What is intelligence

20 posts / 0 new
Last post
CyberLN's picture
What is intelligence

Copy/pasted from another string...

Alchemy wrote:

Intelligence is more of a genetic trait, a human can be of extremely high intelligence and never have been to school there entire life, not one completed grade, not even knowing how to read and write.

A example of this in the animal kingdom is wolves vs dogs... I've raised high percentage wolf hybrids 90%+.... wolves are much harder to train than normal dogs, why is that?
It's bc they are of higher intelligence and even tho they fully understand the trick you are attempting to train them, they choose to not listen.. simply bc they know they can.

Another good example of higher intelligence is a lil story about my aunt, her first day of kintergarden the teacher gave her a demand, she stomped her foot to the floor and stuck her tounge out... Lol her having that understanding naturally that she don't have to listen to this other person(the teacher) while all the other kids belived it was a have to situation.

Intelligence and education are two totally different realms.
If I was going to write a actual true definition on my own.... of intelligence all fit a proper, (which I may do now lol) Id have to take time sit and ponder, to come up with the most accurate and reliable definition.
@CyberLN

Edit:
And of course as we all know alredy...intelligence has to do with your ability to figure things out all on your own.

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

CyberLN's picture
Alchemy, you wrote, “And of

Alchemy, you wrote, “And of course as we all know alredy...intelligence has to do with your ability to figure things out all on your own.”

We all know this? Really?

I’m not so sure you’re correct. I disagree. In particular, the “all on your own” piece seems inaccurate to me.

Alchemy's picture
I figured everyone knew that

I figured everyone knew that's basically what a IQ test is attempting to measure, your ability to figure things out. I took a IQ test way back and had to do it completely on my own lol

Sheldon's picture
"I figured everyone knew that

"I figured everyone knew that's basically what a IQ test is attempting to measure, your ability to figure things out. I took a IQ test way back and had to do it completely on my own lol"

An IQ test, not a IQ test, and your execrable grammar bodes badly for the result. Personally I am happy to start with the dictionary definition of intelligence.

noun
1.the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.

Here is a basic definition of an IQ test as well.

"The IQ test consists of a number of tasks measuring various measures of intelligence including short-term memory, analytical thinking, mathematical ability and spatial recognition. Like all IQ tests it does not attempt to measure the amount of information you have learned but rather your capacity to learn."

You do seem determined to get as many facts wrong as you can, without bothering to check them first. Please note the last sentence, it is designed to measure a person's capacity to learn.

LogicFTW's picture
Slightly off topic but:

Slightly off topic but:

In my humble opinion:

A good marker of intelligence is the ability to separate fact from fiction with the available information we have.

Yes, this is a nod towards atheist who demand real evidence for a supposed god idea.

 
 

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

I am an atheist that always likes a good debate
Please include @LogicFTW for responses to me
Tips on forum use. ▮ A.R. Member since 2016.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

Calilasseia's picture
Once again, we're in that

Once again, we're in that unfortunate realm, where no proper rigorous metric exists to determine "intelligence". The few measures purporting to be thus are usually crude, in some cases dependent upon cultural assumptions, and have at best a chequered history.

An interesting insight into the issues involved was provided by the early days of research into artificial intelligence, back in the 1960, when Gelernter wrote a computer program whose purpose was to devise mathematical theorems, starting from a small base set of axioms. Eyebrows were raised when, having moved into Euclidean geometry, the program provided a proof of the equality of base angles of an isosceles triangle, that differed from the standard proof taught in textbooks. Gelernter's program caused quite some excitement at the time when it provided this proof, until it was discovered that the same proof had been devised 23 centuries or so earlier by Pappus of Alexandria. Gelernter's program eventually ran out of ideas, so to speak, and the project became a footnote in AI research, one documented by Douglas Hofstadter in Gödel, Escher, Bach.

Of course, Gödel's Incompleteness Proof should have warned the researchers against prospect of the Gelernter program being able to devise anything truly new and wonderful, because that proof constitutes a "barrier of ignorance" which even world class mathematicians cannot cross. That proof, in effect, states that there exist theorems of elementary number theory (and by extension, any other formal axiomatic system with the same expressive power) that are true, but which cannot be proven by mechanical inference from the axioms of the system. This is, in effect, the pure mathematician's version of the speed of light barrier in General Relativity.

A parallel lesson to that arising from the Gelernter program, has yet to be learned in some quarters amid the hype about "machine learning", which in some quarters has become little more than a synonym for pattern matching in big data sets, a process that is frequently brought crashing to a halt by the issue of spurious correlations, an issue that any competent scientist, particularly one with a background in mathematical statistics, will home in on with laser guided precision and subject to ruthless dismantling. Even an elementary student of statistics learns to be wary of coincidences over time being treated mistakenly as correlations, and more subtle, but potentially even more misleading and even dangerous spurious correlations, are causing alarm bells to ring in the requisite academic departments.

Unfortunately, the dangers of mistakenly treating mere coincidence as correlation, a plague that affects supernaturalism to a woeful extent, are being ignored by the quick buck brigade, who are jumping on "machine learning" as the next big booster rocket supposedly propelling them into the world of collecting mansions and yachts. Except that oops, this won't happen in 99.9% of cases, because of failure to apply rigour to the matter of eliminating spurious correlations. Worse still, the unscrupulous may end up propelling themselves into billionaire fantasy land, on the back of practices that are not merely lacking in rigour, but unethical or downright criminal in their implementation, with all the fallout arising therefrom that has been a feature of "neoliberalism".

But I digress. The point should, by now, have been driven home, that decades of research into what intelligence actually is, has thus far turned up a lot of information on what it isn't, but with few clues in the positive direction. Any assertions on the part of those claiming to possess this holy grail, should therefore be treated with a large amount of suspicion.

My own view, and an admittedly speculative one at that, is that a defining feature of intelligence is the ability to manipulate concepts. Mathematicians with a grounding in category theory are already seeing where I'm heading with this particular piece of speculation, namely that increasing levels of abstraction will ultimately separate genuinely intelligent thinking from mere pattern matching, but I admit this idea is speculative, and probably won't bear fruit even if if becomes the focus of a well-funded research programme. However, if someone wants to splurge a fortune on this, and in doing so, actually makes positive progress, I for one will be delighted.

Indeed, that's a central question that has yet to be answered properly even in the academic community, as far as I'm aware - namely, is there any aspect to intelligence that is distinct from pattern matching? Answer that one, and I suspect suitable progress will follow.

ʝօɦn 6lX ɮʀeeʐy's picture
I had to take a full semester

I had to take a full semester on Human Intelligence. I had to read the Bell Curve, Mismeasure of Man, as well as many research papers and articles on the topic...

I still have no idea what intelligence is.

Alchemy's picture
I feel like it also wouldbt

I feel like it also wouldbt be far off at all to say intelligence is the ability to understand. Understanding is a very wide range word, and it exist on many levels.

Alchemy's picture
@logicFTW "In my humble

@logicFTW "In my humble opinion:

A good marker of intelligence is the ability to separate fact from fiction with the available information we have."

I would label this as discernment.

Alchemy's picture
@logicFTW "In my humble

@logicFTW "In my humble opinion:

A good marker of intelligence is the ability to separate fact from fiction with the available information we have."

I would label this as discernment.

LogicFTW's picture
@Alchemy

@Alchemy
Then, in my opinion: I would label discernment as a marker of intelligence.

Potato "potado?"

Alchemy's picture
I can see that, but I also

I can see that in one way, but I also.see discernment as more of a gift some ppl have, like a talent.

Alchemy's picture
Here is something everyone

Here is something everyone here may jump down my throat for haha.

But I'm just a thinker always have been.

I realized years ago.... that a Butterfly has a totally different Body than it once had before as a caterpillar, it's not a caterpillar with wings you feel me, def not at all.....
This seems to be legit proof of a afterlife for the caterpillar, and of some sort of spirit(which is life IMO) within the caterpillar it being the same life, in a different body.

LogicFTW's picture
We humans do this too. It

We humans do this too. It just not as dramatic or fast as a butterfly.

Some parts of you are lost and regrown in the space of a day or less. Other parts it takes years. A few parts never get replaced and are simply lost, (some brain cells.)

If you are over 20 years old, I would guess roughly 99% of you is not "original". I imagine the caterpillar to butterfly ratio of old vs new is about the same, it just took place over weeks instead of years.

I do agree that the caterpillar to butterfly transformation is incredible, but assigning it a "2nd life" after death for caterpillar I would say is inaccurate description based on "change."

 
 

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

I am an atheist that always likes a good debate
Please include @LogicFTW for responses to me
Tips on forum use. ▮ A.R. Member since 2016.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

Randomhero1982's picture
Hmmm... not so sure about

Hmmm... not so sure about that chief!

Attachments

Attach Image/Video?: 

Yes
Alchemy's picture
On the butterfly ordeal, It

On the butterfly ordeal, It def seems reasonable and worth study, I can plainly see that is.not the same body that it once was.
Yet I know within that cocoon is the same life of the catterpillar. It's more than just growing wings, it's getting a whole new life form. It went from a dust eating fuzzy thing, to a beautiful butterfly flying in the air. That's like a snake turning into a bird in one way.
Pretty wild and def something to think on.

Another one I mentioned was how humans seem to be the only species with downward facing nostrils.

LogicFTW's picture
1000's maybe millions of

1000's maybe millions of "species" that have no nostrils at all.

I looked at my cats nose. Sure the opening faces more "out" parallel to the nose instead of perpendicular, but further in the nose it curves upwards, making the nostril in a way downwards facing just on the inside. I believe this is true for many other animals with nostrils. Having openings that generally points "downwards" is generally a good idea to make use of gravity...

Alchemy's picture
I'm not saying I'm 100% sure

I'm not saying I'm 100% sure that we the only ones on earth with our exact nostril facing the ground, but of all the different species I can think of none resemble ours. Fish point outwards all the pets, birds on side of beak, like u say none at all on many... strange can't find one other species with our nose and nostrils.

LogicFTW's picture
@Alchemy

@Alchemy
Yeah, it happens.

Elephants have pretty unique noses, it can be facing which ever direction they want! Have not seen any species that resemble elephant noses eithir.

I am curious what forces drove evolution of the human nose to what it is. It is my understanding out of the animal kingdom human noses are among the least sensitive to detail.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Logic

@ Logic

Tapirs and elephants have downward facing nostrils.....they can also face backwards or, indeed in any direction.

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.