Do we do so on the basis of externalism or internalism?
Is there a external reality of the cosmos that directs one intelligence to be better than another or is it all a internal manifestation?
If judgement of intelligence is a internal manifestation what exactly does that say for society and all of humanity in it’s perpetual motion in striving for intelligence?
I (and any good psychologist) will tell you that: things are first internalised/processed: before manifesting in the external/societal - I guess it’s this processing ability that determines intelligence levels (on the basis of making the right judgement call everytime, or at least hitting the target at a high percentage rate, at least).
Ones percentage rate would determine ones intelligence - I applaud myself… =D>
I am not sure your destinction can even be deconstructed, I think they are merely similar facets of the same concept.
As for the HOW, I think there is no accurate way. Intelligence seems to be much too complex to measure, if you seek to measure process then you loose content and vice versa in reverse.
I beg to differ… when I meet people: as well as assessing their physical looks: I find myself analysing their mental faculties (intelligence levels) as a determina to whether I want to associate with them or not - most of the time I don’t. (It makes a pleasant change when I do, though)!
Intelligence, is as much a part of a person’s obvious attributes: as any physical feature they possess…
Where I am going at is that there truely is no external circuit of intelligence to make a judgement on another human being since such abstractions are reduced to internalizations.
In that certain circumstance it would seem that humanity goes after it’s own neck by malicous forms of biasness from individual to individual.
( This is on the account that there is no externalization of human intelligence beyond the observer and so far noone has ever proved there to be one.)
Well, Joker: unless one gets hands-on, and makes a physical assessment of an individual: then assessments remain internal - I have felt a few abs, asses, biceps: when the mood has taken me: rendering the interaction VERY external.
Those biases towards individuals has been there since time began: a selectiveness, if you will/ of keeping certain traits out of one’s family line: we all have this bias in us - but why say it’s done in a ‘Malicous form’? when it’s an inbuilt mechanism that just seems to take-over one’s reasoning.
If we think of the brain as a processing unit, the external and internal should not be looked apon as separate bodies but rather as stages in the thought>action process. First a set of external variables become aparent to the brain, these variables are processed by the mind and an action insues from this process. To say that externalism or internalism can measure intelegance alone is to say that one part of this process is more important than the other, but neither holds any use without the other.
You talk as if the subjective holds no sway over the objective, both are intertwined. The abstract notions that provide our thoughts and belifes are not simply random but are influenced by many external factors, society, culture, even our genetic code developed directly from the laws of nature influence our own individual ideas. No one has the exact same set of morals but we can see many similarities and patterns if we look at the human race as a whole.
In my form of thinking the cosmos is operated on physicalism so indeed physical suffering is a necessity and what we call physical inequality is only natural.
What we call mental abstractions or sapience however I view to be entirely different and outright opposed to the very foundations of the cosmos that is physicalism.
Amour Propre and narcissism is the two key forms of malice I believe.
not in the least, im meirly stating that its all a process, and you cannot have one without the other. The brain can only contemplate something if it has had the thought intoduced to it by some external force, even if the person has never experienced it directly.
Such a nihalistic view is doomed to failure. technically the body could survive without any outside influence but in practice we live in a world with cultures and societies that make it essential to interact with others, not to mention the fact that no level of interaction sends one quite insane, which we can see from studies of wild children. And if you have contact with a society or culture, it WILL influence you, if only subcontiously. Our personal morals are not simply created from or own minds, but are the imprint that our individual minds leave on an already soiled canvas provided by the environment we live in
I assure you that if the mental thinking observer that we called humanity was to go extincted tomorrow the physical cosmos would operate all the same without flaw.
Yes society and civilization is necessary, its human nature. Wipe out society and the survivers will fashion a new one, no matter how crude. Its a product of evolution we as a species survived because we banded together, we are not soletarry creatures. Humans are a herd animal, and our intelegance expands this to have the ability to create societies.