PDA

View Full Version : Meta intelligence



JHotz
2005-Oct-29, 03:13 AM
If intelligence is the capacity to learn and solve problems how can it be measured?

If a test involving problem solving is used it only useful in determining how well a person solved that test at that time and has little of know value as real test of intelligence. One might say it is a test of one familiarity with the type of problem.

Furthermore most tests are essentially binary; meaning they are either right wrong, multiple choice, or true/false, while human thought processes are largely analog meaning they are based on variables with an endless number of possible values. Values such as more, less, very much, the real values are know comparatively and intuitively and are usually to complex to express efficiently with language or in writing.

If we look at the issue of intelligence from the perspective of solving problem unfamiliar to the tested how can this be tested?

Human thought occurs a range of levels between completely conscious and completely unconscious. The more familiar the context of thought the more unconscious the thought becomes. Since conscious thought is a limited resource it is absolutely necessary that this happen, else wise more complex thinking becomes increasingly difficult. The problem occurs when errors are made when the thinking is conscious, as they tend to persist. These errors multiply as later thinking is built on the foundation of the erroneous ideas. The more this is done the greater the investment the thinker has in these mistakes and the harder it is for them to be changed. These errors can be just as big an impediment as the excessive consciousness of the details of a problem solving process.

I believe that in terms of absolute intelligence it is a person’s awareness how the human mind works to solve problems gives a real measure of that intelligence. One method would be to present variety of problems and have the tested present a series of questions that can be used to solve the problem. Another method might be to observe another solve a problem and to explain the inefficiencies, sticking points, and strength in the observed problem solving.

Bathcat
2005-Oct-29, 03:45 AM
...what about an intuitive genius?

I mean, someone who has not a Clew about their own thought processes but nevertheless is astoundingly successful at performing certain tasks?

(I dislike the phrase "solving problems" because...well, what problem is solved by painting The Moaning Lisa? All intelligent endeavor is not, I suggest, only involved in solving problems. Play, creative doodling, can be highly intelligent.)

I think I understand your gist in meta-intelligence, and in some ways I like the idea but...

I dunno. There is more to it than meets the mind...more than meets the meat computer, perhaps?

Ken G
2005-Oct-29, 07:45 AM
(I think I may have just heard Mona Lisa let out some moaning herself...) :doh:

SirBlack
2005-Oct-29, 09:03 AM
Though perhaps creative activities could be viewed as problem solving of a sort. The problem, or challenge at least, is turning the person's idea into an actual creation.

Depicting some visual scene using various colored pigments spread on a flat surface, while following some particular style (such as realism), while the real scene is like not likely flat nor as limited in colors as the artist's pigments... I'd say there can be a lot of problem solving involved there.


As for intelligence... interesting idea. If I read it right, true intelligence is not just learning knowledge and being able to apply it, but actually the awareness of one's own ability to learn and solve problems. Perhaps because that awareness then allows one to examine and modify one's own abilities. So intelligence would be intimately tied to some level of consciousness.

On the subject of testing for it, something to think about... Say we have a possibly intelligent entity which we cannot communicate with through any language complex enough to ask our questions. Could we still make any significant judgement of this entity's level of intelligence? How would we do so and how confident could we really be in the judgement?

Ken G
2005-Oct-29, 12:08 PM
I'm surprised the issue of complexity has not yet arisen. After all, the whole premise of intelligent design is that to design complex things requires great intelligence. Thus the implicit assumption is that intelligence is a measure of the complexity of the problem that can be solved. I agree that self-awareness comes along with intelligence, but it can't be a direct relation because I doubt Einstein was "more self-aware" than we are. Intelligent people find hard things easy, I doubt it "feels" any different in the process. Just as we might find it easy to figure out that a round peg should go into a round hole, for a genius, more complex things look like round holes!

John_Charles_Webb
2005-Oct-30, 01:51 AM
If intelligence is the capacity to learn and solve problems how can it be measured?

by S.A.T. scores!

I believe that intelligence can be measured by the ability to extract one's self from the cosmology of "problematic contexts", and ultimate intelligence remembers that it is God.

SolusLupus
2005-Nov-03, 12:00 AM
Whee, bringing Theology into it.

Y'know, everyone talks about this God guy. He must be famous!

Anyways...

How can you measure something that everyone has an individual definition of? Intelligence isn't exactly something that's very easy to judge. You can judge aspects of intelligence, but learning speed is different than knowledge is different than creativity is different than talent is different than skill.

JHotz
2005-Nov-10, 10:04 AM
...what about an intuitive genius?I think of intuition as being the same as unconcious thought.


I mean, someone who has not a Clue about their own thought processes but nevertheless is astoundingly successful at performing certain tasks?I have found that most people do not have a clue about their own thought processes.


(I dislike the phrase "solving problems" because...well, what problem is solved by painting The Moaning Lisa? All intelligent endeavor is not, I suggest, only involved in solving problems. Play, creative doodling, can be highly intelligent.)Interesting point. I propose that art has a purpose. That purpose is to stimulate emotional response in the viewer. Therefore the task or problem of the artist is to stimulate his audience.


I think I understand your gist in meta-intelligence, and in some ways I like the idea but...

I dunno. There is more to it than meets the mind...more than meets the meat computer, perhaps?You think there is a more important factor to intelligence that a conscious awareness of the nature of human thought? Consider this. I believe there are two levels of knowing. The intellectual understanding and the intuitive feeling that something is correct. Understanding a concept means that you understand consciously. Intuiting means that you subconsciously accept the validity the concept. It manifests as a felling of trust in a notion.

JHotz
2005-Nov-10, 10:21 AM
Though perhaps creative activities could be viewed as problem solving of a sort. The problem, or challenge at least, is turning the person's idea into an actual creation.I agree. I believe that the human mind has certain built in drives. I call them emotional appetites. One such drive is the need for creative expression. Therefore we create because we have an appetite to create.


Depicting some visual scene using various colored pigments spread on a flat surface, while following some particular style (such as realism), while the real scene is like not likely flat nor as limited in colors as the artist's pigments... I'd say there can be a lot of problem solving involved there.Your analogy also reveals the source of creative inspiration. It is the imposition of the limitations of a 2 dimensional media to convey a three dimensional perception that fuel the creative mechanism.



As for intelligence... interesting idea. If I read it right, true intelligence is not just learning knowledge and being able to apply it, but actually the awareness of one's own ability to learn and solve problems. Perhaps because that awareness then allows one to examine and modify one's own abilities.Yes yes yes. The biggest modifier of ones own ability is called attitude. This attitude will occur unconsciously. I a person is conscious of their unconscious processes they can conciously modify them to correct errors or make them more efficient.
So intelligence would be intimately tied to some level of consciousness.You could say level of consciousness. I would say conscious of the nature of human thought in general and their own decision making dynamics in particular.


On the subject of testing for it, something to think about... Say we have a possibly intelligent entity which we cannot communicate with through any language complex enough to ask our questions. Could we still make any significant judgement of this entity's level of intelligence? How would we do so and how confident could we really be in the judgement?
It depends on what the intelligence is being measured against. If the intelligence is fundamentally different from human intelligence then parameters for the comparison would need to be established.

JHotz
2005-Nov-10, 10:34 AM
I'm surprised the issue of complexity has not yet arisen. After all, the whole premise of intelligent design is that to design complex things requires great intelligence. The concept of complexity has no meaning without a frame of reference
Thus the implicit assumption is that intelligence is a measure of the complexity of the problem that can be solved.I disagree. In the largely analogue awareness of known intelligence there is virtually unlimited complexity in all problem solving. This is why a computer cannot approximate human brain function.
I agree that self-awareness comes along with intelligence, but it can't be a direct relation because I doubt Einstein was "more self-aware" than we are.You make the assumption that all minds are intelligent in the same ways. I seem to recall Einstein had a quite unstable family life. I recall that he struggled socially as a child. His speech was delayed and he did not adapt well to the public school system. If we look at intelligence as one all encompassing ability why did he have trouble with those issues?
Intelligent people find hard things easy, I doubt it "feels" any different in the process.I suggest hard and easy are more indicative of familiarity and attitude than intelligence.

Just as we might find it easy to figure out that a round peg should go into a round hole, for a genius, more complex things look like round holes!