I have mentioned "crystalline" and "fluid" intelligence before. Have you any idea how such things could be measured or way in which they are actually applied to tests?
None whatever. I have an impression this distinction is no more than short- and long-term memory. It may be more - I haven't followed that line.
In terms of memory I think I have pointed out the difference in "explicit" and "implicit" memory ... then again I may have posted that video on another link?
Yes, you did. I didn't watch it.
We can say, to some degree, that the number of neurons matters from species to species, but the issue is more about how they are connected and the bodily functions
We knew this. No argument.
As I have contrasted intelligence with language,
I see no 'contrast' between and apple and orange; merely some commonalities and some differences.
we are well aware (or at least I am) that no exposure to language does not mean an inability to learn a language
Not quite accurate. In fact, children who do not learn to communicate in their first few years have a much harder time learning language later on, as they have a harder time learning everything else. My source for this, btw, is the studies done on neglected orphans, most intensively in Romania.https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/what-children-from-romanian-orphanages-can-tell-us-about-autism/2017/05/12/c8d772a2-3004-11e7-9dec-764dc781686f_story.html?utm_term=.4fa9afa3f756
- this is what I would take away from the study posted elsewhere in these forums of the deaf man from Mexico who was first exposed to what we call "language" when he was ... 29 I believe?
I'm not sure what you mean here. How does "What we call language" differ from actual language? If you mean he was communicating in sign language and then learned vocal language, that's not so different from growing up Greek and then learning Mandarin. If you mean that he had no communication skills at all for 29 years and then learned language - that would make him quite exceptional.
I made this contrast because "intelligence" is not something we pick up it is something exposed, like language.
What? That's a difficult sentence to interpret. Do you mean that language is inside every infant and just has to be uncovered? Or that intelligence can't be enhanced by stimulation?
The function of exploration of the environment is connected to comfort and stress (something I have mentioned several times.)[/quote Feeling in control effects how we perform. This is one area where I find IQ test circumspect. The degree of relation between neuroticism and intelligence has been noted in some studies.
That wasn't clear to me any of the times you mentioned it. Each of the items is related in some way to the others - i got that far. The exact causal or casual relationships remain ill-defined. (I mentioned early in the first thread that performance on an IQ test, or any other test, is affected, among other factors, by the subject's level of confidence, which is partly affected by his familiarity with tests of that kind.
There seems to me to be a disjoint between the actual day-to-day psychological understanding of humans and the neuroscience, when in fact they are reliant upon each other to further understanding. It is not a A versus B situation.
Not versus. Each specialist can only pursue her own special line of inquiry according to her own discipline's protocols and with her own discipline's tools. Once reliable data in each area has been compiled, reviewed, challenged, tested, revis3ed and corrected, only then is it ready to be compared with, and added to the data collected by different methods by a different speciality.
Co-operation is possible and desirable; co-mingling is neither.
I am happy to go with "uncertainty" as being part of what intelligence deals with. If this is accepted then neuroticism plays a role, and the question becomes is neuroticism a condition of intelligence, or if some aspects of neuroticism should be put under the heading of "intelligence" in order to create a better measure?
In light of your previous use of the word for quite normal human behaviour, I 'm not sure what you consider "neuroticism". Obviously, any mental dysfunction is part of mental function, so of course neuroses would be an attribute of intelligence. Whether the degree and type of neurosis is directly relatable to measured IQ, I don't know. I don't even know how to go about proving or disproving such a hypothesis, there are so many variables in play.
If we wish to look for an underlying neural mechanism for "intelligence" then we'll likely have to make multiple studies on various different tests and see what common neurons light up in the brain.
Somebody should get right on that. Maybe they already have.
As for theory of mind, when it comes ot fluid intelligence I believe octopuses are more "intelligent" than humans on some tests.
Every species has a different evolutionary path from the point of divergence. Every species had to adapt to its own environmental conditions and overcome its own tribulations. When we give a human-type intelligence test to a non-human, we're not actually testing their native intelligence. What we're testing is the similarity of their intelligence to ours.
I hope we can agree on one thing. That is computers are not intelligent.
Not yet, anyway. They have to go down their own evolutionary path to become something other than tools. We can use the term "machine intelligence" for the facility of performing operations and adapting to varied requirements. But the operations are still only in response of human input to human demand, not spontaneous of the computer's own volition.
I would say "consciousness" is a prerequisite for "intelligence."
A mind is the prerequisite of both. A mind, as far as I know, can only be produced by a brain. I'm quite willing to posit that anything with a brain has a mind and every mind is both conscious and intelligent - to some degree along a range of zero to some unknown magnitude.
I would therefore say that "a capacity to learn" does not in and of itself represent "intelligence,' even though I would with equal vigor say that "a capacity to learn" is required for intelligence"
I should think it's the other way around. Without intelligence, there can be no learning.
No matter what we do we are constantly EMOTIONALLY involved in the world. I cannot see any possibility for "intelligence" without th epotential for complex emotional interactions (be it with people, other animals or simply rocks and sticks.) That is irrefutable no matter how anyone chooses to dress it up - hence my inclination to look at personality traits in respect to intelligence.
Of course you'd want to look at things and for relationships. It's just that looking at a forest makes it a lot harder to describe a cedar, let alone measure the height of each single tree.