Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

European IQ map

124

Comments

  • #92
    Tar.Aldarion
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,118 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tar.Aldarion


    SimpleSam06 wrote: »
    Please prove to me how we are any different to tomatoes, apart from complexity and components. Thats like saying, apart from everything, aren't we exactly the same as computers?

    Yeesh, determinists.
    No, we are the same as computers in every way, we are not different, we are both controlled by electricity, one is biological, the other mechanical.
    The point is you are claiming we are not deterministic with no proof, whereas I can not say we are deterministic with 100% proof, we have nothing to say that we are not just as nothing to say we are.
    However you deride some poster becasue you believe that we are not deterrministic and therefore computers can not be like us as they do not have an 'arcan spirit' in them.


    The rest of your post is not worth answering, you argue with the definition of AI with everybody in the field. You still didn't say what your definition is, no university or research group will have one differing greatly from what I have put forth. How about yours?
    You get to decide what the term means over the people who created it?


  • #93
    SimpleSam06
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,048 ✭✭✭SimpleSam06


    Tara Le d'Arion wrote: »
    No, we are the same as computers in every way, we are not different, we are both controlled by electricity, one is biological, the other mechanical.
    Heh. Not exactly an argument against your point per se, but close enough.
    Except, of course, the activity of the One Machine, even if we accept it as an entity, is not the slightest bit like thought. As Charles Arthur rightly points out in his response to Kelly on the Guardian technology blog, the human brain is biological and comparisons between transistors and neurons, not to mention between hyperlinks and neurons, are not comparing like with like (2). The human brain does not work like an electronic computer, even a massive, super-interconnected computer.

    All very true, but, unfortunately, psychologists and neuroscientists seem all too ready to argue that the brain is, at least a bit, like a computer, and that the mind is, at least a bit, like the software that runs on a computer (3). A typical neuropsychological account of experience involves parts of the brain pointing to other parts of the brain with various functions associated with each part. Vision, for example, is something that occurs at the back of the brain, where the basic features of a scene (shapes, colours, motion) are picked out. Information then flows from the back to the front of the brain along two pathways.

    The pathway along the bottom of the brain elaborates what is being seen, while the pathway along the top of the brain elaborates where it is. A recent review in the academic journal Trends in Cognitive Sciences argued that the brain ‘converts information about spatiotemporal sequences into meaningful actions through interactions between early and higher visual areas processing form and motion and frontal-parietal circuits involved in the understanding of actions’ (4). What the authors are saying is that the brain somehow produces meaningful action by integrating lots of information, which is not a million miles from what Kelly is describing in his theory about the brain-like One Machine.

    Instead of explaining perception, thought and behaviour, the neuropsychological understanding provides us with a sophisticated description. That description might be factually correct, and may have application, but it is not an explanation. Explanations identify causal relations; our current models of how the brain works merely pull the conscious being that perceives, thinks and behaves out of the magic hat of the brain.

    There is a temptation to think that the inadequacy of our neuropsychological explanations is because of a lack of knowledge about how the brain works. What we need is more technology and more experiments. There is some notable truth to this, of course; we really don’t know how the brain works and more technology and more experiments are likely to be valuable. Yet merely providing more information about the brain (and merely bringing together ever-increasing computing power) will not by itself yield an understanding of perception, thought and behaviour.

    While raw processing power is a necessary condition for perception, thought and behaviour, it is not sufficient. An understanding of thought must, at the very least, also include an account of the contents of thought. We have argued elsewhere that an understanding of thought based on an interrogation of neuronal (or electrical) activity will fail to describe thought because thought is not the firing of neurons (5). We believe that any understanding of thought should feel and sound like what it is.

    The remarkable thing about human beings is not our brains per se, but the way we make knowledge explicit (6). We don’t just ‘see’ something and react to it, as a computer might; we place ourselves into a relationship with the thing that we are seeing. Consequently, while many animals might be said to ‘see’ the sky, only human beings will try to see more. The sky’s the limit, or not, depending on what we are trying to do.
    .
    .
    .
    Both a human brain and a computer might, very loosely, share processing properties. But all of the processing power in all of the world’s computer gadgets and all of the world’s brains combined and jumbled together in any formation desired will never yield even a single thought – because thought is not the product of raw processing power. Modern computers locked together within the World Wide Web are brilliant at yielding information and connecting people, but this is in no way emulates a mind. The information and exchanges are massed but are not collective; the mass of exchange is not aimed at anything in particular and has no centre or particular point where experience might occur or distill. All human beings are the centre of experience, and particularly brilliant human beings – Mozart, Lenin, Einstein – forcefully distill collective intent and understanding. No computer can do this.

    Stuart Derbyshire is a senior lecturer in psychology at the University of Birmingham. Anand Raja is reading psychology at the University of Birmingham.
    Tara Le d'Arion wrote: »
    The rest of your post is not worth answering, you argue with the definition of AI with everybody in the field.
    On the contrary, I have no particular problem with what they call it, they can call it cabbage farming if thats what takes their fancy.

    You might enlighten me, however, as to what bearing a robot arm in a factory has on this discussion, with regards to the usefulness of IQ tests?
    Tara Le d'Arion wrote: »
    You still didn't say what your definition is, no university or research group will have one differing greatly from what I have put forth. How about yours?
    This gets even funnier when you look into the definitions of intelligence in different cultures, African or Asian in particular.

    /saw ya coming


  • #94
    SimpleSam06
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,048 ✭✭✭SimpleSam06


    Tara Le d'Arion wrote: »
    However you deride some poster becasue you believe that we are not deterrministic and therefore computers can not be like us as they do not have an 'arcan spirit' in them.
    And in response to your edit, the derision came from the "AI in computers right now" comment that was made, which led me to believe that a sorry lack of understanding of how computers work was in motion. AI as it is being discussed relevant to this thread (ie, not robot arms or spam filters) does not exist. Pointing to these automated devices is fruitless as evidence of AI, in the context of the thread. Even the very act of bringing it up in such a context betrays a severe misunderstanding at best, or poorly attempted misdirection at worst.


  • #95
    Tar.Aldarion
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,118 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tar.Aldarion


    SimpleSam06 wrote: »
    Heh. Not exactly an argument against your point per se, but close enough.
    I edited my post above to include this btw:
    No, we are the same as computers in every way, we are not different, we are both controlled by electricity, one is biological, the other mechanical.
    The point is you are claiming we are not deterministic with no proof, whereas I can not say we are deterministic with 100% proof, we have nothing to say that we are not just as nothing to say we are.
    However you deride some poster becasue you believe that we are not deterrministic and therefore computers can not be like us as they do not have an 'arcan spirit' in them. I know that the AI that he was referring to os not the branch that the discussion is referring to(although it is on a basic level) but that does not mean it is not AI.
    What your quote does is say that we do not know how the brain works, we can't know yet but then goes on to make assumptions based on nothing.
    An example:
    Both a human brain and a computer might, very loosely, share processing properties. But all of the processing power in all of the world’s computer gadgets and all of the world’s brains combined and jumbled together in any formation desired will never yield even a single thought – because thought is not the product of raw processing power.
    What is a thought, why could we think and something else not? What proof has anybody for this? None. How is a thought different from a gathering of information and creating a decision based lo an algorithm? Why would he go to the pain of saying we can't understand the brain but then go on to say it is nothing like a computer? Does his pyschology degree tell him or others something my electronic and computer one doesn't even though I have done a specific course on this topic? Was taught how and why the body works with regards to electricity and electromagnetism. We work exacltly like a machine, it is how we are controlled. I could apply a voltage to you and know what the reaction wouold be, I know what voltage pain responds to and can change it. We act exactly like a machine. Until somebody can prove we do not somehow I won't believe we somehow have a 'soul' for want of a better term. Your quote even says we are not like a machine but other animals are, lol.
    On the contrary, I have no particular problem with what they call it, they can call it cabbage farming if thats what takes their fancy.
    What they call it is what it is, you are saying that things are not AI when in all definitions of AI that there are, they are.
    You might enlighten me, however, as to what bearing a robot arm in a factory has on this discussion, with regards to the usefulness of IQ tests?
    I was not arguing the IQ thing, IQ tests are nonsense, they are just handy for giving a reasonable estimation of if somebody is smarter in some areas than another person. I was just having an issue with your use of AI having been around it in university.
    This gets even funnier when you look into the definitions of intelligence in different cultures, African or Asian in particular.

    /saw ya coming
    The definition of intelligence in varying cultures does not affect the definition of 'artifical intelligence' which is a coined term by certain lecturers/researchers and given a certain definition.
    It is not a case of chinese people think this is intelligence and americans think this is intelligence so the definition of AI is differing for both.


  • #96
    axer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,517 ✭✭✭axer


    SimpleSam06 wrote: »
    AI as it is being discussed relevant to this thread (ie, not robot arms or spam filters) does not exist. Pointing to these automated devices is fruitless as evidence of AI, in the context of the thread.
    Ok, so now you accept that AI (which you brought up in this thread) does exist. About time.

    Goes to show how silly this statement is then:
    SimpleSam06 wrote: »
    AI is not in existence in any way, shape, means or form today. Christ almighty what an ignorant statement.
    I think you summed up the first sentence with your second sentence. Well done.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    SimpleSam06
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,048 ✭✭✭SimpleSam06


    How does this:
    Tara Le d'Arion wrote: »
    whereas I can not say we are deterministic with 100% proof, we have nothing to say that we are not just as nothing to say we are.
    Synch with this:
    Tara Le d'Arion wrote: »
    We work exacltly like a machine, it is how we are controlled.

    We act exactly like a machine.
    Well, looks like I am not the only one making defintive statements.
    Tara Le d'Arion wrote: »
    What they call it is what it is, you are saying that things are not AI when in all definitions of AI that there are, they are.
    .
    .
    .
    It is not a case of chinese people think this is intelligence and americans think this is intelligence so the definition of AI is differing for both.
    Hold on there now, this is the third time you've ignored my comments on context. Once again, what does a spam filter have to do with what we are discussing?
    axer wrote: »
    Ok, so now you accept that AI (which you brought up in this thread) does exist. About time.
    Robot arms certainly exist, I'll give you that. They aren't anything to do with what we were talking about though, so I'm not sure why you bothered bringing them up.
    axer wrote: »
    I think you summed up the first sentence with your second sentence. Well done.
    Yes, I was labouring under the mistaken belief that you had grasped that we were discussing IQ tests, and AI as it refers to that. I mean if someone said "coppers" in a discussion about the police, would you immediately provide links to the mint? I'll be sure to spell out every single point I make so, from now on. Edit: Actually, I clarified this point in the post you quoted there, so apparently even that isn't sufficient. Perhaps if I used crayons...


  • #98
    Tar.Aldarion
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,118 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tar.Aldarion


    SimpleSam06 wrote: »
    How does this:

    Synch with this:

    Well, looks like I am not the only one making defintive statements.
    Um, in one I am referring to the inner workings of the brain, in the other I am referring to the muscles in your body which can be seen to react deterministically to incoming and outgoing signals(To be really solipsistic, nothing can be determed). Should have made that clearer. The problem I have with a non deterministic brain is how would it come about? This is how I see it. We all started off as 'low intelligence' cells which came from simple enzymes/chemicals/whatever and evolved over millenia gaining new algorithms through evolution. Our program is adapting over time and becoming more advanced, such as when any animal is born with instinct due to previous members of it's species. Now, how much exactly does something have to evolve for it to be non deterministic? The life we stem from predates the 'brain' as we know it and our brain is something that has been created via evolution(assuming you believe in evolution), it becomes more advanced with time, when would it's properties change to be non-deterministic, I personally don't believe there would be some such switch. A lot of people that think we are not deterministic think other animals are, clearly teh switchj for them must be between their brains and ours...
    Hold on there now, this is the third time you've ignored my comments on context. Once again, what does a spam filter have to do with what we are discussing?
    A spam filter has not much to do with IQ tests, the argument stems from your discussion with axer and AI but I do believe that the like of a computer playing chess etc and winning through a genetic algorithm is part of the AI you are referring to, it is a basic first step before things get more complicated.
    Yes, I was labouring under the mistaken belief that you had grasped that we were discussing IQ tests, and AI as it refers to that. I mean if someone said "coppers" in a discussion about the police, would you immediately provide links to the mint? I'll be sure to spell out every single point I make so, from now on.
    This is not the same thing, a mint and the police are not two interconnecting branches of a security force, they are different things. A robot arm and so forth are AI with regards to creating human intelligencce in the way that the hope is to develop each aspect of what we know to be intelligence, no matter how simple and combine them tgether in some way.


  • #99
    axer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,517 ✭✭✭axer


    SimpleSam06 wrote: »
    Robot arms certainly exist, I'll give you that. They aren't anything to do with what we were talking about though, so I'm not sure why you bothered bringing them up.
    Ah, no...you are the one who brought up both AI and robotic arms. You do not accept the definition of AI. You chose to define it your own way because you think it is not relevant (doesn't suit you) to define it the internationally accepted way.
    SimpleSam06 wrote: »
    Yes, I was labouring under the mistaken belief that you had grasped that we were discussing IQ tests, and AI as it refers to that. I mean if someone said "coppers" in a discussion about the police, would you immediately provide links to the mint? I'll be sure to spell out every single point I make so, from now on. Edit: Actually, I clarified this point in the post you quoted there, so apparently even that isn't sufficient. Perhaps if I used crayons...
    You posted:
    SimpleSam06 wrote: »
    AI is not in existence in any way, shape, means or form today.
    but you are wrong but you will not admit it. You were also wrong about the milgram experiment having used ECT. I think this clearly shows the complete ignorance in your posts regarding intelligence and psychology in general.

    Maybe you really want to be talking about artificial life and not AI and are simply confused.


  • #100
    Quazzie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,710 ✭✭✭✭Quazzie


    I have an IQ of 145 (Official test result) but couldn't tie my laces till I was 9. Nuff said. IQ tests are crap and are no real representation of any intelligence.


  • #101
    Tar.Aldarion
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,118 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tar.Aldarion


    They show some areas such as numberical and so on. Very limited though, in my opinion. Everybody knows roughly how intelligent they are, although everybody overestimates it for themselves.


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    axer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,517 ✭✭✭axer


    Quazzie2002 wrote: »
    I have an IQ of 145 (Official test result) but couldn't tie my laces till I was 9. Nuff said. IQ tests are crap and are no real representation of any intelligence.
    There can be other reasons for that - your abilities tested by the IQ test may not have had anything to do with the problem thus still showed high.


  • #103
    JC 2K3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    IQ tests measure problem solving ability and lateral thinking in the context of mathematical, linguistic and spacial reasoning.

    Whether you consider this to be "intelligence" or not, is a personal interpretation/opinion.

    Oh, and Mensa was a really crap magazine.


  • #104
    Talliesin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,314 ✭✭✭Talliesin


    SimpleSam06 wrote: »
    But lets not forget this is the university of Ulster, who solemnly released an official study saying that women were naturally worse at engineering and mathematical studies than men, and should just stick to the cooking like.

    More to the point, it was the same professor.

    He's just one eugenics-obsessed little nut.


  • #105
    SimpleSam06
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,048 ✭✭✭SimpleSam06


    Tara Le d'Arion wrote: »
    The problem I have with a non deterministic brain is how would it come about? This is how I see it.
    Well the way I see it is there is an awful lot we don't understand about how anything works, at the smallest scale. Maybe it is deterministic, but the mechanisms for that determinism are forever too obscure to be within ours or anyone's grasp, so to all intents and purposes its non-deterministic. Or, it might be just non deterministic period. We just don't know.
    Tara Le d'Arion wrote: »
    We all started off as 'low intelligence' cells which came from simple enzymes/chemicals/whatever and evolved over millenia gaining new algorithms through evolution.
    And before we were cells we were the components of cells, and before that we were chemicals. And that right there is where things get strange. You may as well ask why chemical compounds started taking it upon themselves to reproduce and eat things. It makes no sense in a deterministic world, but eppur si muove.
    Tara Le d'Arion wrote: »
    Our program is adapting over time and becoming more advanced, such as when any animal is born with instinct due to previous members of it's species. Now, how much exactly does something have to evolve for it to be non deterministic?
    I don't buy the evolutionary progression argument EDIT as an argument in favour of determinism either. What value to our "program" in music, or the appreciation of music?
    Tara Le d'Arion wrote: »
    A lot of people that think we are not deterministic think other animals are, clearly teh switchj for them must be between their brains and ours...
    Well while I might not be in favour of the idea of something special in human brains, you do have to admit that our bnrains have significant differences to other animals'.
    Tara Le d'Arion wrote: »
    I do believe that the like of a computer playing chess etc and winning through a genetic algorithm is part of the AI you are referring to, it is a basic first step before things get more complicated.
    I believe it only won because it was being reprogrammed after every move by its team to adapt to the strategies of its opponent. I could be mistaken in that though. Even if it weren't, chess is a discrete number of possible moves by a discrete number of pieces. Its closer to something you could solve with an abacus that with a brain.
    Tara Le d'Arion wrote: »
    This is not the same thing, a mint and the police are not two interconnecting branches of a security force, they are different things.
    I was referring to coppers as in the coins there...
    Tara Le d'Arion wrote: »
    A robot arm and so forth are AI with regards to creating human intelligencce in the way that the hope is to develop each aspect of what we know to be intelligence, no matter how simple and combine them tgether in some way.
    No. An axe is an extension of the human arm, making it more effective at chopping wood. In the same way, the robot arm is an extension of the human arm, repeatedly doing things that would be physically difficult for us. This is automation, not AI, and in essence the axe and the robot arm are the very same things. Tools.

    If ever we do form strong AI, these developments will be mere tools for that, as well.
    axer wrote: »
    Ah, no...you are the one who brought up both AI and robotic arms.
    To quote yourself, lol.
    axer wrote: »
    but you are wrong but you will not admit it. You were also wrong about the milgram experiment having used ECT. I think this clearly shows the complete ignorance in your posts regarding intelligence and psychology in general.
    Thats it, I'm getting the crayons out.
    axer wrote: »
    Maybe you really want to be talking about artificial life and not AI and are simply confused.
    Or maybe not! One small step for axer, one giant leap for the thread. Sorry now, your attempt to mislead the discussion failed. Better luck next time.


  • #106
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,725 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    SimpleSam06 wrote: »
    Are you serious?

    Which part don't you believe? That I have a high IQ or that I received preferential treatment?


  • #107
    SimpleSam06
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,048 ✭✭✭SimpleSam06


    Overheal wrote: »
    Which part don't you believe? That I have a high IQ or that I received preferential treatment?
    A little from column A, a little from column B... :p

    Ah no seriously though, I was wondering if preferential treatment for people who scored well on IQ tests (alone) was an institutionalised part of the US education system, or whether it was just that your parents moved you to a better school.


  • #108
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,725 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    SimpleSam06 wrote: »
    A little from column A, a little from column B... :p

    Ah no seriously though, I was wondering if preferential treatment for people who scored well on IQ tests (alone) was an institutionalised part of the US education system, or whether it was just that your parents moved you to a better school.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talented_and_Gifted_program

    In my case I was moved into a seperate class in which we all had greater than normal IQs. They gave us access to IBM machines for typing classes etc.


  • #109
    SimpleSam06
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,048 ✭✭✭SimpleSam06


    Overheal wrote: »
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talented_and_Gifted_program
    Was there any other examination besides an IQ test?


  • #110
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,725 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Not that I can recall, other than the standard children's IQ test. They may have weighed the test against your pre-existing Grade Point average, but other than that I think not.

    edit:
    Your score was 24 out of 30. That is a very good score—you would have a good chance of passing the Mensa test.

    whoohoo! \o/


  • #111
    Prof.Badass
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,931 ✭✭✭Prof.Badass


    Tara Le d'Arion wrote: »
    They show some areas such as numberical and so on. Very limited though, in my opinion. Everybody knows roughly how intelligent they are, although everybody overestimates it for themselves.

    +1

    ..and underestimates it for others (especially if those people don't go around like arrogant assholes).

    tbh i think the whole concept of intelligence is flawed. There's too many factors involved that need to be weighted accordingly, and how they are weighted counts entirely on the opinion of the person designing the test, so therefore intelligence is really a matter of opinion rather than a quantitaive figure.

    Also..... does one's level of understanding the world not count for anything?

    (IMO this is more important than I.Q)

    someone could spend their whole childhood solving puzzles and doing sums and come out with a genius I.Q, but they still mighn't have a clue about science or geography or social sciences, or anything really...


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    axer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,517 ✭✭✭axer


    There are many out there that use IQ tests for the wrong reasons. The IQ test is not supposed to be able to test every ability associated with intelligence - they are designed to test certain abilities and have been proven to be both stable in their results and have been able to predict certain forms of achievement.

    As I said before, no psychologist would rely on any one test but that does not make the test useless when included in an overall psychological evaluation performed by a psychologist. It would be useless to just do an IQ test by itself and label someone a genius or stupid.


  • #113
    Cunning
    Closed Accounts Posts: 80 ✭✭Cunning


    i havnt read any replies just the first bit of the Original post.

    as for french people
    there is a brain parasite called toxoplasma as far as i know.
    the parasite is present in 90% of supermarket beef (in europe)
    and once you get it you cant get rid of it.

    to avoid the brain parasite all you need to do is cook the food, which
    quickly kills it,
    however!>>>>> about 2/3 of the french population over 30 carry the
    parasite due to the french diet (french medium=irish rare!!)

    the effect of the parasite is to lower iq by as much as 15%
    as well as leaving the infected prone to greater risk taking!!

    thats why the french boys are more daring and less smart.

    my advice: eat fish, i hear heavy metals are good for you!!


  • #114
    TomCo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,528 ✭✭✭TomCo


    The brain is not something that you just dump something on. It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes.

    And if you don't understand, those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and it's going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.


  • #115
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,725 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    red meat makes i dumber? nu uh,.


  • #116
    m@cc@
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,526 ✭✭✭m@cc@


    More taxpayers money wasted on research that proves little.


  • #117
    Pride Fighter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,729 ✭✭✭Pride Fighter


    What struck me is that Ireland is not mentioned on its own. For some reason they say Ireland and Scotland are level after the SE of England as being the smartest region in the UK.
    I have some fvcking news for you, we are fvcknig independent!!!!!


  • #118
    tech77
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,736 ✭✭✭tech77


    SimpleSam06 wrote: »
    The number of muscles and physical makeup required to run faster or benchpress more weights is extremely low and extremely simple, unlike the very complex and constantly changing interactions between various parts of the nervous system that make up what we call "intelligence".

    Are you saying complexity can't be accounted for by genetics (at least partially) but simplicity can.

    C'mon, of course intelligence has a (partial) genetic basis.
    Societal/environmental theories might be more palatable (Yeah, yeah, we're all blank slates etc etc..)- doesn't mean they completely account for variations in intelligence.


  • #119
    tech77
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,736 ✭✭✭tech77


    snyper wrote: »
    Ive an Iq of 57.

    Fixed that for ya. :p
    LOL at the original post though. :)


  • #120
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,856 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    Jesus Harold Christ, who the f*ck cares what Rebecca Loos thinks???? :eek: What a rag of a paper

    I'm sure it's interesting research though


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    tech77
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,736 ✭✭✭tech77


    Tara Le d'Arion wrote: »
    I edited my post above to include this btw:

    What your quote does is say that we do not know how the brain works, we can't know yet but then goes on to make assumptions based on nothing.
    An example:

    What is a thought, why could we think and something else not? What proof has anybody for this? None. How is a thought different from a gathering of information and creating a decision based lo an algorithm? Why would he go to the pain of saying we can't understand the brain but then go on to say it is nothing like a computer? Does his pyschology degree tell him or others something my electronic and computer one doesn't even though I have done a specific course on this topic? Was taught how and why the body works with regards to electricity and electromagnetism. We work exacltly like a machine, it is how we are controlled. I could apply a voltage to you and know what the reaction wouold be, I know what voltage pain responds to and can change it. We act exactly like a machine. Until somebody can prove we do not somehow I won't believe we somehow have a 'soul' for want of a better term. Your quote even says we are not like a machine but other animals are, lol.


    What they call it is what it is, you are saying that things are not AI when in all definitions of AI that there are, they are.


    I was not arguing the IQ thing, IQ tests are nonsense, they are just handy for giving a reasonable estimation of if somebody is smarter in some areas than another person. I was just having an issue with your use of AI having been around it in university.


    The definition of intelligence in varying cultures does not affect the definition of 'artifical intelligence' which is a coined term by certain lecturers/researchers and given a certain definition.
    It is not a case of chinese people think this is intelligence and americans think this is intelligence so the definition of AI is differing for both.

    ^Agree largely with the above.
    TBH i don't think there's much persuading SimpleSam though, who seems intent on keeping intelligence a sacred, vague, undefinable, untestable entity no matter what.
    And defending his position with what seems like an evangelical zeal.


Advertisement