Originally posted by miko2d
bounder: That is one that has escaped me. Could you fill me in with a little precis if you've read it Miko?
Why, it's about empirically measuring intelligence, of course - that's what you've asked, right?
I will try to get to the books you've mentioned. I am not sure if I can ever believe a claim that concious thought appeared as late as 3000-4000 years ago, as Jaynes writes but stranger things were known to happen...
The Nrretranders' theme of the prevalence of "unconcious mind" hardly affects discussion of intelligence measurement anyway - concious or not does not really make a difference whether it can be measured and timed.
miko
Hmm, I was hoping for a little more detail on that Jensen number than a description. Like is it possible to sum up, in even a long way, his definition of intelligence? I'm assuming, from the title he's talking about measuring mental ability: is that the same as intelligence?
The reason I ask is because every definition of intelligence that I hear is different, so measuring it ought to be a tricky proposition unless its framed in context (i.e ability on spatio-visual tests, human empathy tests, etc.)
Does Jenses frame his definition of intelligence in strict context or is he after an holistic definition that is all encompassing and does not need complicated balancing for age/ability/culture etc.?
If so what is his strict context? What is the
g of the title?
Well I think the Norretanders outlook is quite interesting if you apply it to intelligence. In some cases it would be possible to argue that the conscious mind is actually quite stupid, and the rest of it is quite a bit more intelligent. Regardless of the incomputabilty of consciousness and hence intelligence.
Jaynes case kinda supports that of Norretanders, in that we do many things quite unconsciously much better than we do when thinking about them. Although that's where he starts out from. Where he ends up is indeed a refreshing take on the origins of conciousness.
IMO Intelligence is a quality of the human mind that we all recognise and yet are unable to describe adequately for reasons best outlined by Hofstadter, but put simply to cogitate on intelligence is to turn the microscope in on itself.
Which is here Godel, Escher and Bach have all stepped in, showing that we can reflect these qualities of infinite regress and paradox much more clearly through maths, music and images than we can through language.
The linguistic mind is
constrained or even enslaved to its own way of thought which can be easily demonstrated by one simple sentence:
This sentence is false
On the face of it, a verbal joke or silly paradox; dig deeper and you find out strange and weird things about language, consicousness and intelligence.
Oh Miko, you are going to love
Gödel, Escher, Bach an eternal golden braid by D.R Hofstadter(edit- oops forgot to finish post)
if and when you get round to reading it. I am fascinated by the study of consciousness, intelligence and with it neurobiology and neurochemistry. I'm no expert, no more than an enthusiastic amateur so I will look into this Jensen book.
