Study vs Intelligence?

[Napoleon]

It seems to me that a dumb person calculating 10 hours a day suceed with sciences better than an intelligent person studying 10 hours a month.

 

What weighs more, study or smarts? And does intelligence matter at all? Does it have any impact on the study?

[tom.redy]

as you study more you became more smarter .

as simple it is .

[Jakke]

Intelligence makes it easier to digest facts, you still need to study, but a smart person needs to study less than a dumb person.

[Psycho]

as you study more you became more smarter .

Anyone else fine this overtly ironic.

 

It seems to me that a dumb person calculating 10 hours a day suceed with sciences better than an intelligent person studying 10 hours a month.

 

What weighs more, study or smarts? And does intelligence matter at all? Does it have any impact on the study?

 

You seem to have missed the idea that intelligence isn't defined as one parameter and therefore your question isn't answerable, not to mention your studies variables not being in anyway scientific and seem to be arbitrarily pluck for the sky.

[Appolinaria]

Well, I think memorizing is different from understanding a concept.

 

You can memorize the specifics of formulas, but if you don't grasp the concept of how it applies to other things, then it's just memorization. This doesn't really mean intelligence.

 

Other species, like chimps, have outperformed us in memory tests.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7124156.stm

 

So if chimps are better at some cognitive tasks like memorization, what signifies intelligence? Why is the human race still superior? I think that's where intelligence comes into play.

[PhDwannabe]

Well, I think memorizing is different from understanding a concept.

 

You can memorize the specifics of formulas, but if you don't grasp the concept of how it applies to other things, then it's just memorization. This doesn't really mean intelligence.

 

That's a topic of some pretty substantial philosophical debate.

[Appolinaria]

That's a topic of some pretty substantial philosophical debate.

 

Awesome... I have never heard of this experiment. It goes exactly with what I was trying to say. Thanks a lot for sharing!

 

I guess the essential question is,

 

Comparing a human's decision to a machine's (like in the Chinese Room experiment) where is the difference?

 

Is the brain a high functioning machine we can't reconstruct with our technology right now, or is there an outside source that makes humans unique that we will NEVER be able to recreate?

Edited October 16, 2011 by Appolinaria

[PhDwannabe]

 

Is the brain a high functioning machine we can't reconstruct with our technology right now, or is there an outside source that makes humans unique that we will NEVER be able to recreate?

 

Sure, that's kind of the question. Metaphysically, I'm a physicalist--I think the brain is just made out of stuff like everything else is, and its interesting functionality is a property of the stuff it's made of. Eventually, I imagine, we'll recreate it, or perhaps create something better or different than it. It's just sort of an engineering problem which we'll figure out eventually. From a naive perspective, a lot of people imagine AI in a way that's a bit anthropomorphic, but there are lots of ways a machine (or indeed, "being") might be intelligent that is different than the way the 3lb blob of goop contained within members of h. sapiens produces intelligence. So maybe we won't be able to recreate human intelligence, but we'll still create a creature that's intelligent in some fashion. To be honest, we might end up creating something so different (and perhaps even more advanced) than ourselves that we'd even have trouble recognizing what we've made. The best way we'd even have to do that, at this point, is still somewhat imperfect and controversial. There are lots of interesting arguments to be had and read in metaphysics, philosophy of mind, consciousness studies, or AI that deal with whether or not this might be possible, and how. But I tend to think we'll settle the question of whether or not we can do it when we do it.

[Appolinaria]

Sure, that's kind of the question. Metaphysically, I'm a physicalist--I think the brain is just made out of stuff like everything else is, and its interesting functionality is a property of the stuff it's made of. Eventually, I imagine, we'll recreate it, or perhaps create something better or different than it. It's just sort of an engineering problem which we'll figure out eventually. From a naive perspective, a lot of people imagine AI in a way that's a bit anthropomorphic, but there are lots of ways a machine (or indeed, "being") might be intelligent that is different than the way the 3lb blob of goop contained within members of h. sapiens produces intelligence. So maybe we won't be able to recreate human intelligence, but we'll still create a creature that's intelligent in some fashion. To be honest, we might end up creating something so different (and perhaps even more advanced) than ourselves that we'd even have trouble recognizing what we've made. The best way we'd even have to do that, at this point, is still somewhat imperfect and controversial. There are lots of interesting arguments to be had and read in metaphysics, philosophy of mind, consciousness studies, or AI that deal with whether or not this might be possible, and how. But I tend to think we'll settle the question of whether or not we can do it when we do it.

 

Thanks for the response! I have some questions though

 

Computers use the same logic as us, just on a less evolved scale. It still makes sense, therefore it's intelligent in some way. So if there is a machine whose intelligence differed from ours, it would be totally incomprehensible, right? What I'm trying to say is that intelligence isn't based on whatever we want- it's based on how well we perceive the universe and constant laws around us. So in order to even define anything as "intelligent" it would have to comprehend it's surroundings the same way as we do... which means it would not differ. If it does differ, it wouldn't be intelligent. We are just beings picking up on constant laws. If our race ceases to exist, the laws of our universe still will. If intelligence sprouted again, it would have to follow the same logic we did.

So how could we call something that doesn't follow our logic, intelligent?

Also, how can we model & create something more advanced than ourselves? How can our brain create a structure more complex than itself? Kind of reminds me of the omnipotence paradox a little bit.

A thought that kind of terrifies me is this.... A computer uses it's preset functions to complete a specified task, like a standard calculator... it's kind of similar to memorization of reactions. As humans, we can memorize the logical approach to THOUSANDS of specified tasks. Our conscious is the ability to discern when to use the logic of the numerous tasks we have memorized. It seems like we're just one step beyond computers, and this is only because silicon technology is replaced with better materials. No magic involved.

And while I'm here, talking to someone educated on these things, is there anything that's unique to the brain? Like a chemical? I was reading a strange christian-esoteric book that said a specific element was... and the amount of it was responsible for the level of intelligence. Lol.

Edited October 17, 2011 by Appolinaria

[csmyth3025]

It seems to me that a dumb person calculating 10 hours a day [will] succeed with sciences better than an intelligent person studying 10 hours a month.

 

What weighs more, study or smarts? And does intelligence matter at all? Does it have any impact on the study?

You need to think carefully about how you define your concept of "succeed" and "intelligent". For instance, if Amadeus Mozart studied science 10 hours a day, would he eventually produce a work such as Newton's Naturalis Principia Mathematica? Conversely, if Isaac Newton studied music 10 hours a day, would he have eventually produced a body of music as overwhelmingly innovative and impressive as Mozart's? Could either if these geniuses have "succeeded" as well as Steve Jobs, written as prolifically as Isaac Asimov, or created deceptively simple and powerfully evocative paintings such as Norman Rockwell's Saturday Evening Post covers?

 

To me, the human mind is a mysterious realm. Certainly, studying 10 hours a day (in any field) will make a person "smarter". I'm sure that those I've mentioned spent many hours a day studying and thinking about their chosen passion. If not, they might have spent their lives as local curiosities with locally recognized talent and "strange" ideas in the eyes of their contemporaries.

 

I don't consider myself unintelligent. I know, however, that I could spend 20 hours a day studying science, music, literature or art and still not hold a candle next to the brilliance of those I've mentioned.

 

For most of us, study trumps smarts. For some, the combination of study and smarts produces a synergy that transcends the sum of its parts.

 

In the strangely philosophical words of Harry Callahan (Clint Eastwood, "Magnum Force"), "A man's got to know his limitations". On that note, I know that I'll never create a new scientific theory or an inspired application of mathematical relationships. I have faith, though, that if I apply myself and devote enough study to science and mathematics, I'll at least be able to understand some of the work that "smart" men (and women) before me have created.

 

Chris