6 ms·

What I mean is: There is a body of thousands of scientific studies discussing what intelligence means. Yes, some of them diverge in the precise definition, but

What I mean is: There is a body of thousands of scientific studies discussing what intelligence means. Yes, some of them diverge in the precise definition, but if you want to add a new meaning that's useful, you need to convince people why the heaps of existing evidence are not sufficient. That's not an easy task.

WithinReason 5y ago
> There is a body of thousands of scientific studies discussing what intelligence means Which don't agree on a single definition. See for example: https://arxiv.org/abs/0712.3329 https://arxiv.org/abs/0712.3329
- uniqueuid 5y ago
  Yeah, sure, but that's not my argument. My argument is: There are established dimensions of intelligence. There are arbitrarily many potential new dimensions. Coming up with anything and calling it intelligence is not hard and not automatically helpful. The hard part is coming up with something new that makes sense in the context of all the existing findings.
  - throw1234651234 5y ago
    There is not established definitions of intelligence. The closest I can get to is the high level break down of: 1. Crystallized intelligence - stuff you have memorized. This breaks down further with memorized vs experienced, with the latter leading to "wisdom", which really breaks down to how Asimov broke down knowledge - not only knowing the thing, but knowing how you know the thing is true. Because I am dumb, I can't think of a single good example. But it would be something like "We know an object in motion stays in motion because {PERSON} did an {EXPERIMENT} and {PERSON} is credible and you can replicate the {EXPERIMENT} like so". That's "true" knowledge. 2. Fluid intelligence - working memory. The number of things you can keep in your mind at the same time. Declines with age, or maybe disuse, we don't really know. IQ tests are out there. Working memory are out there too in terms of how they affect/correlate with life outcomes and/or IQ. I am obsessed with this topic, but I find nothing concrete past "sleep enough, exercise, learn things, some things, maybe music, maybe lang, we don't know."
    - bryanrasmussen 5y ago
      I think there would have to be an upper level of true knowledge where you know it is true because you understand the math behind the theory, and the bottom level true knowledge it's true because it was validated by a lot of trustworthy people running experiments the outcomes of which would be explained by the theory. Also there should be a type of intelligence - conceives abstract ideas that are not just composed of things they have learned.

WithinReason 5y ago

> There is a body of thousands of scientific studies discussing what intelligence means Which don't agree on a single definition. See for example: https://arxiv.org/abs/0712.3329 https://arxiv.org/abs/0712.3329

uniqueuid 5y ago
Yeah, sure, but that's not my argument. My argument is: There are established dimensions of intelligence. There are arbitrarily many potential new dimensions. Coming up with anything and calling it intelligence is not hard and not automatically helpful. The hard part is coming up with something new that makes sense in the context of all the existing findings.
- throw1234651234 5y ago
  There is not established definitions of intelligence. The closest I can get to is the high level break down of: 1. Crystallized intelligence - stuff you have memorized. This breaks down further with memorized vs experienced, with the latter leading to "wisdom", which really breaks down to how Asimov broke down knowledge - not only knowing the thing, but knowing how you know the thing is true. Because I am dumb, I can't think of a single good example. But it would be something like "We know an object in motion stays in motion because {PERSON} did an {EXPERIMENT} and {PERSON} is credible and you can replicate the {EXPERIMENT} like so". That's "true" knowledge. 2. Fluid intelligence - working memory. The number of things you can keep in your mind at the same time. Declines with age, or maybe disuse, we don't really know. IQ tests are out there. Working memory are out there too in terms of how they affect/correlate with life outcomes and/or IQ. I am obsessed with this topic, but I find nothing concrete past "sleep enough, exercise, learn things, some things, maybe music, maybe lang, we don't know."
  - bryanrasmussen 5y ago
    I think there would have to be an upper level of true knowledge where you know it is true because you understand the math behind the theory, and the bottom level true knowledge it's true because it was validated by a lot of trustworthy people running experiments the outcomes of which would be explained by the theory. Also there should be a type of intelligence - conceives abstract ideas that are not just composed of things they have learned.