Gobbo on Intelligence

[Gobbo]

Before I get into the thick of this, I’m going to paint a quick picture for us to examine.

Remember the ILP RL get together thing that was proposed a while ago? Let’s just say that it happened. Just imagine this for a moment. Talking in real life, not being able to think about what you want to say, perhaps not even getting what you want to say out.

My overall point with this thread is to attempt to show that intelligence is an illusion we paint for ourselves to operate in society. In reality intelligence is just a measure of how well you can do things which benefit yourself and/or other people in the world we live in.

It is quite plausible that someone could have been born in the prehistoric ages who had the potential to be a world famous physicist -today-, but back then he would have been labeled as dumb or useless because he did not have the capacities to go out and hunt, and provide for himself and the other nomads.

I believe that everyone is born a genius in some aspect. Not everyone realizes what his or hers particular ability is though. Consider a pro athlete, let’s just use Lebron James as an example (because… fuck he’s good). Lebron was born with a special genius level quality which enables him to do something in the world of basketball better than nearly anyone else. I can’t say exactly what it is, cause I don’t really know just something to do with hand/eye co-ordination. There are likely many people out there who share the same level of this ability with Lebron, but their other attributes don’t enable them to truly stand out in society. So for example Lebron is 6’8, and he’s strong, quick, etc.

A different example on the above could come in the form of someone with severe autism. Alot of people with Autism have the incredible ability to see different (number) patterns and operations. The difference here is that the autistic person does not have the other peripheral abilities (social, communicative, etc) and so isn’t labeled a ‘genius’. Many, if not all math genius can’t really explain how they do complex operations, they claim that they just sort of arrive at the answer. They can work it out on paper, but it’s generally easier for them to just do the operation in their head.

Who is to say that being good at math or philosophy is really any ‘better’ than being the best basket weaver, or basketball player? Information retention and comprehension apply to so much more than most people think. I go to a school full of pretentious philosophy hippies… I watch them look down on athletes and it just seems so… stupid

[stars_sons]

so if i understand correctly, you’re saying that intelligence is what we so commonly refer to as ability?

Intelligence deals with mental capabilities such as learning, reasoning, solving problems…You can thereby apply what intelligence you have to as you say “operate in society” which i recognize as ability. I think you are making a mistake in assuming these two things to be one in the same.

[Jon_F]

Gobbo,

Interesting point. The problem I have with intelligence is that it is so difficult to pin down, and that people often look down on, as you say, the basketball player as less intelligent than the philosopher.

Jon F

[Tab]

‘Gobbo on Intelligence’

Nah, I don’t have the heart…

[someoneisatthedoor]

Short answer: the mathematician or logician is ‘more intelligent’ that the basketballer because no matter how good one is at basketball one never learns the necessary evaluative functions in order to make such a judgement.

Of course this doesn’t preclude basketballers from learning the necessary evaluative functions in other ways. As such the stereotype of sportspeople as thick, or at least unintelligent can be a completely inaccurate portrayal. A sportsperson isn’t only a sportsperson, they could also be learned in other respects.

But nonetheless one doesn’t learn philosophy from sports, one learns other things (primarily physical things, control of movement and so on). Just as a philosopher cannot tell an architect and a builder what is the best way to build a house without learning the necessary information and skills and techniques nor can a sportsperson expect to be equivalently as intelligent as someone who has devoted most of their life to study.

Put simply, you need philosophy in order to answer the question, therefore answering it in a way which criticises philosophy (or philosophers) is contradictory. Most basketballers are less intelligent than most philosophers, it comes with the territory. Just as most basketballers are more physical adept than most philosophers, and as such are better at various things where intelligence isn’t an important factor.

Calling everyone a genius simply devalues the term, making it meaningless. Any word which is universally applicable (i.e. is purely redundant) is meaningless. This is a technical criticism which you can ignore if you wish…

[Gobbo]

Calling everyone a genius simply devalues the term, making it meaningless.

Well… that’s what I’m trying to do.

You guys are missing the point… but I can’t really get back into it right now as I’m on the road for b-ball

I’ll respond when I get back home… I’m hoping Daybreak will post something as me and him have talked about this before and he’s shown a grasp of this concept.

[W.J_Wilczek]

edited

[Mad_Man_P]

Old_Gobbo

Do you mean to say that we have no means of mesuring intelligence other then via practical application?

[Polemarchus]

someoneis at the door wrote

Short answer: the mathematician or logician is ‘more intelligent’ that the basketballer because no matter how good one is at basketball one never learns the necessary evaluative functions in order to make such a judgement.

Hi somone,
I can see it from another angle. The “simple” act of walking involves, in effect, the solving of multiple differential equations in real-time. Of course, we don’t solve these equations explicitly, by manipulating idealized symbols. Applied mathematics necessarily involves a simplification of the process that it is meant to model, whereas, for example, a football player’s living equations of motions leave no applicable aspect of the world unaccounted for.

I once spent several hours lying on a flat boulder, above the treeline, at the summit of the mountain where I live and work. Ravens were busily slope soaring the western ridge; using the prevailing southwestern breeze to their advantage. After a while I began to notice that certain aerial manuevers were set-up well in advance of their final execution. It’s not that I was suprised at the notion they possessed forethought; it was the degree and complexity of the set-up that amazed me. As I lay there watching I wondered if I suddenly were to sprout working wings, how long would it take for me to learn to use them as gracefully, (or seemingly) as cleverly as the Ravens? Our intelligence is explict, theirs implicit. The contemporary British philosopher and surgeon, Raymond Tallis, speaks of man as the “explicit animal” - and so we are.

Granted, intelligent ravens will never likely launch space-probes to Pluto or colonize Mars. And yet, the intelligence of the raven will never lead it to foul its nest such that it would have to colonize Mars. What’s more, for all our pride and self-congratulation on our “superior” intelligence, it’s possible that our intelligence is to an alien species what a grasshopper’s intelligence is to ours.

And yet, if I were beamed-up to that alien race’s mothership, and if they offered to outfit my head with their vastly enhanced intelligence, I would refuse. Bearing in mind Leibniz’ contention;

“Suppose that some individual could suddenly become King of China on condition, however, of forgetting what he had been, as though being born again, would it not amount to the same practically, or as far as the effects could be perceived, as if the individual were annihilated, and a king of China were the same instant created in his place? The individual would have no reason to desire this.” Leibniz, Discourse on Metaphysics, XXXIV

For even if they guaranteed that I would not forget the events of my past, from the vantagepoint of a vastly enhanced intelligence I could never understand what (to paraphrase Nagel) it had been like to be me. It would be as though a King of China had been created and I had died. In his, The Reasons of Love, the well-known philosopher, Harry Frankfurt, observed

“Rationality and the capacity to love are the most powerful, emblematic and most highly prized features of human nature.”

Rationality and love are not two isolated aspects of our human condition. They are intertwinned to the core of our Self.

Learning is one of the great pleasures of life (as is loving). Think of how much joy we, as philosophers, would miss if we were suddenly innoculated with über intelligence? I dearly want to increase my capacity to love as much as my capacity to know. But analogously, in the spirit of Augustine’s supposed plea, I simply ask

“O Lord, give me chastity. But not yet.”

Regards,
Michael

[Mentat_Monkey]

While it may be possible that the brain’s intelligence becomes hardwired through childhood to make a human more specialised for life in whatever activities he/she preactices whether they be using the brain’s intellect in a subconscous way as in athletics or a conscious way like mathmatics, I think we are missing the point. The real point of the discussion is that Old_Gobbo is scared that if anyone meets him in real life they would find that he is not the witty philisophical genius and shoot from the hip comic extraordinaire that he comes across as on ILP, but is in fact a habitually stoned, rather slow paced basketball fan who can put together an excellent reply only if he has some eye drops and a quarter of an hour to compose a coherent response.
If this IS what the point of the thread REALLY was, then all I can say is that the above description applies to pretty much everyone else in some way or another and maybe Old Gobbo should consider that he’s not the only one who thinks his posts sound smarter than he feels he is. If this is not the case at all and I’m reading more into this than there really is, then I’ve pretty much mortally insulted Old Gobbo on a fairly personal level and unconditionally appologize in advance.

[someoneisatthedoor]

Dear Polemarchus,

@Polemarchus

someoneis at the door wrote

Short answer: the mathematician or logician is ‘more intelligent’ that the basketballer because no matter how good one is at basketball one never learns the necessary evaluative functions in order to make such a judgement.

Hi somone,
I can see it from another angle. The “simple” act of walking involves, in effect, the solving of multiple differential equations in real-time. Of course, we don’t solve these equations explicitly, by manipulating idealized symbols. Applied mathematics necessarily involves a simplification of the process that it is meant to model, whereas, for example, a football player’s living equations of motions leave no applicable aspect of the world unaccounted for.

I once spent several hours lying on a flat boulder, above the treeline, at the summit of the mountain where I live and work. Ravens were busily slope soaring the western ridge; using the prevailing southwestern breeze to their advantage. After a while I began to notice that certain aerial manuevers were set-up well in advance of their final execution. It’s not that I was suprised at the notion they possessed forethought; it was the degree and complexity of the set-up that amazed me. As I lay there watching I wondered if I suddenly were to sprout working wings, how long would it take for me to learn to use them as gracefully, (or seemingly) as cleverly as the Ravens? Our intelligence is explict, theirs implicit. The contemporary British philosopher and surgeon, Raymond Tallis, speaks of man as the “explicit animal” - and so we are.

I don’t see your point with this imaginative example. I don’t see why intelligence, a fully human construction which serves certain purposes but has no value beyond that, has anything to do with an animal learning to fly.

Granted, intelligent ravens will never likely launch space-probes to Pluto or colonize Mars. And yet, the intelligence of the raven will never lead it to foul its nest such that it would have to colonize Mars. What’s more, for all our pride and self-congratulation on our “superior” intelligence, it’s possible that our intelligence is to an alien species what a grasshopper’s intelligence is to ours.

The raven couldn’t care less either way, the human could. ‘Superior’ or not (I recognise ‘superiority’ as a metaphor in such cases) the difference is there…

And yet, if I were beamed-up to that alien race’s mothership, and if they offered to outfit my head with their vastly enhanced intelligence, I would refuse. Bearing in mind Leibniz’ contention;

“Suppose that some individual could suddenly become King of China on condition, however, of forgetting what he had been, as though being born again, would it not amount to the same practically, or as far as the effects could be perceived, as if the individual were annihilated, and a king of China were the same instant created in his place? The individual would have no reason to desire this.” Leibniz, Discourse on Metaphysics, XXXIV

They’d also have no reason to not desire this, unless they were particularly attached to their own existence…

Of course, if one had to compromise or sacrifice something one counts as more valuable than intelligence for increased intelligence one wouldn’t bother, but you don’t have to sacrifice anything to actively improve ones intelligence just as you don’t have to sacrifice anything (of this sort) to improve ones physical abilities. Indeed I see little difference between the two…

For even if they guaranteed that I would not forget the events of my past, from the vantagepoint of a vastly enhanced intelligence I could never understand what (to paraphrase Nagel) it had been like to be me. It would be as though a King of China had been created and I had died. In his, The Reasons of Love, the well-known philosopher, Harry Frankfurt, observed

“Rationality and the capacity to love are the most powerful, emblematic and most highly prized features of human nature.”

Rationality and love are not two isolated aspects of our human condition. They are intertwinned to the core of our Self.

Intelligence need not have anything to do with rationality, and reason is only ever the slave of the passions.

Learning is one of the great pleasures of life (as is loving). Think of how much joy we, as philosophers, would miss if we were suddenly innoculated with über intelligence? I dearly want to increase my capacity to love as much as my capacity to know. But analogously, in the spirit of Augustine’s supposed plea, I simply ask

“O Lord, give me chastity. But not yet.”

Regards,
Michael

I see your point and I will consider what you’ve said. I admire intelligence as a virtue (in roughly the Aristotelian sense of ‘virtue’) but I don’t admire it above all, all of the time…

[GalacticHeart]

one can only be as smart as they are themself. if your 90 precent yourself your 90 percent a genius. math isnt real, inertia is just a word. is stephan hawking smart?

[Mad_Man_P]

My definition is this: intelligence is “the range of comprehension”

and that’s pretty much it…

I have an IQ of 240+… and i still cannot comprehend a damn thing… go figure…

[Gobbo]

Wow… Polemarchus that was a great post. Exactly what I was looking for.

Saitd,

I don’t see your point with this imaginative example. I don’t see why intelligence, a fully human construction which serves certain purposes but has no value beyond that, has anything to do with an animal learning to fly.

This the crux of my point: Intelligence has been constructed in a certain way by us humans, and as such we view it a certain way.

The reason I created this thread is that I honestly cannot see why being good at ‘the sciences’ is really any better than being good at conceptualizing other things like the movement patterns and reactions of an opponant, or basket weaving… etc.

Put simply, you need philosophy in order to answer the question, therefore answering it in a way which criticises philosophy (or philosophers) is contradictory.

Yes, you DO need philosophy to answer this question but who says that in answering/proposing what I am… makes me superior to the garbage man or whoever else. Because THEY have something that they excell at… it’s jus that it may be… blackgammon, or… noticing shades of color, etc. (for more on this refer to the original thread post)

Does that help at all?

Mentat,

If this IS what the point of the thread REALLY was, then all I can say is that the above description applies to pretty much everyone else in some way or another

EXACTLY

[thirst4metal]

Hello F(r)iends,

Intelligence should be compared with like people/groups.
Let’s compare apples to apples (sorta).

[u]Intelligence: LeBron James vs. Kobe Bryant:[/u]
They both dedicated their lives to basketball since their youth.
They both jumped from high school to the NBA.
They both have amazing basketball skills.
They both average over 30 pts per game.
They both have similar physical gifts.
They are both near equally “physically intelligent.”
Listen to them speak and you will observe the differences in mental intelligence.
Kobe is Lebron’s superior in mental intelligence.
Advantage: Kobe.

{end comparison}

The main point is that comparing physical intelligence to mental intelligence is meaningless in terms of debating true genius. True genius must be compared in its field. We don’t compare Einstein to Van Gogh… We don’t compare Frank Gehry to Tolstoy…

-Thirst

[Gobbo]

The main point is that comparing physical intelligence to mental intelligence is meaningless in terms of debating true genius. True genius must be compared in its field. We don’t compare Einstein to Van Gogh… We don’t compare Frank Gehry to Tolstoy…

By George… I think he’s got it.

[someoneisatthedoor]

Dear Gobbo,

@Old_Gobbo

Wow… Polemarchus that was a great post. Exactly what I was looking for.

Saitd,

I don’t see your point with this imaginative example. I don’t see why intelligence, a fully human construction which serves certain purposes but has no value beyond that, has anything to do with an animal learning to fly.

This the crux of my point: Intelligence has been constructed in a certain way by us humans, and as such we view it a certain way.

I don’t think that it has been constructed in a certain way, I see it as irreducibly plural (reason as slave of the passions etc.). Likewise how we view it is irreducibly plural.

The reason I created this thread is that I honestly cannot see why being good at ‘the sciences’ is really any better than being good at conceptualizing other things like the movement patterns and reactions of an opponant, or basket weaving… etc.

The reason why being good at the sciences is ‘better’ (i.e. leads to higher social ranking in many regards) than being a basket weaver (come on Gobbo, the top sportsmen are more famous than the top scientists) is because we live in a technoscientific society.

If you can name a philosopher who is better known globally than David Beckham (a man more well known than George Bush) then I’ll take your point but the way that things are now philosophers are not ranked as ‘better’ than basketballers. When was the last time you saw a forum asking whether or not Basketball was a complete waste of time that creates more problems than it solves? When was the last time you saw an article announcing the Death of Basketball?

Put simply, you need philosophy in order to answer the question, therefore answering it in a way which criticises philosophy (or philosophers) is contradictory.

Yes, you DO need philosophy to answer this question but who says that in answering/proposing what I am… makes me superior to the garbage man or whoever else. Because THEY have something that they excell at… it’s jus that it may be… blackgammon, or… noticing shades of color, etc. (for more on this refer to the original thread post)

Does that help at all?

Of course, and any talent is only ever worth something within a game (any sort of repeated behaviour) that values such a talent. Being able to quote massive great reams of Shakespeare when at a seminar about IT efficiency will not only fail to gain you credibility and respect, it will probably lose you these things on an almost permanent basis. Or just confuse everyone…

I got this point from the off, the leap that you are making that I cannot condone or endorse is that there’s some sort of implicit or explicit ranking system which always takes intelligence to be the supreme virtue.

Sartre is probably the most famous philosopher of the 20th century yet I reckon that outside of western Europe far more people will have heard of Wayne Rooney, who has been around for only 4 years in the limelight.

In the words of an old poster, can you see my difficulties?

[Gobbo]

The reason why being good at the sciences is ‘better’ (i.e. leads to higher social ranking in many regards) than being a basket weaver (come on Gobbo, the top sportsmen are more famous than the top scientists) is because we live in a technoscientific society.

If you can name a philosopher who is better known globally than David Beckham (a man more well known than George Bush) then I’ll take your point but the way that things are now philosophers are not ranked as ‘better’ than basketballers. When was the last time you saw a forum asking whether or not Basketball was a complete waste of time that creates more problems than it solves? When was the last time you saw an article announcing the Death of Basketball?

I feel like you’re agreeing with me in a way… but not.

I think that because we live in a technoscientific society, we regard being procficient in the sciences as ‘better’. Ok… we agree on that. Now, the step I’m trying to make is that if you take away the techno society, we’re just left with a rather ambiguous talent.

In the second paragraph I’ll agree that the public doesn’t regard philosophers as ‘better’ (lol… believe me i know) than basketball players. But that’s my point, it’s the public… and it’s just their artificial view… based on society. There is no ‘better’, objectively speaking… everyone is the same, but not because they actually are the exact same… but because everyone excells at SOMETHING. If society was created around that ‘something’ than the basketweaver might be the most well known person on the planet. Making them ‘better’ than the philosopher, the b-ball player, the scientist and whoever else.

So… take a ‘handicapped’ person. They may not be able to go up the stairs outside the store, and so need the ramp. But who is to say that not being able to walk up stairs makes them disadvantaged? They’re mearly disadvanted in that society.

That same ‘handicapped’ person may be the greatest… I dunno, dart player or whatever in the world.

This may sound liek common sense… but I believe it to be an important point nonetheles.s

[psyque]

O_G,

As a simple answer to your thread–I agree with the point you’re trying to make–the “modern experts” on intelligence over the past 100 years have produced various definitions of “intelligence,” but the common theme underlying all of these–particularly in two famous symposia years ago–is that intelligence should be considered as how well one is able to adapt to and function in one’s environment.

Such a definition probably covers many of the points above, but does so much more comprehensively and succinctly–and we all know that I am famous for my brevity…

[Gobbo]

Actually… that sort of goes against what I’m saying

It’s occuring to me now though, that I’m actually getting into a metaphysical domain.