You're hung up on language — Agent Smith
Why isn't it ("mind" being a noun) open for debate. Even the great Aristotle made mistakes. — Agent Smith
I merely made explicit something that's true for everyone, including yourself unless there's someone who's omniscient. Are you omniscient? I hardly think so. — Agent Smith
Let's start over.
For me what we call mind is an activity like walking & talking , and not an object, like legs & mouth. To think the mind is an object and not an activity is an error that's committed by many. That's about the gist of what I want to share. — Agent Smith
All I can say is you're hung up on language. — Agent Smith
I made it clear to you that language isn't the only way to understand my point. — Agent Smith
There's no such thing as a mind which thinks. Thinking is the mind! Mind is an activity (thinking), not an actor (thinker). — Agent Smith
There's nothing in walking that we could consider ontologically equivalent to kidney or a heart. A mind is not an 0bject like the brain, it's simply an activity that something (the brain?) conducts. — Agent Smith
A mind is not an object (sp) like the brain, it's simply an activity that something (the brain?) conducts. — Agent Smith
I have a feeling that we're confusing verbs with nouns here. The mind is, at the end of the day, a verb (thinking/thoughts), but we seem to mislabeling it as a noun (a mind which allegedly thinks). — Agent Smith
I do not mean 'not real' by "illusion"; rather I mean something seeming to be something else. — 180 Proof
It's a process that's worked for me before when I try to figure something out. — T Clark
In a previous post, I listed some of the factors I think go into deciding whether or not a particular work of art is high quality: — T Clark
Yes... well...that's what we're trying to figure out here. — T Clark
I don't really understand what you mean with this discussion where the subject concerns factual matters that anyone interested can learn simply by perusing widely available sources. Instead you are soliciting and receiving uninformed opinions, prejudices, grudges and personal anecdotes. — SophistiCat
I'm curious to hear what people think are the actual and meaningful limitations of the metric, and what benefits or value (personal or social) it provides.
I've met people with 160 IQ's that I had to change a flat tire for so that they could make it home and not freeze on the side of the road at night despite the fact they were working on top secret engineering jobs that only the elite in their field qualified for. IQ is not very useful when not within the parameters and social constructs of society so in other words IQ is of no fundamental value — MAYAEL
This makes sense to me, but I don't think it's enough. Maybe necessary but not sufficient. — T Clark
I've thought about this from the other direction - New music often goes to outside sources to find new musical language, e.g. African music has become part of popular music in the US and Europe. As the world homogenizes, will we eventually run out of fresh sources and end up with all culture the same everywhere? — T Clark
What qualifies as art?
What makes art good or bad
What on earth would make you think that? — Bitter Crank
Suppose I'm wrong and that IQ does measure intelligence. What good could it do, absent understanding aspects of intelligence for its own sake? — Manuel
The point about the "idiot", though rhetorical as you well point out, is that people who are fascinated by IQ tend to make these distinctions with more frequency than others. — Manuel
We do things all the time that we don't understand. We don't understand art too well, yet we do it, we don't understand human psychology too well, yet we deal with people all the time. We don't understand how particles could combine to create colour experience, yet we see colour all the time.
We don't know what life is, yet we do biology. We don't know what mathematics is, yet we do extremely complicated theorems - at least some people do.
So yes, we proceed to work with what we're given and construct theories. The simpler the phenomena, the more developed the science is, hence physics is considered the star of the sciences. That doesn't mean there aren't plenty of important things to work on in chemistry or biology or all the other fields.
I don't see the problem. — Manuel
The world's most educated experts have serious trouble accounting for the behavior of a single particle when it interacts with a receptor and a screen, in a field which is significantly more developed than psychology.
Perhaps intelligence is a bit more complex than a particle. — Manuel
Curious that you mention an "idiot" instead of a "person." — Manuel
The world's most educated experts have serious trouble accounting for the behavior of a single particle when it interacts with a receptor and a screen, in a field which is significantly more developed than psychology.
Perhaps intelligence is a bit more complex than a particle. — Manuel
If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch you must first invent the universe
I base my conclusion on the observation of what the test does. It asks questions pertaining to two domain within belong to what we tend to call "intelligence": verbal and mathematical.
Perhaps they've expanded recently and put in reading comprehension and some other things. — Manuel
But I think it is evident that such a constraining circumstance can only account for a small fragment of what is called "intelligence". Street smarts, intuition, psychological acuity, insight, novelty, depth and a bunch of other factors are excluded. — Manuel
But to equate these two to something as complex as multi-faceted as intelligence is a stretch. — Manuel
Let us be as positive as we can be, for those finds are rare to come across. — PoeticUniverse
One of the most important things to do when dealing with abused children is to provide a world which is predictable. Perhaps the ability to see the world in an orderly fashion relies on a nice middle-class upbringing. — Banno
If the world were unpredictable, this would undermines not just science, but the capacity to describe the world in a consistent fashion. — Banno
No, it was Peirce alright. — Ciceronianus
I am sympathetic to this line of thought, although I think that ground - ground of all being, or ground of all knowledge - would be a more appropriate word here than certainty. (Of course, those who plump for some such ground will disagree, like Joshs with his phenomenology.) — SophistiCat