they will adapt with a high level of learned and innate skill.

Intelligence is the ability to comprehend foreign concepts. How quickly can you learn a new idea? I guess in certain ways this goes hand in hand with the ability to adapt.

adaptation isn't intelligence, that often occurs without even conscious will. there have been slaves that adapted to their oppression, doesn't make them smart to do so. now if one is 'adapting' to a situation knowingly to survive with the intent to make changes when they can, that is a sign of intelligence. that is playing the game. being able to manipulate one's environment to suit one's agenda is intelligence but even that has it's issues if one isn't able to understand the long-term effects or wider repercussions of their manipulation. imo, true intelligence is understanding cause and effect on a much wider scale, not just for immediate personal gratification.

we know what the standard definition of intelligence is but is that all really?

ability to manipulate or adaptation? what about wisdom? that doesn't usually come up in discussions of intelligence because it can't be measured, it can only be seen in it's effects in the world. and wisdom isn't always due to age or experience, though some of it is. if one's intent in life is to find ways to more effectively kill people, more experience isn't necessarily going to teach them anything else except finding more effective ways to kill people, for example. all that ability, yet such profound stupidity on another level or lack of understanding or comprehension that may not be so noticeable on the surface.

for example, there may be a person with a lot of manipulative ability but their focus is crap while another has a grasp of what is truly important but doesn't have as much of that ability. who is more intelligent? something to think about.

'true' intelligence seems to be more akin to wisdom along with the ability to carry it out but the wisdom is paramount.

The ability to adapt

agreed :D

Intelligence is all about adapting. As you grow from a baby, to an adult. In life, everything around you, leads to you being able to adapt to that new situation you have come across. Using previous experiences and adjusting to it.

Also the most important part, is a healthy brain... Not turning into a vegetable by watching too much tv, reading more challenging books each time you pick up a new one, eating the right food, and sleeping. Different lifestyles leads to different levels of intelligence.

Based on that adaptation definition of intellligence, the Renassaince Men were the most intelligent since they could do it all. They could adapt quite well to all of the emotional, intellectual and physical mindscapes of their day, being socialites, musicians, artists, scientists, philosophers, warriors, athletes, etc. You put them anywhere and they will adapt with a high level of learned and innate skill.

that's not intelligence. this type of adaptation is basically conforming to what already is or has been pioneered by another.

not everyone was a leonardo da vinci. sure, one can adapt to what is the social order of the day as well as absorb the knowledge that already exists. it's one thing to adapt and another to actually be able to think for oneself.

is one intelligent to conform to the religious traditions of a time because it's a majority opinion? were the ones who rebelled and stated that the sun does not revolve around the earth, unintelligent?

were the ones who never challenged the status quo intelligent, even though they survived? not if they never challenged it because they didn't know better which was surely the case.

Intelligence is all about adapting.

no, intelligence isn't 'all' about adapting. intelligence is awareness and those who are extremely intelligent are aware of things that have no impact on day to day life as far as 'adaptation'. duh

adaptation is rather easy actually.

Intelligence and wisdom are two different things. An IQ test does not test for wisdom, but is more about solving objective problems that have definitive answers. This is more about real time adaptation or thinking on your feet. An IQ test will stay away from R&D extrapolations and resolving polarized subjectivities. These will take additional processing to optimize, while not always having a stock answer.

With wisdom, one makes more use of the unconscious mind to data process. The solution shows up as intuitions; fast unconscious language that you try to translate. I think IQ was more designed for the conscious mind, since it leads to definitive results that can be learned and/or procedually processed. Wisdom is more about integrating the larger picture, which would be hard to test ,since the results could be ahead of its time. What could be wrong today may be right tomorrow, when intelligence can adapt easier.

yeah you're right.. i shouldn't have said "all" as intelligence is made up of many things... and the list most certainly goes on and on.

but at the end of the day, i believe the people you choose to have around you in your life, makes up who you are, and thus most certainly altering your intelligence. Also about different life styles and excersing the brain, as i said before :)

Intelligence and wisdom are two different things. An IQ test does not test for wisdom, but is more about solving objective problems that have definitive answers. This is more about real time adaptation or thinking on your feet. An IQ test will stay away from R&D extrapolations and resolving polarized subjectivities. These will take additional processing to optimize, while not always having a stock answer.

With wisdom, one makes more use of the unconscious mind to data process. The solution shows up as intuitions; fast unconscious language that you try to translate. I think IQ was more designed for the conscious mind, since it leads to definitive results that can be learned and/or procedually processed. Wisdom is more about integrating the larger picture, which would be hard to test ,since the results could be ahead of its time. What could be wrong today may be right tomorrow, when intelligence can adapt easier.

uh, we already know what standard definition of intelligence is. this thread is asking what 'true' intelligence is.

you also mentioned adaptation and that is lacking because many species are adapted to their environment but would you say a monkey is as intelligent as a human being? i don't think so and definitely not with the standard parameters of intelligence.

there is a difference between adaptation to what is and the ability to manipulate your environment in new ways as well as create or pioneer. that is the point. sure, one can be pretty 'intelligent' in the sense that one can score pretty well on an iq test as well as be able to learn but it's another feat altogether to come up with, for instance, calculus or the theory of relativity etc.

i think true intelligence is to be able to have balance in everything.. sure there are different types of intelligence and you would be perfectly intelligent if you excel in all these particular aspects at the same time.

The ability to communicate conceptual information, by diverse mediums would be one measure of true intelligence, I'm thinking. The use of metaphor and analogy as an enabling tool likewise toward this end also qualifies.

The resolving of challenges by original solutions, or the adaptation of other solutions to a unique problem seems to be also an intelligent and measurable 'truth'.

My thoughts after a night flogging product in the trenches, lol....:D

health of the self , attitude (positive) , discovery , understand ones limits , communication , Humanity is more important than any god , understands and respects fear but pushs the limits at times , thinks , has speed of mind , but slowness in thought , independent of mind - thought and actions but with balance of being in the crowd at times , a good man towards his own being , patience

i think true intelligence is to be able to have balance in everything.. sure there are different types of intelligence and you would be perfectly intelligent if you excel in all these particular aspects at the same time.


health of the self , attitude (positive) , discovery , understand ones limits , communication , Humanity is more important than any god , understands and respects fear but pushs the limits at times , thinks , has speed of mind , but slowness in thought , independent of mind - thought and actions but with balance of being in the crowd at times , a good man towards his own being , patience

I observe some similarity in the responses of the posters above, and several others. The term 'balance' frequently comes about in discussions of 'intelligence'.

I find that interesting, as it begs the question of whether or not it is intelligent to be an extremist in what one beliefs or endorses.

This is a very stupid thread.

This is a very stupid thread.

How do you come to that determination? What criteria are you using?

Fair question.

The ability to communicate conceptual information, by diverse mediums would be one measure of true intelligence, I'm thinking. The use of metaphor and analogy as an enabling tool likewise toward this end also qualifies.

The resolving of challenges by original solutions, or the adaptation of other solutions to a unique problem seems to be also an intelligent and measurable 'truth'.

My thoughts after a night flogging product in the trenches, lol....:D

Do you know what flogging Molly means ? Is there something you want to tell us a bout the cucumbers ? Fresh are they ? I love cucumbers . I could not hardy eat a salad with out em. I will go with what you said . Yeah I agree with that . I got to wonder though ? A lot of the people from the past that made big whiskey contributions to humanity lived miserably lives of poor wretchedness yet did not give up on seeing there great contributions up for lent . They saw it through regardless of consequence. Is that really intelligent is my question . What prophet do they gain if they die penniless in poverty and it is only by others picking the treasure they leave behind gold that all of us get the benefit of there sacrifice . That tells me something about human nature . We love to kick people down and tell them no you can't do that and if they prove us wrong well we suck up to the tit. The milky way of slothfulness

The late psychologist, Carl Jung, defined four basic orientating functions for humans. These are intellect, emotions, sensations and intuitions. Most people tend to use one or two with competence. However, depending on the reality situation, each orientating function can have an advantage.

For example, human relationships are better served by the orientation function of emotions, compared to intellect, since one size does not fit all, while emotions can adapt faster in real time. Once relationships became an intellecual process via books, this lower level adaptation for those circumstances led to relationship problems.

If we are doing science, the intellect is the most important, since it learns the relationships of science, allows us to adapt to and extrapolate natural laws.

If you were in an unpreditable environment, such as in war, depending on your sensory systems might be the most intelligent orientation, since by the book of intellect may not apply. You can't let emotions of real cause and effect fear lead you, so that is not otimize either. Instead you may need to react quickly to real time sensory data without thinking. The cold animal inside can be useful.

If you were trying to innovate the next generation of computers, and have to leave the box in a big way, the intellect can only get you so far, since the needed definitions are lacking. You may not want to depend on your emotions since humans can be abusive and you don't want to back down out of an emotional conclusion. Instead you may need to depend on intuition to generate the new ideas to populate the intellect.

True intelligence is adpative and will make use all these tools of the brain. With all the tools in play, it is also an intelligent idea to bring more than one tool to the party of life since humans can be tricky.

For example, emotional appeal during political campaigns work the best with emotions. Rhetoric makes you feel good. If we bring heart and intellect to the table, this might allows us to feel with the herd, while also finding flaws in the logic that begins to create an inconsistency between the heart and mind. If you leave the mind at home, the heart may feel good. If the mind can't pin things down, maybe you need to bring out the intuition tool, since the creators of the mass appeal may have began there.

Intuition is a most interesting tool, as it is not easily explained by logic, IMO.

Sensation is the direct experiencing of a thing, while emotion is a response to sensation, derived from both past and present experiencing.

Intellect attempts to make sense of emotion and organize the data of our senses.

It has been suggested that intuition is the ability of the brain to 'short cut' the usual processes of experience/emote/intellectualize.

At all times, we have the four tools with us, and data input or sensation, is happening at all times, even when we sleep, though we may not be cognizant of this activity.

Whether we engage emotionally or intellectually with the data will depend on past experience, IMO, and the intuitive does not seem to be an 'on demand' tool, but rather functions as it will in response to data as yet to be determined.

Define intelligence (as in which meaning you are applying).

Intelligence is a measure of one's ability to defeat opponents through logical debate?

Based on Jung's research, the average person has a primary function and a secondary function that are subject to nearly full conscious control, with the primary better. The two remaining functions are not fully subject to conscious control and often have unconscious contamination which tends to make them more subjective.

He also found certain patterns such as intellect and emotion are opposites, therefore only one of these two can be under conscious control. The other will more unconscious . Sensation and intuitions are also opposites. The opposite of the primary function is the most unconscious, while the opposite of the secondary is third in conscious functionality.

For example, many scientists typically have the functional order, intellect, sensation, intuition and emotion in order of conscious functionality. They can think and reason, based on hard sensory data. They can also be semi-intuitive but tend to let sensory data decide, since the sensory function is more under conscious control. The intuition is not as on demand. The emotional function is the least conscious, and not as developed as the other three.

Often in these forums there is a lot of emotional debate that borders on compulsive and immature. This is logical, since there are so many people who are intelligent (primary) and therefore emotion can get unconsciously biased and compulsive.

Einstein was intellect, intuition, sensation, emotion. He could reason and do tough math, molding the math on his intuitions of things, such as relativity, that were at that time, beyond the sensory systems and tangible proof. As such, sensation was his third. He could control that but like to think off in the ozone layer. His emotional intelligence was last. This is why he didn't know how to politic, which is the art of emotional massage.

The point of all this is there eight combinations of these four functions (due to two sets of opposites) which define eight different types of people. Most people are more comfortable with their strengths than they are with their weaknesses. The IQ test are designed by those with a certain function sequence for those with a similar function sequence. Other forms of intelligence, such as art or music, which other people see as important, reflect the strengths of their own function sequence.

A better test would try touch all the combinations of the four functions so each type of person is represented and then take an average. This would tell how well all the mental tools average out in terms of a full spectrum of adaptative intelligence.

With a computer, there are benchmark tests, which test a spectrum of functions. We don't compare computers based on one criteria, like video performance, since this will favor only one, instead of measure the range of overall performance. That would be fixing the deck.

In terms of my own function sequence, I am intuition, intellect, emotion and sensation. My intuition is what allows me to generate ideas. My brain keeps simulating and generating output. My intellect then organizes the output data and forms logical explanations. My emotion function as third, is fairly conscious. This allow me to push emotional buttons or adapt which helps with the presentaton of my writing.

My fourtgh fuction is sensation. This is my most unconscious, with this unconsciousness connected to over sensitivity to sensory stimulus. I tend to get sensory overload easily, which is hard to control, since I pick up too much input at the same time.

So I prefer quiet or natural place,s where I can regulate the amount of sensory input. I sometimrs need to use alcohol to deaden my sensory systems, if I need to be around more stimulus. On the other hand, this high level of sensivity allowed to percieve very subtle things.

The religion person, are often of the combination intuitive-emotion-intellect-sensation. Their religion intuitions are sort of simulations that give them faith. This is often based on the communal feelingss within human and community relationships. The intellect being third often means less conscious control, so dogma is other important more than the constant flow of logic and questions, With the sensation function most unconscious, it can make their animal nature more unconscious, compulsive, or overly sensitive. They feel and thinks reasons to control this.

Which function controls the amount of drivel you put out?

In terms of my own function sequence, I am intuition, intellect, emotion and sensation. My intuition is what allows me to generate ideas. My brain keeps simulating and generating output. My intellect then organizes the output data and forms logical explanations. My emotion function as third, is fairly conscious. This allow me to push emotional buttons or adapt which helps with the presentaton of my writing.

My fourtgh fuction is sensation. This is my most unconscious, with this unconsciousness connected to over sensitivity to sensory stimulus. I tend to get sensory overload easily, which is hard to control, since I pick up too much input at the same time.

So I prefer quiet or natural place,s where I can regulate the amount of sensory input. I sometimrs need to use alcohol to deaden my sensory systems, if I need to be around more stimulus. On the other hand, this high level of sensivity allowed to percieve very subtle things.

The religion person, are often of the combination intuitive-emotion-intellect-sensation. Their religion intuitions are sort of simulations that give them faith. This is often based on the communal feelingss within human and community relationships. The intellect being third often means less conscious control, so dogma is other important more than the constant flow of logic and questions, With the sensation function most unconscious, it can make their animal nature more unconscious, compulsive, or overly sensitive. They feel and thinks reasons to control this.

Wow, umm, just wow.

Okay, well for starters your brain contains 50 to 100 billion neurons. I'm amazed that with all that power you actually think its possible to simplify those things down into less then a dozen distinct "functions" (an inappropriate term for it anyways).

You probably spent two dozen neurons coming up with such a poor concept and then the other 49,999,999,976 neurons to make it sound profound.

If I had some tips it would be this, first, save some of that wee bit of horsepower you call your brain in order to word your thoughts and ideas without coming off as a know it all nor pretentious. Secondly, use some more of that wee brain power to actually take the time to spell check and grammar check it.

If you take any pride in your work whatsoever then at the very least you should have the dignity to check it over first.

I would tell you to right that all down in a mental note, but something tells me your out of paper.

P.S. Alcohol + philosophy = shit.

Wtf is this thread?

Just a bunch of pretentious people trying to make themselves wise in order to elevate themselves above everyone else.

This isn't a debate nor a discussion, at most it is nothing more then a talent show.


I will make it simple for you guys:

Intelligence is nothing more then an abstract concept made up by our never ceasing need to quantify the world around us and to understand who and what we are.

Here is what is happening here, you guys are trying to define an infinitely broad subject, for example:

Define the USA:

How do you define the USA in five sentences and capture the entire essence of it? Where do you start with? The dollar? The military? Mcdonald's? Politics? People? Hot dogs?

You simply can't, you couldn't define such a broad concept if given a lifetime.

That's what's going on here.

Wtf is this thread?

Just a bunch of pretentious people trying to make themselves wise in order to elevate themselves above everyone else.

This isn't a debate nor a discussion, at most it is nothing more then a talent show.


I will make it simple for you guys:

Intelligence is nothing more then an abstract concept made up by our never ceasing need to quantify the world around us and to understand who and what we are.

Here is what is happening here, you guys are trying to define an infinitely broad subject, for example:

Define the USA:

How do you define the USA in five sentences and capture the entire essence of it? Where do you start with? The dollar? The military? Mcdonald's? Politics? People? Hot dogs?

You simply can't, you couldn't define such a broad concept if given a lifetime.

That's what's going on here.

that is wrong . The United states stands for one over all other things . It is breed into us . Even the most social of us has it breed into them if they are a U.S. citizen . You can say it all in one word . Freedom

I thought it was life, liberty, and the pursuit of money...?

I'm not sure you can even say that the US is made up of people with the same "breeding"; you have to explain why there are two major political parties with quite different points of view--pandering to different breeds of people, by the look.

The essence, I think, is that the US is populated by different groups who very occaisonally agree with each other.

I thought it was life, liberty, and the pursuit of money...?

I'm not sure you can even say that the US is made up of people with the same "breeding"; you have to explain why there are two major political parties with quite different points of view--pandering to different breeds of people, by the look.

The essence, I think, is that the US is populated by different groups who very occaisonally agree with each other.

The symbolism of the United states stands for freedom . Freedom from oppression . That is what Harmon Greathouse fought for and the rest of the Greathouse clan . What you all do with it from here on out is up to us . I choose freedom every time and Me guns choose freedom every time also . I know we got some social programs and all , but that don't take away your right to many guaranteed freedoms we enjoy in the U.S. One of them being the right to express your self in speech. Course we got the insight to riot thing you can get you arrested , but still Howard Stern would not last five minutes in some of the other places in the world . We are Free in America . I am . Don't know about the rest of you . I will die free too . Cause I will Die Free . Unless they throw Me in prison for something I didn't anticipate. Other than that I will die free , unless some hookers get a hold of Me again and look Me up as there sex toy , but besides that and prison I will die free . Unless I get buried by a mountain from an earthquake dislodging a big pile of dirt and rocks then I would not be very free at all but then I would be dead so If the rock killed me at just the right time theoretically I could still be free before the rock killed me then I would have died free

Which function controls the amount of drivel you put out?

That comes from the salivary glands...you know, as in you open your mouth and drivel comes out?

that is wrong . The United states stands for one over all other things . It is breed into us . Even the most social of us has it breed into them if they are a U.S. citizen . You can say it all in one word . Freedom

Freedom to do what?

Plus, India for example has more amendments to their constitution then the US, does that make them freer then us?

Me-Ki, your argument is so laughable right here that I am half convinced its a total joke.

Although intelligence is hard to define, it takes less intelligence to criticize than it does to create. That we do know.

Human and animal intelligence is based on the unique nature of neurons, which are designed fundamentally different than computer memory. With neurons, the rest state is a state of highest energy. It takes 90% of the neurons cellular energy to create and maintain the membrane potential. Once this energy potential is created, it is called the rest state (ambiguous term). When the neuron fires this energy is lowered; membrane potential lowers. The rest state of computer memory, on the other hand, is at lower energy so it is stable for long term storage.

What is useful about the neural arrangement or starting at high energy (rest state), is there is always the potential for spontaneous firing, since the pull of the universe is toward lower energy. Computer memory, by beginning at low stable energy has little potential to spontaneously fire. Your hard drive is designed to not change spontaneously or else the data would get corrupt. Intelligent computers could be made with memory hardware changes. We would need memory this is full of energy and therefore unstable and wants to fire. But like neurons, has to be renewable back to high energy after each firing, for the perpetual spontaneous firing of AI consciousness.

Neuron design also has another key feature needed for intelligence. The membrane potential is based on the segregation of sodium and potassium ions. This lowers the entropy at the membrane. This lowering of entropy at the neuron membrane takes a lost of neuron energy; 90%. This puts the neurons at odds with another laws of universe, which want to increase entropy.

What is slick about this design is any form of neuron firing will increase the entropy. The laws of the universe want to fire neurons, to lower their energy and to increase their entropy. Since the brain and neurons will constantly restore low entropy and higher energy (rest state) the new degrees of freedom (ways to fire via synapses) are restored back to order; neural patterns. Even these patterns, by defining low entropy, will have the potential to change into higher entropy; intelligence.

If you look at long versus short term memory, long term memory stays the same and therefore is less subject to entropy increase. The brain can create lng term patterns no subject to change. Short term memory changes quickly and often and therefore is much more subject to universal entropy.

The letters and words of language are important since they are part of our long term memory. At a larger level of memory storage these can undergo spontaneous entropy increase; spontaneous conversation. Some of this is stored in long term memory building upon patterns in the brain.

This puts the neurons at odds with another laws of universe, which want to increase entropy.
False.
Please do try to learn what the "laws of the universe" are.

Although intelligence is hard to define, it takes less intelligence to criticize than it does to create. That we do know.

Human and animal intelligence is based on the unique nature of neurons, which are designed fundamentally different than computer memory. With neurons, the rest state is a state of highest energy. It takes 90% of the neurons cellular energy to create and maintain the membrane potential. Once this energy potential is created, it is called the rest state (ambiguous term). When the neuron fires this energy is lowered; membrane potential lowers. The rest state of computer memory, on the other hand, is at lower energy so it is stable for long term storage.

What is useful about the neural arrangement or starting at high energy (rest state), is there is always the potential for spontaneous firing, since the pull of the universe is toward lower energy. Computer memory, by beginning at low stable energy has little potential to spontaneously fire. Your hard drive is designed to not change spontaneously or else the data would get corrupt. Intelligent computers could be made with memory hardware changes. We would need memory this is full of energy and therefore unstable and wants to fire. But like neurons, has to be renewable back to high energy after each firing, for the perpetual spontaneous firing of AI consciousness.

Neuron design also has another key feature needed for intelligence. The membrane potential is based on the segregation of sodium and potassium ions. This lowers the entropy at the membrane. This lowering of entropy at the neuron membrane takes a lost of neuron energy; 90%. This puts the neurons at odds with another laws of universe, which want to increase entropy.

What is slick about this design is any form of neuron firing will increase the entropy. The laws of the universe want to fire neurons, to lower their energy and to increase their entropy. Since the brain and neurons will constantly restore low entropy and higher energy (rest state) the new degrees of freedom (ways to fire via synapses) are restored back to order; neural patterns. Even these patterns, by defining low entropy, will have the potential to change into higher entropy; intelligence.

If you look at long versus short term memory, long term memory stays the same and therefore is less subject to entropy increase. The brain can create lng term patterns no subject to change. Short term memory changes quickly and often and therefore is much more subject to universal entropy.

The letters and words of language are important since they are part of our long term memory. At a larger level of memory storage these can undergo spontaneous entropy increase; spontaneous conversation. Some of this is stored in long term memory building upon patterns in the brain.

I like how you regurgitated 90% of this impressive speech from outside sources in order to make the last 10% seem actually credible.

Most of your post was entirely irrelevant.

The universe prefers lowest energy and highest entropy. These are basic laws of thermodynamics. If we were to use energy/work to push something in the opposite direction (toward higher energy and lower entropy), we would increase the potential for its energy to lower and its entropy to increase. This is common sense. I am writer not a reader. I took Walt Whitman's advice many years ago. He said read all you can from the great minds. When you have done that forget it all and start to think of your own ideas.

Neuron use up to 90% of their energy maintaining the membrane potential because this not a stable situation, by natural design. If left alone, the membrane would naturally move toward lower energy and higher cationic entropy due to the universal potentials. By adding energy constantly, we get this flux we call neuron firing, since the direction of neuron entropy and energy is in being pushed in the opposite direction of the universe, while also being led back by the universe. It is alive not machine.

I invented this or rather I should say, I needed to make these connections conscious, since the existing theory does not explain things that well. The question of intelligence is always asked and never answered well enough using existing theory. I thought the traditions needed a little help. I am developing a range of theory needed to answer that question. There are a few layers that need to be defined before I can bring it all together.

The conscious mind is a high entropy and low energy phenomena. This arrangement allows us to use free will to fire neurons; memory recall, focus sensory systems so they will fire neurons, etc. The sequence of the four functions tells us which aspects of the brain's firmware is more accessible for the conscious mind to increase universal entropy. We can't control all 100%, because you don't wish to drain the brain. Dementia is when there is too much entropy and not enough order.

Consider this hypotherical situation. A good friend is very angry at you for kissing his girlfriend and wants to slug you. This is something that is going to happen, since it is fair and due justice. This is analogous to the universal entropy needing to act on the induced lowered entropy of the brain. The brain will have to take a hit. Nothing personal, just universal justice.

If you are smart, you would provide a hardened target for his rage, that will hurt you the least, rather than let him hit you randomly. You may offer your stomach for him to hit, so he can get the rage out of his system. Now you are friends again.

The brain is going against universal entropy (kiss his girlfriend) so the universal is going to collect one way or the other. So the idea is to offer the universe (increasing entropy) a non destructive target. I mentioned higher and lower entropy via short and long term memory; The short term memory will pay the fiddler and take the punch. It is one hardened target and is able to bouce back.

The ego is a high entropy phenonena since it induces neuron firing to do its many willful things. It is the bull in the china shop of neuron creating entropy within the brain, with the brain picking up after the whirlwind; reestablishing the potentials. The four functions let the universal entropy have its due (offered targets), with the conscious 1-2 functions like the hardened stomach being offered. This gives will power and universal conviction to the ego (I am universe here me roar; meow) without destruction of the entire mechanism. The ego helps the universe, as an agent of entropy, but can't drain the brain dry, since the more senstive targets of a given brain are not under ego control. The unconscious will economize these.

The next thing I will discuss are the personality firmware. These can be understood as genetically controlled firmware programs which define human nature. These are empty at birth and progress both via genetics and via interaction with the environment. It is not fully software but is also based on neuron hardware and its induced low entropy/high energy.

A good visial analogy is a pepper seed that will become a pepper plant. Within the DNA of that tiny pepper seed is the potential to form a large charactersitic plant with its leaves and fruit. This development is driven by genetics and solar energy. This creates the potential to absorb water and nutrients via osmosis. The firmware each have their own genetic plan which changes with stages of life. Since this neuron branching into structured firmware is lowering entropy (full of membrane potenital) the osmosis is associated with the inevitable neuron firing, such as induced by sensory input, helping to define the memory which will populate the structures of the plant.

For example, when you fall in love, this is the firmware of love. It is common to all humans (pepper plant) yet will also be specific to the individual based on their place and space and time (specific entropy induced by sensory and memory firings). Love is also compulsive and not completely subject to conscious control. The firmare is also defining a genetic neural shape (human nature) and has a given neuron stomach (so to speak) for the entropy to hit; whirlwinds of love. This is impacted by the entropy of the conscious mind makibg the effect collective yet personal.

Intelligence simply uses specfic firmware for each purpose.

Diarrhea of the mouth, constipation of ideas.

Diarrhea of the mouth, constipation of ideas

I don't think that qualifies as intelligent.

I don't think that qualifies as intelligent.

Prove to me it isn't just as intelligent as what you said.

Intellectual type of intelligence would add something rational to the discussion, pro or con. Emotional intelligence might try to distract the mind with words which have emotional appeal. I suppose it is half and half. An IQ test would not test this emotional intelligence. However, an expanded test would give scores for that too.

It is hard thinking outside the box, because you leave yourself out there for emotional bomb shells. The unknown makes many people uncomfortable, so there is always a defensive reaction, with emotional appeal almost sounding like it is making a rational contribution. Intelligence will assess this beyond the impulse to react irrationally.

Let me go back to the basics of living intelligence. The membranes of neurons, in their rest state, are based on higher energy and lower entropy due to the induced cationic gradients. This takes constant energy to maintain, since it goes opposite the direction of the universe, which will prefer net lower energy and net higher entropy.

This is useful to life, because it forces the universe to act, thereby enhancing and increasing the odds for change. The trick is set up the dam, while giving the universal potentials an outlet, while still retaining room for additional degrees of freedom; creative.

As an analogy, say we were building a house of cards. As the house gets larger and taller we need to be more and more careful because the entropy potential is compounding as we build into order. Just a little push can cause a chain reaction so all the order witin the house of cards will become a pile of choatic disorder. The universe would love that. The farther the brain can push toward the opposing direction of the universe, the more potential created for spontaneous change and chain reactions. This is why humans are so ingenius compared to animals.

All body movements and all the sensory systems will create neuron firing. These are all ways for the universe to lower energy and increase entropy. If you turn your head and scan the horizon with your eyes and ears, you are doing the bidding of the universe in terms of firing the neurons into lower energy and higher entropy. By setting up the opposing condition in the brain such activities have the endorsement of the universe. We are meant to learn since the universe needs us to knock dow the house of cards, as the brain keeps building it back.

Language was important because it created conscious order in the brain. There are certain things that don't change. The letters of an alphabet, don't suddenly change within us. That dam will hold. What can change are new combinations of letters to form new words and words in new arrangments to form new meaning.

Intellectual type of intelligence would add something rational to the discussion, pro or con. Emotional intelligence might try to distract the mind with words which have emotional appeal. I suppose it is half and half. An IQ test would not test this emotional intelligence. However, an expanded test would give scores for that too.

It is hard thinking outside the box, because you leave yourself out there for emotional bomb shells. The unknown makes many people uncomfortable, so there is always a defensive reaction, with emotional appeal almost sounding like it is making a rational contribution. Intelligence will assess this beyond the impulse to react irrationally.

Let me go back to the basics of living intelligence. The membranes of neurons, in their rest state, are based on higher energy and lower entropy due to the induced cationic gradients. This takes constant energy to maintain, since it goes opposite the direction of the universe, which will prefer net lower energy and net higher entropy.

This is useful to life, because it forces the universe to act, thereby enhancing and increasing the odds for change. The trick is set up the dam, while giving the universal potentials an outlet, while still retaining room for additional degrees of freedom; creative.

As an analogy, say we were building a house of cards. As the house gets larger and taller we need to be more and more careful because the entropy potential is compounding as we build into order. Just a little push can cause a chain reaction so all the order witin the house of cards will become a pile of choatic disorder. The universe would love that. The farther the brain can push toward the opposing direction of the universe, the more potential created for spontaneous change and chain reactions. This is why humans are so ingenius compared to animals.

All body movements and all the sensory systems will create neuron firing. These are all ways for the universe to lower energy and increase entropy. If you turn your head and scan the horizon with your eyes and ears, you are doing the bidding of the universe in terms of firing the neurons into lower energy and higher entropy. By setting up the opposing condition in the brain such activities have the endorsement of the universe. We are meant to learn since the universe needs us to knock dow the house of cards, as the brain keeps building it back.

Language was important because it created conscious order in the brain. There are certain things that don't change. The letters of an alphabet, don't suddenly change within us. That dam will hold. What can change are new combinations of letters to form new words and words in new arrangments to form new meaning.

So basically your argument is that since your passage was longer it was much more intelligent then mine.

So intelligence is according to you measured purely by who can talk the longest.

So intelligence is according to you measured purely by who can talk the longest.
Nope. You have to be able to say nothing useful in a long roundabout way. ;)

Dimwitter is trying to be clever. While fedr666 does not realize even a two year old can say yucky, but lacks the ability to give logical reasons for why he thinks this is true.

Dimwitter is trying to be clever. While fedr666 does not realize even a two year old can say yucky, but lacks the ability to give logical reasons for why he thinks this is true.

So when I stated my opinion you said it was intelligent. But when you insult us then its suddenly intelligent?

What on earth gave you the delusion that you are the one entity in this reality that gets the right to define what is and what isn't intelligent?

Nope. You have to be able to say nothing useful in a long roundabout way. ;)

How true.

Dimwitter is trying to be clever.
Wrong again. When I try to be clever I succeed. OTH deliberately mis-spelling a poster's name is a banning offence.


While fedr666 does not realize even a two year old can say yucky, but lacks the ability to give logical reasons for why he thinks this is true.
Much the same as a two year old can make shit up without giving any sensible rationale?
Yup.

I am only insulting in response to insults. Dywyddr tends to leach off me, by oftering the same collection of insults as distraction. If he is getting paid by the post, he should give me a cut.

When a tag team of insulters starts insulting one person, without oftering any alternative explanation, I should be allowed to play hard ball too. I would prefer stick to the subject. If there is a point that is not clear, ask a question.

Dywyddr, if you can think of a better explanation, share it with us. If you want, I can then pretend intelligence, using your template of saying some variation of "yucky" and calling your explanation some variation of hot air. Or I can challenge with arguments. Either way is fine, but the argument way is more challenging and takes more intelligence.

I am only insulting in response to insults. Dywyddr tends to leach off me, by oftering the same collection of insults as distraction. If he is getting paid by the post, he should give me a cut.
False and false.
You haven't been insulted, you have been advised to get an education and stop posting rubbish.


When a tag team of insulters startsinsulting, without oftering an alternative, I should be allowed to play too. I would prefer stick to the subject. If there is a point that is not clear, ask a question.
Ever wondered why there's a "tag team"? Offer alternatives? To nonsense? You persist in making statements that are unsupported. And have, previously, failed to answer questions.


Or, Dywyddr, if you can think of a better explanation share it with us. If you want I can pretend intelligence, using your templare of saying some variation of yucky and calling your explanation hot air. Or I can challenge with arguments. Either way is fine, but the argument way is more challenging and takes more intelligence.
Challenging with arguments would be good. As opposed posting unsubstantiated crap.

Wellwisher, the one problem with your entire line of reasoning is that you assume that you are actually intelligent.

You have yet to give evidence to the contrary, so thus far were not insulting you, we are simply stating facts.

You still haven't said anything relavent to the subject, beyond catering to your own subjective bias. This is called emotional thinking.

Let me explain how emotional thinking works so you can learn to control it. Emotions can induce thoughts and thoughts can induce emotions. This occurs because the limbic system, which is involved in emotions, also plays a major role in the creation of memory. The limbic-cerebral connection creates a dual association within memory. This is useful for an animals since he can assess reality with good and bad feelings.

For example, if I started to talk about good food, some people will start to get hungry. On the other hand, if I started to get hungry, images of food will often appear in the mind, as to what you might want to eat. This may cause me to decide to eat at the buffet or seafood. The dual nature of the memory can be triggered from either direction, thought inducing a feeling (talk about food making you hungry) or feeling inducing thoughts (feeling hungry and you start to think about a steak).

In depression, the dual nature of memory can create resonance problems, since the bad feelings and bad thoughts can be induced starting from either direction. One can wake up sad. This sad feeling can cause them to think about their sadness, recalling certain memories of why you are sad. These memories, in turn, can reinforce the sadness, making the sadness worse. This deeper sadness makes you think even about worse things, etc. This resonance of the dual memory can swing too far for some people. Drugs try to break the emotional side of the dual memory by numbing the feelings. Talking tries to disrupt the thoughts to break the feelings.

With emotional thinking you start with a strong emotion, such as anger or hate. Then based on that feeling, you start to rationalize as the associated thoughts appear. I do this too, when I talk about atheism. After many years of abuse by atheists, the very thought makes me want to get aggressive. This feeling can fuel my thinking, unless I calm that emotion and get back to ideas and reasons that are objective, without emotions.

Sometime an emotional attack, such as in these forums, is designed to trigger an emotional-thinking loop using a negative feeling. I used to fall for the bait, because I was in my creative mode and this could help me create new angles. But now I try to recycle my best ideas, that have been through the wash dozens of times. These idea make me feel calm.

If you want I can play the emotional thinking game for old times sake. But nobody benefits, although it does help people vent emotions.

You still haven't said anything relavent to the subject, beyond catering to your own subjective bias.
Neither have you.


This is called emotional thinking.
In your case it's called bullshitting.


Let me explain how emotional thinking works so you can learn to control it.
Oops, error on your part.


If you want I can play the emotional thinking game for old times sake. But nobody benefits, although it does help people vent emotions.
Besides my plea for you stop posting drivel could I also ask for you stop making assumptions (or projecting). Thank you.

You still haven't said anything relavent to the subject, beyond catering to your own subjective bias. This is called emotional thinking.

Let me explain how emotional thinking works so you can learn to control it. Emotions can induce thoughts and thoughts can induce emotions. This occurs because the limbic system, which is involved in emotions, also plays a major role in the creation of memory. The limbic-cerebral connection creates a dual association within memory. This is useful for an animals since he can assess reality with good and bad feelings.

For example, if I started to talk about good food, some people will start to get hungry. On the other hand, if I started to get hungry, images of food will often appear in the mind, as to what you might want to eat. This may cause me to decide to eat at the buffet or seafood. The dual nature of the memory can be triggered from either direction, thought inducing a feeling (talk about food making you hungry) or feeling inducing thoughts (feeling hungry and you start to think about a steak).

In depression, the dual nature of memory can create resonance problems, since the bad feelings and bad thoughts can be induced starting from either direction. One can wake up sad. This sad feeling can cause them to think about their sadness, recalling certain memories of why you are sad. These memories, in turn, can reinforce the sadness, making the sadness worse. This deeper sadness makes you think even about worse things, etc. This resonance of the dual memory can swing too far for some people. Drugs try to break the emotional side of the dual memory by numbing the feelings. Talking tries to disrupt the thoughts to break the feelings.

With emotional thinking you start with a strong emotion, such as anger or hate. Then based on that feeling, you start to rationalize as the associated thoughts appear. I do this too, when I talk about atheism. After many years of abuse by atheists, the very thought makes me want to get aggressive. This feeling can fuel my thinking, unless I calm that emotion and get back to ideas and reasons that are objective, without emotions.

Sometime an emotional attack, such as in these forums, is designed to trigger an emotional-thinking loop using a negative feeling. I used to fall for the bait, because I was in my creative mode and this could help me create new angles. But now I try to recycle my best ideas, that have been through the wash dozens of times. These idea make me feel calm.

If you want I can play the emotional thinking game for old times sake. But nobody benefits, although it does help people vent emotions.

http://files.shroomery.org/files/11-006/764409139-Cant-tell-if-trolling-or-just-very-stupid.jpg

This discussion of intelligence is being done within the topic technology; intelligence and machines. As such, rather than talk philosophy, which would be more appropriate in philosophy, I assumed this techie discussion was looking for hardware and software hints to help with AI. Therefore I thought it might be useful to discuss some of my relavent observations and ideas that are less than obvious, since the more obvious mainstream thinking is not exactly helping the process of AI. The AI people are on their own trying software solutions.

The brain does intelligence differently, because it is based on hardware. First and foremost, the potential for intelligence is connected to neuron hardware design. If you could design computer memory that worked in the general schema of neurons, the rest of the task is mostly directing entropy increase (new degrees of freedom) as the memory naturally moves, toward lower energy and higher entropy.

Neurons need to constantly expend energy, to pump and exchange potassium and sodium ions. This energy and pumping will lower cationic entropy by changing a more uniform solution of these cations, into a segregated gradient. This gradient is not stable in water, which is the beauty of the design. The forward pumping into full energy/entropy potential is relatively simple. Going the other way, down the energy and entropy hills, has infinite variations. This is the beginning of smart.

If we had such computer memory hardware, all charged up, full of potential energy and lowered entropy, once a chain reaction begins and the memory starts to moves back toward lowest energy and higher entropy, a wide range of possible paths and responses can appear which will be different each time. Once you get the hardware to work and can recharge it quickly, you learn to direct this flow of energy and entropy down narrower paths to see what random arrangements appear in the tube.

If you look at intelligence, such as solving a problem on an IQ test, the question means sensory input and conscious focus, that will trigger neurons to fire. The cascade begins. This cascade of entropy is funnelled down our relavent structural memory. Since the entropy is increasing as we go down the cascade of firing neurons, there will be variance (entropy increase) about stock memory; eureka. One can get an answer that was not directly in memory, but related in terms of a new degree of freedom.

Someone with a good IQ can funnel the induced cascade along certain lines. But there are many more paths in the brain, such as those for art and music. The writer might get writer's block. The cascade is working by his conscious focus but is not creating anything totally unique, just small variations about common themes in memory from reading. Suddenly a new variation appears in the entropy stream. Now the cascade goes down this new path, creating the story entropy and variance.

An analogy is pumping water into a tank of wood. As the potential builds there will be leaks. This wooden tank is not meant to be leak proof, but to leak. As the potential builds more, there are more leaks while the old leaks get bigger. Eventually we settle into using only the bigger leaks for specialty variations. Normal IQ has a nice big funnel to direct the cascade for entropy variance down the path of the intellect. Wide reading allows subpaths for entropy to increase within the memory; new applications.

For starters, you don't know the first thing about computer AI.

Secondly, you don't know the first thing about philosophy.

But isnt adaptation natural!? It occurs withing a species over time (if it is the same type of adaptation that im thinking of) and therefore isnt really a sign of intelligence. I mean, species of worms may adapt but they arent actually intelligent are they?

I don't think He/She meant physical adaptation,But whatever we are is because of this adaptation.Our ability to change our reaction to a particular situation defines intelligence.I think.

Intelligence is to build with Cause to create your own Effect. The more Cause you can build with for a single effect the better.

The main causes are...

1) Mathematics
2) Visual imaging
3) Animated Imaging
4) Dexterity
5) Speed
6) 3D Spacial Awareness
7) Spacial Dismantalization
8) Memory Recap

... obviously I am going to miss a few.

So, for example, you think of a random subject, then apply as many skills as you can to that subject which will be all called ...Cause...

Like...


Subject = Draw a Leaf

So...

CAUSES..
memory recap = green, shaded, fractal
Animation = Bendy.. so add some bends to it
3D spacial Awareness = 3D bends, the sun is above the leaf, add light above, which adds transparency to leaf, which shows up veins, which are fractal, add some shine
Spacial Dismantalization = used for internal structure visible through transparency
Mathematics = There is some regulatory distances between leaf parts


EFFECT
you draw the leaf.

The more Causes you can blast through your brain before an effect the better.

How is that Free Will?

This way of using Cause, and Effect is stalling the effect, you choose when you want the effect to happen.

Wrong again. When I try to be clever I succeed. OTH deliberately mis-spelling a poster's name is a banning offence.


Mrationale?
Yup.
Is that like off the Fence , Wow I didn't know that ? You mean I could of been banned by Alphalphanumnutic for calling him Alfalfa . Wow . I don't think Alphalfa is one to report . He lives by the sword and dies by the sword . That I admire about him

Besides my plea for you stop posting drivel could I also ask for you stop making assumptions (or projecting). Thank you.

I woke up thinking about parents projecting this morning . It lead to thinking about the overall idea of projecting by misreading a persons feeling .

Just because it makes Me cry don't mean it makes you cry . That is what I learning in the last 24 hr.


People do it all the time . Tunnel vision. If I like it you must like it too. How could you not like it if I like it .


Because I am not you . Communication brake down it's always the same were having a nervous brake down . You drive me insane

Projection

Define true Intelligence
To be happy. :p

In-tell-igence is to know something but not tell of it: im-possible means that something is not possible, so intelligence is not to tell. :-)

This is just as there is in-hale or ex-hale: the prefix 'in-' means not but because hale begins with a 'h' the 'm' becomes an 'n'. 'Ex-' means AFTER; i.e. ex-tinct (or in-stinct), ex-trapolate (in-trepid) or ex-ploration (im-ploration); ex-plore or im-plore. 'In-' (or 'im-') is also the same as 'pre-' (or 'pro-'). The prefix 'pre-' simply means before (which means to 'BE-FORE'); i.e. the verb has not been actioned. The opposite of this is to action the verb once, and then once again (AGAIN-st), or 'RE-'.

I would say there are pro's (be-fore) or con's (again-st): con-stitution or pro-stitution, con-science or pre-cious and con-ception (re-ception or ex-ception) or in-ception. Just a few examples.

Intelligence: something not possessed by Fuse26 and a large number of (too many) other posters on this forum.

Oh yes, lets review one lifetime:

One lifetime:
----------------->
<----------------
----------------->

Now let's journey BACK in time!:
----------------->
/
---------------->

:D

(and you can't even call me a paedophile for telling you because you've done something wrong)

I'm not telling you. :p

An analogy is pumping water into a tank of wood. As the potential builds there will be leaks. This wooden tank is not meant to be leak proof, but to leak. As the potential builds more, there are more leaks while the old leaks get bigger. Eventually we settle into using only the bigger leaks for specialty variations. Normal IQ has a nice big funnel to direct the cascade for entropy variance down the path of the intellect. Wide reading allows subpaths for entropy to increase within the memory; new applications.

Wooden tanks that have been wet through will swell, and the ability to leak will be stifled by the over-uptake of liquid into the tissue; the expansion slowing down, if not stopping the leaks completely.

complex and simplicity is understood as to be the same thing , but with different consequences

True intelligence is the knowledge to do what is right...

There's no such thing as true intelligence, that would be a farfetched term.

In neurology there are many intelligences, depending on which "religious belive" in neurology there are about 9 major intelligence.

Looking up cognitive abilities may also help you.

If I were to come up with my own definition of what I considered "true intelligence" it would be simply this: The ability to look at the past of oneself and others, judge a reasonable course of action based upon it, then plan for the future and act upon said plan. One final piece of the puzzle, adaptability. The ability to come to the end of a line of logic, dismiss it completely, return to an earlier point, and attempt a new line of logic. Of course, there are plenty of humans that can't reasonably do that.

complex and simplicity is understood as to be the same thing , but with different consequences

and to relise that you don't create anything but discover everything

Intelligence=prediction
For a satisfying explanation, that has made any philosophy book or religion sound like a product from a computer program which has written subjective B.S. due to knowing nothing about how it works on an algorithmic level, check out the book On Intelligence.

Intelligence=prediction For a satisfying explanation, that has made any philosophy book or religion sound like a product from a computer program which has written subjective B.S. due to knowing nothing about how it works on an algorithmic level, check out the book On Intelligence.

what if the algorithmic is wrong ?

True intelligence?

Why do I think this has got to be like the "No True Scotsman" fallacy...
Meh, I don't feel like arguing today. *Takes off stompy boots of stomping, pads away*

True intelligence can reduce the complex to simplicity. This is useful for adaptation since it can reduce what appears to be a complex problem or set of circumstances, into a simple situation where the solution becomes obvious.

E=MC2 was intelligent. If this relationship had ended up a complex series of equations, which only the grand masters of math could unravel, that would be impressive, but not intelligent, since it would reflect thin instead of dense.

Intelligence is mainly just pattern recognition.

The two hemispheres of the brain, left and right, process data differently. Intelligence o involve using both tools. The right brain does spatial or integral processing, while the left brain does differential processing. The right would notice common patterns within a group (asian) while the left sees very specific details (Bruce Lee).

The left is better for differentiating the details for data collection, while the right is better for integrating data into simple patterns. The tough part is merging the two and translating the result into differential; simple result. This is processed in the corpus collosum.

As an example, if a western person went to China for the first time, they would first notice how much everyone looks similar. This is integral processing. As you spend time the differential brain will begin to see differences. As these differences build, the integral brain will see integral patterns from this. The differential brain will then see even more detail from this subgroup, etc. Depending on where you stop, the goal is a simple or differential relationship that reflects the integration.

The relationship E=MC2 is good for any differential matter/energy detail , while also reflecting the integration of all matter and energy. It is perfect.

Intelligence implies to me an ability to integrate the knowledge of experience and to extrapolate from that a conjecture that one may employ to create new experiences with which to satisfy one's curiosity in regard to ever changing circumstances.

Intelligence implies to me an ability to integrate the knowledge of experience and to extrapolate from that a conjecture that one may employ to create new experiences with which to satisfy one's curiosity in regard to ever changing circumstances.

not enough , thats practicle intelligence , nothing wrong with this just not enough

Intelligence, as in the trait measured by I.Q. tests, is simply a measure of mental dexterity. It's true that the debate has been largely obscured by a plethora of derivatives recently created to make certain ethnic/gender groups feel more integrated and equal, but I think the traditional definition is still the most accurate and useful.

Intelligence, as in the trait measured by I.Q. tests, is simply a measure of mental dexterity. It's true that the debate has been largely obscured by a plethora of derivatives recently created to make certain ethnic/gender groups feel more integrated and equal, but I think the traditional definition is still the most accurate and useful.

still not good enough

I.Q is about speed and knowledge

still not good enough

I.Q is about speed and knowledge
Nonsense.

As long as you are literate all the knowledge you need is on the test paper in front of you.

Naturally, the better someone is at something, the faster they'll be relative to others.

“ Originally Posted by river
still not good enough

I.Q is about speed and knowledge





Nonsense.

As long as you are literate all the knowledge you need is on the test paper in front of you.

Naturally, the better someone is at something, the faster they'll be relative to others.

have you ever taken a mensa I.Q. test ?

have you ever taken a mensa I.Q. test ?
Here's a typical question from a Mensa paper:


Q) Continue the following number series with the group of numbers below, which best continues the series?

1 10 3 9 5 8 7 7 9 6 ? ?

A: 11 5
B: 10 5
C: 10 4
D: 11 6
Solving this is a matter of mental dexterity and pattern recognition... assuming you are numerate. Knowledge is not going to help you here.

It's (a) 11 5

See pattern recognition. 2 more one less.

:)

I don't like IQ tests though. I hate the time pressure. I can solve the problem, but just need to take my own time with it. For example that problem took me a good couple of minutes to solve, which is probably too slow for the test.

“ Q) Continue the following number series with the group of numbers below, which best continues the series?

1 10 ,3 9 , 5 8 ,7 7 ,9 6 ? ?

A: 11 5
B: 10 5
C: 10 4
D: 11 6

I wouldn't even get the right answer , to me its just a jumble of numbers

the pattern is based on mathematics

I'm not mathematicly inclined

I would need more time

this lady puts the intelligence in its true perspective

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/temple_grandin_the_world_needs_all_kinds_of_minds. html

I like the prior adaptability answer and consider it a major component of intelligence, and think success at adapting includes the ability to predict, also an answer given earlier. I.Q., that is, raw brainpower, measures just an aspect of total intelligence, in my opinion.

I like the prior adaptability answer and consider it a major component of intelligence, and think success at adapting includes the ability to predict, also an answer given earlier. I.Q., that is, raw brainpower, measures just an aspect of total intelligence, in my opinion.

did you go to the site I mentioned a couple threads ago ? #186

did you go to the site I mentioned a couple threads ago ?

Edit: Okay I'm checking it out.

Do you mean the Temple Grandin presentation?

the post in # 186

the post in # 186

Okay, thanks.

I don't like IQ tests though. I hate the time pressure. I can solve the problem, but just need to take my own time with it. For example that problem took me a good couple of minutes to solve, which is probably too slow for the test.
The test comprises fifteen questions with a time limit of one hour giving four minutes per question, hence you would've been inside the time limit.


this lady puts the intelligence in its true perspective
w.w.w.ted.com/talks/lang/en/temple_grandin_the_world_needs_all_kinds_of_minds. html

Grandin said that her mind is an animal mind, but if that were true we would expect to find animals creating art and science and solving 'real' world problems. Instead we find them behaving like a mindless herd with little or nothing to differentiate them physically.

Her conclusion that the world needs all types of mind is not corroborated by any evidence she presents. She pulls a few famous names from history without evidence that they were autistic but more importantly in the context of this thread would've had demonstrably low I.Q.'s.

Grandin said: "Who made the first stone spear, the Aspegers guy." This obviously has no credible evidence to support it and is an appeal to emotion.

You can't discount I.Q. tests as being a valid test of intelligence just because of a tiny amount of people who have some special ability to think in pictures. Across the general spectrum I.Q. tests are more than adequate in sorting out the intelligent from the less, the wheat from the chaff.
Grandin's thesis is one couched in liberal politics.


I wouldn't even get the right answer , to me its just a jumble of numbers

the pattern is based on mathematics

I'm not mathematicly inclined

I would need more time
In other words you would not accept that you have an average or low I.Q. but instead criticize the integrity of the test. I would suggest that this not only paints you as underhand but is only further evidence compounding your poor intellectual performance.

You are now only an example of the kind of cultural degradation spread by liberalism as it seeks to level man and include everyone in a mindless consumer mass. Not hurting peoples feelings matters more than the truth.

(The underlying dynamic is this: demand an absolute definition of intelligence, when one is not forthcoming - as it inevitably cannot exist - rubbish what actually exists or claim that it is inadequate to save face)

“ Originally Posted by river
I wouldn't even get the right answer , to me its just a jumble of numbers

the pattern is based on mathematics


I'm not mathematicly inclined

I would need more time ”


In other words you would not accept that you have an average or low I.Q. but instead criticize the integrity of the test. I would suggest that this not only paints you as underhand but is only further evidence compounding your poor intellectual performance.

You are now only an example of the kind of cultural degradation spread by liberalism as it seeks to level man and include everyone in a mindless consumer mass. Not hurting peoples feelings matters more than the truth.

(The underlying dynamic is this: demand an absolute definition of intelligence, when one is not forthcoming - as it inevitably cannot exist - rubbish what actually exists or claim that it is inadequate to save face)

actually I did take the mensa test and scored 130

I asked the poster whether they took the test to see if they knew what the test was all about

what the test doesn't and isn't about is creativity

actually I did take the mensa test and scored 130Of course you did.


I asked the poster whether they took the test to see if they knew what the test was all aboutYou're insecure about your intellectual abilities that is clear.


what the test doesn't and isn't about is creativityWhere does it claim to be a test of creativity?

Originally Posted by river
actually I did take the mensa test and scored 130


Of course you did.

I did


“ I asked the poster whether they took the test to see if they knew what the test was all about



You're insecure about your intellectual abilities that is clear.

where did that come from?

so I asked you or somebody else whether they took the mensa test and suddenly I'm insecure about my intellectual abilities....hmm



Where does it claim to be a test of creativity?

it doesn't and that in the end is where intelligence is and the ability to question

it doesn't and that in the end is where intelligence is and the ability to question
What a surprise that artists and liberals are the only ones possessed of true intelligence.

Don't tell me... tribal people are more intelligent because they live in harmony with the environment?

:yawn:

True intelligence? That would be knowing the truth but not having a word for it. Intelligence is repeating the same previously acquired knowledge. An un noteworthy task unless you enjoy jeopardy. But to imagine the unknown to a high degree of reality is true intelligence.

It is a skill this generation has never witnessed.

Good Afternoon River,

ANS: A: 11 5




Q) Continue the following number series with the group of numbers below, which best continues the series?


1 10 3 9 5 8 7 7 9 6 ? ?



A: 11 5
B: 10 5
C: 10 4
D: 11 6

I wouldn't even get the right answer , to me its just a jumble of numbers

the pattern is based on mathematics

I'm not mathematicly inclined

I would need more time
(COMMENT)

Was there a trick to this?

v/r
R

http://joi.ito.com/images2/mathjoke.gif

Emil, ,,,

Too funny!


Image extracted
(COMMENT)

A new dimension.

v/r
R