Sequential Intelligence

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Epistemology
  3. » Sequential Intelligence

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Mon 18 Jan, 2010 11:20 am
I'm no anthropologist, so correct me if I'm wrong, but Man's ability to assimilate, organize, and store knowledge is a unique faculty(Barring perhaps migrational patterns). It is a point where mankind diverges from animalia. My question to you, is whether or not our ability to assimilate, organize, and store knowledge has evolved, or developed, and if so why? In short, are individuals such as Chris Langan or Stephen Hawking more/less "INNATELY"intelligent than those like Locke or Satre, or even men(not exclusively) like Aristotle or Plato.(It is not limited to philosophy, just throwing names out there.) Is this decay/progression of intelligence incidental? Is it consequence of man's trek through time? Or does the mind simply evolve?(Excuse any generalizations)
 
Jebediah
 
Reply Mon 18 Jan, 2010 12:30 pm
@Camerama,
I don't know if the brain itself has become more capable, but raw intelligence needs something to work with.

If we're more intelligent on the whole, it's because there is more information readily available than in the past. Just look at how the ideas the crusaders brought back sparked new ideas in Europe, these days we have google instead of crusades.
 
Camerama
 
Reply Mon 18 Jan, 2010 12:50 pm
@Camerama,
That is exactly what I belive! In not so many words, there is more to be intelligent about.(And for this we pay homage to our Platos, and Oppenheimers, and even Louis and Clark) The edifice of human knowledge is infinitely expanding, and we lay the bricks.
 
Greg phil
 
Reply Mon 18 Jan, 2010 02:27 pm
@Camerama,
Yeah I think our minds have 'evolved' in that we as a whole society have weeded out the good from bad ideas and beliefs (memes?) in a way similar to how natural selection weeds out good from bad genes.
 
Camerama
 
Reply Mon 18 Jan, 2010 03:26 pm
@Camerama,
I agree completely with that. Though i fear it is more due to trial and error. A look at any history book will reveal mankind's mistakes. That is the value of history, it ensures a steady progression towards an ideal.(Though sometimes our ideas foster stagnation.) My question to YOU, is whether or not, as you put it, those "good genes" have gotten better. Are you BORN more intelligent than a fuedal serf, or an American colonist, or will someone from 2096 be NATURALLY more intelligent?
 
Jebediah
 
Reply Mon 18 Jan, 2010 03:29 pm
@Camerama,
I remember reading that children of a smart person and a stupid person tend to be smart, like the intelligent part was the dominant gene. But then, they haven't found genes that can account for more than 3-4 IQ points, so maybe it's due to upbringing after all. But just because they haven't found them doesn't mean they aren't there.

I don't know :surrender:
 
Greg phil
 
Reply Mon 18 Jan, 2010 03:53 pm
@Camerama,
Camerama;120866 wrote:
I agree completely with that. Though i fear it is more due to trial and error. A look at any history book will reveal mankind's mistakes. That is the value of history, it ensures a steady progression towards an ideal.(Though sometimes our ideas foster stagnation.) My question to YOU, is whether or not, as you put it, those "good genes" have gotten better. Are you BORN more intelligent than a fuedal serf, or an American colonist, or will someone from 2096 be NATURALLY more intelligent?

A question to ME is it Wink
well I do think intelligence CAN be limited by genetics (see Brunner et al, fogot the date but it is late 20th century - a gene mutation caused the males in a family to develope mental retardation).
but I think its more to do with your upbringing for the most part. A person who experiences a colourful world and sees lots of different things and so has more scope to THINK about the world will be more intelligent than people who eat junk food and watch too much TV. Also honest education is key. Being told what to believe is bad for intellectual development while being given the tools to think critically is great.
Some peole may well be NATURALLY more intelligent, but the main factor is a healthy life experience.

Ideas are core to intelligent - and ideas do not exist in genes, they exists in the beliefs and values of a social group and of one's experiences.
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Fri 5 Mar, 2010 02:52 am
@Jebediah,
:perplexed:
Jebediah;120870 wrote:
I remember reading that children of a smart person and a stupid person tend to be smart, like the intelligent part was the dominant gene. But then, they haven't found genes that can account for more than 3-4 IQ points, so maybe it's due to upbringing after all. But just because they haven't found them doesn't mean they aren't there.

I don't know :surrender:


I doubt if intelligence is a very open, visionair way of thinking. As far as I rember from taking the tests the questions were not very creative.

Sequential thinking is thinking a Human thinks lineair like a two bit computer. It never occurs to you to have long "forgotten"memories ? No pc can give you this associated information from the Past.:Glasses:
 
Pyrrho
 
Reply Fri 5 Mar, 2010 08:55 am
@Camerama,
Camerama;120815 wrote:
I'm no anthropologist, so correct me if I'm wrong, but Man's ability to assimilate, organize, and store knowledge is a unique faculty(Barring perhaps migrational patterns). It is a point where mankind diverges from animalia. ...



It is not unique to humans, although humans generally appear to do this to a greater degree than other known animals. If one compares the behaviors of a mature animal with those of an immature one, one will typically be able to discern a significant difference which is naturally attributed to greater experience with the world, which is to say, greater knowledge.
 
Arjuna
 
Reply Fri 5 Mar, 2010 10:14 am
@Pyrrho,
Pyrrho;136465 wrote:
It is not unique to humans, although humans generally appear to do this to a greater degree than other known animals. If one compares the behaviors of a mature animal with those of an immature one, one will typically be able to discern a significant difference which is naturally attributed to greater experience with the world, which is to say, greater knowledge.
And don't you think cultures also mature.. accumulating wisdom (if only limited to a certain line of development.) So if a person is born later in his culture's evolution, he'll seem smarter.

Or maybe wisdom doesn't accumulate. Each generation has to start over.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Fri 5 Mar, 2010 10:22 am
@Arjuna,
Arjuna;136492 wrote:
And don't you think cultures also mature.. accumulating wisdom (if only limited to a certain line of development.) So if a person is born later in his culture's evolution, he'll seem smarter.

Or maybe wisdom doesn't accumulate. Each generation has to start over.


The collective knowledge can grow, but it is still up to the individual to access that knowledge. In other words, our collective knowledge being greater than during any other point in history, does not mean that people will seem smarter; they still have to put in the effort. Intelligence is just as much an innate gift as it is a result of motivation, determination, and effort.

The question is, are there currently more humans which value wisdom and intellectual growth than during any other point in history? Well, that's certainly debatable. I do not know. What do you think?
 
Arjuna
 
Reply Fri 5 Mar, 2010 10:50 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;136493 wrote:
The collective knowledge can grow, but it is still up to the individual to access that knowledge. In other words, our collective knowledge being greater than during any other point in history, does not mean that people will seem smarter; they still have to put in the effort. Intelligence is just as much an innate gift as it is a result of motivation, determination, and effort.

The question is, are there currently more humans which value wisdom and intellectual growth than during any other point in history? Well, that's certainly debatable. I do not know. What do you think?
I think the pure mass of information available is creating people with an enhanced ability to process information. I can't say to what extent hard work is involved. Toddlers effortlessly become polylingual.

Wisdom is another matter.. some things require direct experience. Experience tends to come on its own schedule. So I had the experience of interacting with a 20 year old who I quickly realized was smarter than me. In due course, I got my bearings back because I realized she was lying about something... and she had no idea I could tell. That's what I mean by wisdom that comes from experience.

As for the people valuing wisdom and intellectual growth: America has a really high high-school dropout rate. I'm looking forward to a book by David Brooks where he talks about predictors for drop-out rates that come from brain research. Turns out you can predict at an early age if someone is going to drop out of high school.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Fri 5 Mar, 2010 10:52 am
@Camerama,
Arjuna wrote:

Turns out you can predict at an early age if someone is going to drop out of high school.


Is that so? Can you point me to the title of this book, please? I would be interested.
 
Arjuna
 
Reply Fri 5 Mar, 2010 11:59 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;136506 wrote:
Is that so? Can you point me to the title of this book, please? I would be interested.

It's not published yet. I'm looking forward to it because he intends to draw recent research into cognition into the realm of public policy.

Charlie Rose - David Brooks, The New York Times

This is an interview with him where toward the end he talks about the book. If you don't have time to see the whole interview, there's a transcript where you can jump to the end. He talks about the marshmallow test, which can predict at age four a person's success in college.

The whole interview is great, though. He talks about pessimism about American government, thoughts about a potential political upheaval resulting from distrust. He also talks about generativity: the effect of older people and how important their viewpoint is at this point.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Fri 5 Mar, 2010 06:51 pm
@Greg phil,
Greg;120858 wrote:
Yeah I think our minds have 'evolved' in that we as a whole society have weeded out the good from bad ideas and beliefs (memes?) in a way similar to how natural selection weeds out good from bad genes.


Yes, it does seem that society is well described as an organism. Our vanity tends to deny this, but we all stand on the shoulders of the dead. Korzybski liked to call man a time-binding animal, but the thought wasn't new. He stated it well, though. (Manhood of Humanity)
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Fri 9 Apr, 2010 12:06 pm
@Camerama,
Camerama;120815 wrote:
I'm no anthropologist, so correct me if I'm wrong, but Man's ability to assimilate, organize, and store knowledge is a unique faculty(Barring perhaps migrational patterns). It is a point where mankind diverges from animalia. My question to you, is whether or not our ability to assimilate, organize, and store knowledge has evolved, or developed, and if so why? In short, are individuals such as Chris Langan or Stephen Hawking more/less "INNATELY"intelligent than those like Locke or Satre, or even men(not exclusively) like Aristotle or Plato.(It is not limited to philosophy, just throwing names out there.) Is this decay/progression of intelligence incidental? Is it consequence of man's trek through time? Or does the mind simply evolve?(Excuse any generalizations)
In order to forfill most of ones potential intelligence, you have to have the tools to evolve it. I'm sure there has been many Einsteins and Hawkings ..etc amongst the rainforest indians, but they didn't have the tools to evolve their bright minds, no kind of storage of knowledge other than word of mouth, elders who would only sort the relevant knowledge suited for the tribes needs ..etc, that's why a strong foundation of seemingly irrelevant and extravagant knowledge has a very hard time surviveing in primitive tribal enviroment, it takes a strong foundation in order to evolve.
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Fri 9 Apr, 2010 12:49 pm
@Arjuna,
In order for the catloging to take place one must first be able to abstract experienctial information and project experiential information into other situations and other media. The indexing of information says nothing about the brain processing power. Indexing information is simply another aspect of the ability to project the need for information from experience. the accumulation of information since the inception of indexing historically coupled with the changing culture surrounding the access, implementation, and the indexing itself of said indexing makes it impossible to compare a classical philosopher and a modern quantum astrophysicist. The math being more complex does not necessarily mean one is "smarter" than the other especially given the core information indexed from which the thinker is drawing his/her abstractable information.
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Fri 9 Apr, 2010 04:25 pm
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead;150008 wrote:
In order for the catloging to take place one must first be able to abstract experienctial information and project experiential information into other situations and other media. The indexing of information says nothing about the brain processing power. Indexing information is simply another aspect of the ability to project the need for information from experience. the accumulation of information since the inception of indexing historically coupled with the changing culture surrounding the access, implementation, and the indexing itself of said indexing makes it impossible to compare a classical philosopher and a modern quantum astrophysicist. The math being more complex does not necessarily mean one is "smarter" than the other especially given the core information indexed from which the thinker is drawing his/her abstractable information.
? ..so you would say "spontanious genesis" can hold some hidden value? Freuds phallos and penis envy is a very highly regarded sientific way of psycoanalyzing people?

..oh yes, it's soooo very difficult to compare things.

I gladly use some medival physician techniques on you, we can start with a blood letting.
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Fri 9 Apr, 2010 04:55 pm
@HexHammer,
Mister Hex:

If you had met traveled or lived with so called primitive people you might recognize their superior intelligence in specific arenas. The medical technological differences between any two times/places/cultures does not reflect on the intelligence of said people it reflects on a historical sequence of events leading there. A book that might interest you that treats this subject might be Guns Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond in which you will find a wonderful bibiolography of articles by neurologists, anthropologists, economists, biologists etc...
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Fri 9 Apr, 2010 05:39 pm
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead;150065 wrote:
Mister Hex:

If you had met traveled or lived with so called primitive people you might recognize their superior intelligence in specific arenas. The medical technological differences between any two times/places/cultures does not reflect on the intelligence of said people it reflects on a historical sequence of events leading there. A book that might interest you that treats this subject might be Guns Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond in which you will find a wonderful bibiolography of articles by neurologists, anthropologists, economists, biologists etc...
So you want my blood letting? Also my mercury cure? We all know mercury can cure everything.

I do know tribes and non western thinking can be quite outstanding, buddhist monks keeping their sanity after years of isolation in chineese prisons, how fakirs in India showed the west how they could control the autonom system, how an African tribe knew of the dog star ..etc.

..but still, I will unselfishly give you free mideval treatmen.

Imo you need to specify a bit, else you reach to broad.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Epistemology
  3. » Sequential Intelligence
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 08/15/2020 at 01:23:32