Intelligence

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I'm having trouble understanding.
Do you think intelligence exists without a brain? Or does a brain need to be formed to develop ideas of "inteligence"?

I want to get this str8 so I can more accuratley understand my own ideas of intelligence.

Sometimes what is considered "intelligent" can just be people using their cognative functions quicker tha ...[text shortened]... s. The resulting boost in ego seems counter intuitive/unintelligent, in my way of thinking.

I see intelligence as a psychical and mental faculty (IQ and EQ) that enables me (by means of using the feedback of my perception and of my previous knowledge) to evaluate (in real time and/ or through time) the events and the various phenomena I am monitoring in our physical world, in my psychic world and in the world of the ideas.
I see intelligence as the agent that enables me to reassess constantly the products of my perception and of my previous evaluation of the mind according to my established knowledge; therefore my intelligence enables me amongst else to build up my learning process, and also to bring up new ideas out of my constant interaction with the environment, with my inner world and with the world of ideas
😵

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]I disagree that 3) can be discarded quite so easily because doing so rests on the assumption that it is possible to share all relevant evidence in all dialogues in this medium. I don't think that is the case.

I do not believe I said that protracted debate would inevitably lead to a comprehensive exchange of evidence; I only said that that is was I ...[text shortened]... an atheist; an atheist will seem insane to the theist. We pathologise abnormality.[/b]

I do not believe I said that protracted debate would inevitably lead to a comprehensive exchange of evidence; I only said that that is was I had meant when I had used the word 'protracted'. It is not really important to me whether or not protracted debate achieves this.
What you said was:

"By 'protracted', I had assumed that all evidence would have been shared."

...and I questioned the validity of that assumption. Now you say it isn't important whether or not protracted debate does in fact facilitate a total sharing of evidence. But in that case, you can't really discard 3).

I don't believe I said that everyone does that.
What you said was:
"I think I have seen everyone on this forum reach that conclusion at some point."

..and:

"In the heat of the moment, everyone on this forum is likely to accuse their opponent of some mental defect."

Both of these claims seem to over-egg the pudding to me. So although my challenge might be pedantic, it doesn't seem to be unfounded, as you seem to be making out here.

Firstly, I certainly did not say that disagreement indicates unintelligence. That was not my claim. I have suggested many other possible conclusions.
That's true, I just picked one from an unedifying parade.

Secondly, and I think this is the very crux of the dispute, we just have different views of language.
I agree that this is the crux but I disagree with your analysis. You see, I am also a constructivist regarding language, so I doubt you are thinking more from that view.
I think people who accuse their interlocutors of lacking intelligence on these threads are not using the term in some way that is constructed around the specific discourse or the context of a MB debate though. Rather, I think they use the term in a way that competent speakers of English understand it. I doubt very much whether your notion of intelligence differs that much from mine. I'm just not signed up to using these dialogues as a proxy for a measure of intelligence, at all.

You conflated sanity and intellect using an umbrella of people's cognitive capacities. I agree with you that people pathologise abnormality, whether via a cognitive deficiency regarding forms of intelligence, or via characteristics of mental illness, like delusion. But why join in?

Originally posted by Lord Shark
[b]I do not believe I said that protracted debate would inevitably lead to a comprehensive exchange of evidence; I only said that that is was I had meant when I had used the word 'protracted'. It is not really important to me whether or not protracted debate achieves this.
What you said was:

"By 'protracted', I had assumed that all evidenc ...[text shortened]... ence, or via characteristics of mental illness, like delusion. But why join in?[/b]

...and I questioned the validity of that assumption. Now you say it isn't important whether or not protracted debate does in fact facilitate a total sharing of evidence. But in that case, you can't really discard 3).

Come on. This is the epitomy of pedantry. Simply replace the word 'protracted' and continue with the hypothetical. Point 3) only gets us hung up on irrelevent details.

Both of these claims seem to over-egg the pudding to me. So although my challenge might be pedantic, it doesn't seem to be unfounded, as you seem to be making out here.

I stand by those two comments. I do believe that everyone who regularly posts on this forum has at least at one time denigrated their opponent's intelligence. I think this is a natural tendency when obstinate disagreements persists yet all arguments have been exhausted. This, however, is quite a different claime than what you attributed to me -- that performance on the forum somehow correlates with intelligence. I am not saying that at all nor am I suggesting that anyone else thinks so either.

I think people who accuse their interlocutors of lacking intelligence on these threads are not using the term in some way that is constructed around the specific discourse or the context of a MB debate though. Rather, I think they use the term in a way that competent speakers of English understand it.

I don't disagree here. My argument however would that the accusation of unintelligence is not illustrative of a new notion of unintelligence, rather it is part of that process of constructing new meaning. Certainly, if I accuse an obstinate opponent of unintelligence, I am sure that there is a shared understanding of what constitutes intelligence. However by labelling that opponent as unintelligent, I am constructing new meanings, even unintentionally, around intelligence. Over time, it is not simply that person who is unintelligent, but the position they espouse.

I doubt very much whether your notion of intelligence differs that much from mine. I'm just not signed up to using these dialogues as a proxy for a measure of intelligence, at all.

I am not suggesting that we do have different notions of intelligence nor am I suggesting that these dialogues provide any meaningful measures of intelligence.

You conflated sanity and intellect using an umbrella of people's cognitive capacities. I agree with you that people pathologise abnormality, whether via a cognitive deficiency regarding forms of intelligence, or via characteristics of mental illness, like delusion.

I acknowledge that I conflated sanity and intellect. There may be some significant notional difference between these two concepts. I am sure in psychology these are completely different. I only conflate these two concepts because, rhetorically, they are often used interchangeably. In the heat of an argument, I am sure that I mean the same thing whether I call someone crazy or stupid.

But why join in?

Because some idiots deserve to be pathologised to be honest.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I'm in intereseted in the differences between an athiests idea of intelligence and a theists idea of intelligence. Anyone?

Hullo

Intelligence.is a subtle element of nature, and is the quality to deliberate, ....(and i am a spiritaul theist not a religious theist)

Also the intelligence is not localized to ones head, but its universal.

An atheist on the other hand, would have a problem even accepting intelligence, because they believe everything is just chemicals and cells and material atoms, and intelligence is not material, so i would like an atheist to give me there angle on that....please.

vishva

Originally posted by vishvahetu
Hullo

Intelligence.is a subtle element of nature, and is the quality to deliberate, ....(and i am a spiritaul theist not a religious theist)

Also the intelligence is not localized to ones head, but its universal.

An atheist on the other hand, would have a problem even accepting intelligence, because they believe everything is just chemicals and c ...[text shortened]... is not material, so i would like an atheist to give me there angle on that....please.

vishva

Hullo

Intelligence.is a subtle element of nature, and is the quality to deliberate, ....(and i am a spiritaul theist not a religious theist)

Also the intelligence is not localized to ones head, but its universal.

An atheist on the other hand, would have a problem even accepting intelligence, because they believe everything is just chemicals and cells and material atoms, and intelligence is not material, so i would like an atheist to give me there angle on
that....please.
vishva


pi/2 radians ftw!!!

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]Hullo

Intelligence.is a subtle element of nature, and is the quality to deliberate, ....(and i am a spiritaul theist not a religious theist)

Also the intelligence is not localized to ones head, but its universal.

An atheist on the other hand, would have a problem even accepting intelligence, because they believe everything is just chemicals and cel ...[text shortened]... atheist to give me there angle on
that....please.[/i][b]
vishva


pi/2 radians ftw!!![/b]

to Agerg

Interesting, please go on!

vishva

Originally posted by vishvahetu
to Agerg

Interesting, please go on!

vishva

What did you find *most* interesting?

Originally posted by Agerg
What did you find *most* interesting?

to Agerg

So you like verbal battles, then since this is the spirituality thread, you go first, but if you are just into juggling words, then no go, and there must be one rule, to talk sense, is that possable for you.

vishva

Originally posted by vishvahetu
to Agerg

So you like verbal battles, then since this is the spirituality thread, you go first, but if you are just into juggling words, then no go, and there must be one rule, to talk sense, is that possable for you.

vishva

I'm not very good at juggling; though one of my uni housemates from 2 years ago was in a circus society and could juggle up to 6 skittles at once!!!

Talking sense is a two way street vish 😉

Of course its 2way whats the topic, it should relate to this thread

vish

Originally posted by vishvahetu
Of course its 2way whats the topic, it should relate to this thread

vish

I'm afraid you must limit my scope for coversation Vish, because very interesting to me is the fact that the word "intelligence" has more 'e's than it has 'i's but if you squint (making 'e's look like 'c's and 'i's look like 'l's) then we get a draw! 😏

Is this something you'd like to talk about?




*edit: if you squint really really hard quite far away from the monitor then the 't' looks like a 'l' which looks like an 'i' and so 'i's can actually win!!!

Originally posted by Agerg
I'm afraid you must limit my scope for coversation Vish, because very interesting to me is the fact that the word "intelligence" has more 'e's than it has 'i's but if you squint (making 'e's look like 'c's and 'i's look like 'l's) then we get a draw! 😏

Is this something you'd like to talk about?




*edit: if you squint really really hard quite far aw ...[text shortened]... looks like a 'l' which looks like an 'i' and so 'i's can actually win!!!

to Agerg

OK ya got me! i thought we where onto something good here, but as i thought your a word juggler and i had you pinned before you started, checkmate i won

keep well vishva

Originally posted by vishvahetu
to Agerg

OK ya got me! i thought we where onto something good here, but as i thought your a word juggler and i had you pinned before you started, checkmate i won

keep well vishva

to Agerg

OK ya got me! i thought we where onto something good here, but as i thought your a word juggler and i had you pinned before you started, checkmate i won

keep well vishva

It did indeed!...isn't 'i' awesome!!!? 😏

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]...and I questioned the validity of that assumption. Now you say it isn't important whether or not protracted debate does in fact facilitate a total sharing of evidence. But in that case, you can't really discard 3).

Come on. This is the epitomy of pedantry. Simply replace the word 'protracted' and continue with the hypothetical. Point 3) only get ...[text shortened]... But why join in?

Because some idiots deserve to be pathologised to be honest.[/b]

Originally posted by Conrau K

Come on. This is the epitomy of pedantry. Simply replace the word 'protracted' and continue with the hypothetical. Point 3) only gets us hung up on irrelevent details.
I think a better term is 'accuracy'. You sought to discard 3) but your grounds for doing so were flawed. I pointed out the flaw and it might have been pedantic of me to do so. So if you say I'm being pedantic, it's a fair cop. But I'm also being accurate and you seem to have some trouble admitting that, which is the only reason I pressed the point.

I stand by those two comments. I do believe that everyone who regularly posts on this forum has at least at one time denigrated their opponent's intelligence.
It has been known for people to stand by false claims.

This, however, is quite a different claime than what you attributed to me -- that performance on the forum somehow correlates with intelligence.
Oh I see, so when you call somebody an idiot, you don't mean that you think they are being dim, you are just deploying a rhetorical device?

My argument however would that the accusation of unintelligence is not illustrative of a new notion of unintelligence, rather it is part of that process of constructing new meaning.
I agree, since the process is ongoing in all language use. However when you say these things, either you really think your interlocutor is being unintelligent in a way we use the term here and now, or not. Which? After all, to espouse an unintelligent view wouldn't be an intelligent thing to do would it, so where does that leave the distinction between a person who is unintelligent, and the position they espouse?

Because some idiots deserve to be pathologised to be honest.
🙂

Originally posted by black beetle
I see intelligence as a psychical and mental faculty (IQ and EQ) that enables me (by means of using the feedback of my perception and of my previous knowledge) to evaluate (in real time and/ or through time) the events and the various phenomena I am monitoring in our physical world, in my psychic world and in the world of the ideas.
I see intelligence ...[text shortened]... y constant interaction with the environment, with my inner world and with the world of ideas
😵

I have been thinking about what it means to "evaluate" ones mind. I have my own ideas, but I would love your take on this. (Just briefly,please)🙂