Is intelligence dependant upon knowledge?

Is intelligence dependant upon knowledge?

If a genius lost their memory in e.g. a car accident but their brain was otherwise not physically harmed, would they still be as intelligent as before, but just not know anything?

If twins or clones were separated at birth, one had no education the other had the best, would the latter be more intelligent?

If a brain is analogously like a computer, surely an i7 is an i7?

On the other hand, a musician can gain extra grey matter with the advancement of their skills. Yet can learn without knowing music scales etc.

How do dogs and other creatures ‘know’? As I see it, a dog must have quite an intellect in order to distinguish between millions of smells e.g. they can tell if you have cancer. I am not sure if a dog can cognate language as we do [though maybe in a small way], perhaps it is more likely that it detects what we mean by detecting hormonal changes?

They are dependent on one another. Intelligence is a tool, which without knowledge, is no better than a hammer which sits around doing absolutely nothing.
Intelligence is what gives us the capacity to gather in the knowledge, which knowledge in turn creates more intelligence within us if we use it for practical purposes.
They kind of do a form of tango together.

That’s pretty much it.

Intelligence is “the ability to solve problems/challenges”. Obviously there are very many schemes and strategies involved. Being able to deduce the strategies is one great facet of intelligence (that’s the one that I excel in). Being able to remember the strategy so that you don’t have to figure it out every time is a great time saver which happens to be required for almost all challenges (that’s the one that I least excel at). During college, I always re-derived all of the math or engineering formulas during the test. I greatly impressed the profs with that skill and on occasion taught them something they never knew. The down side is that hardly ever got to finish a test.

Intelligence doesn’t come in merely one greater or weaker flavor, but in a great variety of flavors, each with its own range and degree.

hi miss dragon
I agree they do a tango, but ‘being intelligent’ is perhaps more like being an i7 computer, one can utilise it ~ its an ability to learn and resolve things. Does knowledge actually create or enhance intelligence or the utility of it?

I am left wondering what it is once we empty it of knowledge?

‘we don’t need no education’ – pink Floyd

what if intelligence is always the same?

They would have the capacity to become just as intelligent. Yes…and at the very least, they would at least know that they can learn again, to gather in that knowledge. Many people have their memories but they aren’t so intelligent when it comes to making those memories work for them.

Doesn’t our Intelligent Quotient go up as we learn things? Intelligence is the tool which we use. Some tools are better and more powerful - capable of accomplishing more.

A beautiful box full of unlimited and challenging possibilities. the more the native intelligence, the greater the unlimited possibilities.
I mean, after all, just because a room has become swept of all dust, does not mean that the dust cannot enter in again. :laughing: Poor analogy, huh?

[size=200]YES IT DOES, you dweeb. :stuck_out_tongue: [/size] How is it that the scientist of today has been able to stand upon the shoulders of the scientist of yesterday? How is it that Carl Sagan was able to see as far as he was able except by climbing up on the shoulders of William Herschel to look through his telescope? How is it that we can begin to understand illusion and separate it from reality by taking a walk into Plato’s Cave with him? The scientic explanation for the rainbow does not take away from the beauty and magic of it, it enhances human intelligence to the point of wanting to grasp and to know more. Intelligence begets knowledge begets intelligence begets knowledge ad continuuum.

But like anything, it can be used for creation or destruction. It depends on whose hands it is put into and/or how it is used or abused.

We have to first assume that our knowledge means something of course and that we even have ‘knowledge’, and that calculators don’t have higher IQ’s lol.

Ha yes, that’s a crap analogy :evilfun: . If the mind was a room wouldn’t it be empty? …and isn’t that the native intelligence?

:astonished: :laughing: . So an ancient Wiseman e.g. Confucius cannot be as intelligent as a contemporary scientist? :sunglasses:
How about some ancient mystic who’s knowledge was all wrong; is he/she less intelligent? Consider that they may have a similar amount of information as a scientist ~ so one would assume the mind is doing the same amount of processing and work!

People who refer to me as a dweeb tend to end up with egg on their face; prepare to get splatted! :violence-duel: :stuck_out_tongue:

That depends on what you learned.
I can teach you things that will cause it to go down.

More often than not, intelligence does not change much during life. Though, it could be done to some extent but that requires an extraordinary effort.

Secondly, intelligence is merely a tool by which the knowledge can be acquired.

It is like a pot and quantity or the substance that a pot can accommodate, is totally dependent on its size.

If we put many pots of different sizes in the rain, every pot would accommodate water only according to its capacity, though rain is the same for all.

And, there are two types of knowledge; Informative Knowledge and empirical knowledge.

And, wisdom is how one uses his intelligence and knowledge. There are two types of wisdom. One is related to the capacity to discern good from bad. And, the second is about having the intent to act up on the good.

Thus, it is not necessary that a wise person must be knowledgeable and intelligent. And, in the same way, it is also not necessary that a knowledgeable person must be intelligent.

Furthermore, it is also not necessary that an intelligent person must be knowledgeable, because, acquiring knowledge depends on circumstances and wisdom (intent).

with love,
sanjay

Amorphos :evilfun:

I do not like the word assume much. If we know something, why would we have to take it for granted? If we don’t know, we reflect. We can know that our knowlege means something by the way in which we respond to it and utilize it.
As far as numbers go, a calculator has a much higher I.Q. than I do.

Hmmm. is memory all that is contained within a mind? Just because the room has been swept clean of all dust, does not mean that the room is empty. There is still the furniture and furnishings which reside - all that the brain gives to the mind to function - a harmony of sorts between brain and mind. Native intelligence goes nowhere simply because memory has been lost. There are different aspects of the brain and mind.

Just because i didn’t include Confucius, doesn’t mean I would have left him out…though I did. :laughing:
Confusius may or may not have been Wiser than a contempory scientist. That remains to be seen I think. The capacity for great intelligence does not necessarily presuppose great wisdom. The same is true for the opposite. Always look to the INDIVIDUAL.
I don’t like to assume anything - but each mind and brain is different in ways so why would you assume that the same amount of processing and work is going on? But Confusius’s mind may have been as strong as Sagan’s. Sagan was also really wise, at least in my book he was. But I will give you that Confusius’ native intelligence may have been as great as that of a scientist. But we can’t know this, can we? But what IS most important is how that brain and mind was used - how the knowledge that one has is used.

[/quote]
Oh you. I meant that affectionately. #-o And incidentally, I felt no egg on my face. What happened is that it fell against the wall, splattered and now there it remains, all over your face. :laughing: But I will be sure never to call you a dweeb again. :blush: But you may call me a dweeb at any time. :stuck_out_tongue:

In part it depends on how we define knowledge. If we define it so that it primarily is facts, the ability to get correct answers on tests kinda stuff, then there is some independence. But if knowledge includes things at a more meta level, like how to learn, how to gather information, that because the tree looks smallish and part of the trunk is blocked by that other tree, I know it is somewhat far away - iow more generalized kinds of knowing - which dogs also have, though not with quite the range we do - then there is no indenpendence. An intelligent person who had their memory erased would likely be able to recover to a functional state faster - because they would more quickly learn how to learn, etc.

There is another kind of knowledge but probably not the kind you are talking about. It has to do with knowing your limitations. Intelligence is knowing your limitations.

Zinnat
I largely agree, but would just like to ask about the ‘pot’ thing; do we all have different size pots or intellectual capacity? How would you say it relates to consciousness, does that come in different sizes too, and are they correlative?

Fearsome dragon lady :slight_smile: :royalty-queen:

Right, and one day we will get all of human knowledge on a computer, but it wont be intelligent, though it will have all the facts and answer any relevant question.

So we can conclude to some degree, that intelligence is not biased upon the kind of knowledge we have, more the amount and utility of it.

I know you meant it affectionately, but I thought i’d give you a good fight :wink: . Wow that egg sure travelled a long way! :astonished: :stuck_out_tongue:

moreno

If the knowledge is wrong, does that make one less intelligent? Or if it is archaic e.g. is Confucius less intelligent than a contemporary scientist?

The meta level is interesting too; what if we think of the intellect as like the consciousness ~ like an object of sorts? Or is the consciousness the intellect?

Well, this would lead us to that zone where a western intellectual mindset feels somewhat uncomfortable. And also, i do not have anything to make you to believe either.

Our subconscious mind is far more powerful than conscious mind. The capacity of the our mind (conscious) is dependent on its intimacy with the subconscious mind. The closer these two would be, the stronger the conscious mind (intelligence) would be.

There is not much difference between the capacity of the unconscious mind of different people, or even animals. The difference lies in only between their closeness.

That decides the size of the pot and has nothing to do with consciousness.

with love,
sanjay

Knowledge: second-hand experiences.
Raw data.

Intelligence: perceiving patterns in the data.
Reading Wikipedia to repeat the information learned, does not mean you understand it.

All of it? then yes.

Kind of apples and oranges.

By meta I meant knowledge that is not like
cows have four legs
hydrogen atoms have one electron
and so on.
But more heuristic, generalized or interpreting kinds of knowledge.