A new form of Science

[matt]

Hey Bruce

I've done quite a lot of IQ tests during the past few years and one thing becomes strikingly clear - they are not at all accurate! Many years ago on my first few tests, my score sustained itself on a similar level, and then as I adapted more to the types of questions they were asking, I became more versatile in thinking those particular ways. Eventually, it gets to a stage where you are using memory of familiarised patterns rather than fresh intelligence itself. And the IQ scores are a reflection of this familiarity - they become higher as you adapt. I know a few people who proudly claim to have high IQ's, yet I also know these people obsess over their intelligence and have taken hundreds of these tests - its no wonder they score so high! A cleaning lady who does the pile of ironing for her client has advanced 'ironing intelligence', and again this is through repeating a similar pattern until her competancy levels rise.

There are also EQ tests to measure emotional intelligence. They pose questions relating to your emotional state in a variety of situations - how you would react; what would you do if..; how tuned are your empathy skills; can you recognise the emotions displayed by the person in this picture.. - And many would argue, that since the brain has emotional centres, then this is simply just another 'type' of brain test, whilst others say it is a 'heart' test.

Intelligence is a tricky thing. For me personally, my measure of intelligence in others is not in the counting of an IQ score, or the awe at just how much knowledge they have accumulated... its just simply how they treat other people. If care and compassion treads with them, or if they are able to smile upon intolerance, or if they are able to pull themselves up when gravity pulls them down, this always inspires me.

So that cleaning lady may be more intelligent than the scientist who frowns upon her lack of knowledge.

 

[lightofdarkness]

A quick, general summary:

Traditional "IQ" is highly correlated with reaction times. IOW within a given, strict, time period, tests are given with the result being on how 'correct' one can be within that time.

Initial exposure to such tests elicit a reaction time 'pre' any training where training can 'refine' the reactions to the test in that it allows for anticipation - something NOT seeked in measuring basic IQ where the focus is simply a measure on how quick, how differentiating, you can be (mine for example is about 137 to 147 depending on the tests I did when young but I have probably slowed down with age but increased in EQ)

(Gauss came up with the normal distribution curve based on issues with peoples reaction times - see http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/gauss.html )

The overall focus therefore is on issues of being 'quick' (and some can be too quick) and so there are roots in instant gratification - and so a measure of how much bandwidth one has access to 'immediately'.

EQ is more into issues of dealing with delay and so 'delayed gratification' - speed can help but the focus is on looking past the immediate - thus 'delayed gratification' allows for cultivation (and so is more 'yin' oriented, more time sensitive a la Wind)

IQ associates with reaction times that associate with maximising bandwidth to process something 'NOW'.

Reaction times associate with increase in metabolic rates and so bring out issues of subjective time distortion that comes with increase in energy usage (there being a reciprocal relationship of energy-measured-as-frequency vs subjective time experience)

What this means is that given 1 second of 'reality' time to assimilate 1 second of information (call it a 'bit') - by increase in metabolic rate the time is distorted such that in 1 second of 'real' time a person can assimilate 1.2 or 1.5 2.0 bits of information. Infants far exceed this but also have to recover a lot (they can experience 'days' to an adult's few hours etc) so sleep is important.

A GENETIC factor is in the coding of basic metabolic rates. For MOST humans the rate is about 1.2 Joules per Kg per second that can convert in your average person to relate to pulse/heart rates. (We can measure lifetime in heartbeats). Thus the average 'rate' is about 72 beats per minute (for the fit it is about 60) However some can have higher rates and be 'quicker' or have higher rates but need too much time to recover and so are not 'efficient' over a long time period.

This measure has an influence on how much information can be processed in any one moment. Genetic diversity will allow for 'high burners' to be 'quicker' than low burners re reaction times.

The left/right brain hemispheres reflect the dichotomy of local/global, differentiate/integrate, bandwidth/time. These are in fact reflected at all levels of the application of the dichotomy so it operates 'front/back' as well as within lobes of the hemispheres and all the way down to the neuron (IOW we get into 'fractal' dynamics)

The Bandwidth/Time dichotomy applied to information processing has links with Fourier Analysis with ITS reciprocal issues of frequency/time (where increase in frequency MEANS an increase in precision and so increase in bandwidth etc)

There is more to this in that we are not dealing with 'ideal' contexts - thus Spearmann's "g" factor can be genetic but comes with conditions - a need for recovery time, a possible lack in EQ etc such that the attraction to speed etc is 'fun' but 'settling down socially' an issue ;-)

(oh - and if you can read biologist Stephen Gould's "One Standard Lifespan" essay in New Scientist about 1976 or so)

IMHO you guys need to study some more physiology etc ;-)

Chris.

 

[lightofdarkness]

BTW - all of this also affects memory encoding/decoding - and so such concepts as 'state specific' memory or 'flash bulb' memory. The latter covering 'universal' experiences, the former with context-specific memories (and so not recallable until 'in' the context in which they were encoded)

Chris.

 

[bruce]

What is the relationship between consciousness and intelligence? For example, does intelligence qualify consciousness?

What intelligence specialties are used to determine over all consciousness? (Besides speed.)

How is creative intelligence measured, such as the ability to write a poem or lyric, compose a photographic image, or a dance?

What about intuitive intelligence?

How does the term ?useful? intelligence strike you?

 

[bruce]

Many Kinds of Smart
by Tamim Ansary

Everybody knows what "smart" is, at least until they try to nail it down.

I'm thinking specifically about my friend N. The guy is no Einstein, if you know what I mean. His grades were poor. His SAT scores? Don't ask. Instead of college, he went right to work for an elderly couple who owned a store. They hit it off, and N inherited the store when the owners died. How lucky is that? Then he piled up a mountain of debt buying up real estate he couldn't afford, the idiot. But the market went through the roof, and now N is...how shall I put it? Quite comfortable.

I have to turn the old adage on its head.

"If this guy is not smart, how come he's so rich?"

Here's the rub: Intelligence differs from person to person. My friend N, for example, didn't do well in school or on tests, but he's got something going for him, right? He's no dummy.

What sets one person's intelligence apart from another's is the type of complexity they're geared to handle. Michael Jordan, for example, could deal with basketball complexity in a game situation. Albert Einstein, meanwhile, could deal with complexity in mathematics.

So can we say there are multiple types of intelligence?

Many kinds of smart
Intelligence is a slippery concept. It's not like strength, which is so nicely one-dimensional. If you can lift 100 pounds of lead, you can lift 100 pounds of wood. Weight is weight. If you can push hard, you can probably pull hard, hit hard, the works: Strength is strength.

But if you can solve a math problem, does that mean you can write a good sonnet? Design a dress? Beat the stock market? There's just no telling.

That's why nowadays educators, "educrats," and educational psychologists talk about multiple intelligences, a theory put forth by Harvard professor Howard Gardner in his 1983 book Frames of Mind.

According to Gardner, intelligence is not any single thing. It's not like gas in your tank that you can register on a dial and ring up as a single number.

Intelligence, Gardner says, is made up of at least seven, maybe eight, possibly nine, or even who-knows-how-many distinct abilities, working separately or in tandem. Each of us has our own distinct blend, our own individual recipe of intelligences--a dash of this, a cup of that, two or three ounces of the other. And some of us, you may have noticed, have more than one cup, more than one bucket even, of some ability or other.

And what are the intelligences? Here's Gardner's starting lineup, the original seven:

? Linguistic intelligence: You could be a poet!
? Logical-mathematical intelligence: Einstein had it.
? Musical intelligence: The name says it all.
? Spatial intelligence: Who wants to be an architect?
? Bodily kinesthetic intelligence: Think Michael Jordan.
? Interpersonal intelligence: You'll go far in sales!
? Intrapersonal intelligence: Know thy own internal processes.
? Lately, Gardner has added an eighth intelligence: naturalistic intelligence. This is the ability to recognize, sort, and find patterns in things like plants, animals, clouds, and rocks. Very useful if you happen to be a hunter-gatherer. (Some experts question the existence of naturalistic intelligence, but experts rarely agree on everything.)

What separates one intelligence from another?
Why do the abilities Gardner identified rate as separate intelligences? Why isn't humor in there? What about cooking? Did he pull these categories out of his hat?

Well, no, actually: Gardner had criteria for his pronouncements. He asked questions like: Can a test be devised to measure it? Is it plausible in terms of evolution?

Another question Gardner asked is: Can brain damage take this particular intelligence out of commission, while leaving other ways of functioning intact? Psychologist Oliver Sacks gives a great example of this one in his book The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat (1985). Seems there was a music professor who lost his ability to judge or interpret anything he saw--he could easily mistake his wife for a hat. However, if he hummed or played particular pieces of music to go with his daily activities, he was okay and could function.

Another of Gardner's techniques is the simple observation that people can be really smart in one way without excelling much in other ways. Take Charles Darwin, for example. He was a so-so student, pegged for greatness by no one--until he went on a long voyage and saw countless strange plants and animals. Then suddenly--boom! He came up with the world-shaking theory of evolution by natural selection.

 

[lightofdarkness]

Given the binary sequence of the IC, we have a ready-made ordering of energy mappings, half conserving, half expending, that can be used to describe different forms of intelligence and different forms of consciousness.

In 'lower' life forms the measure of self-awareness is tested using such things as mirrors (where apes can exploit the mirror to see parts of themselves they cannot usually see etc)

Then come issues of others-aware (theory of mind) - in our species 'issues' develop here at about age 2 (the 'terrible' twos) where the infant finds that the world is NOT all under their conscious control, one has to deal with other minds.

The 'X-ness' of hexagrams indicates 'hard coded' behaviours at the GLOBAL level, allowing for 'deviations' at the local level (and so 'freedom of choice' etc) where not knowing the hard-coding could elicit a sensing of the presence of intelligence.

For any life form, the internalisation of a map of the local context (as in genetically programmed) allows for pre-empting of events and so benefits in adopting certain behaviours. These can be seen as 'intelligence' by observers unaware of the internalisation.

The GENERAL qualities of hexagrams show a full spectrum of behaviours hard-coded into the species with local context allowing for 'deviations'. Local context relates to the realm of expression and so of mediation dynamics and so the presence of consciousness.
A specialist dichotomy at work here is that of exploit/protect where the 'ground' is in the protect element (the reactive side) and exploitation is indicative of some form of intelligence (cunning etc - proactive side)

Specialist "exploitation" can indicate an adaptation to some set of behaviours beneficial to the life form without 'conscious' exploitation. OTOH 'universal' exploitation, the ability to turn any 'reactive' situation to a 'proactive' state would appear to indicate 'intelligence' and 'consciousness'.

Chris.

 

[bruce]

"the ability to turn any 'reactive' situation to a 'proactive' state would appear to indicate 'intelligence' and 'consciousness'."

It would appear that the entire earth shows this capability, and everything on and within it, IE: photosynthesis, climate adaptations, and all the same dynamics as the IC. Why then is it foolish to say a tree has consciousness?

 

[martin]

The idea that proactivity is an indication of intelligence and awareness is old and typical for the biased "western" (meanwhile nearly global) view of things.
We only recently begin to realize how stupid and unaware our proactivity (toward our natural environment) often has been and still is.
High proactivity can go very well with a total lack of sensitivity, a low EQ (!) and seeking short term gains while forgetting the long term costs.
Instant gratification, Chris!

 

[micheline]

but a tree is living and a rock is ...not...? I have no trouble with the idea that a tree has consciouness, but you got me thinking about the rock, Bruce
I googled all kinds of things about rocks and consciousness and got some interesting reads. some were over my head (or beyond my patience maybe) but some were so interesting...each rock that you happen to pick up is completely unique, not only by virtue of the particles that formed it, but in terms of its "interaction" with everything else that has affected it.

take the essence of a rock down to its atomic level and how could a rock not have consciousness of some kind?

anyway, in this cyber journey, I came upon a poem that I have searched for before to no avail! It is a quote used by jean houston in some of her lectures and I share it here. Maybe it has nothing at all to do with this discussion, but its great anyway!

It is a from an article about the nature of consciousness written by Peter Russell and the poem is called Sleep of Prisoners by Christopher Fry:

The human heart can go the length of God
Dark and cold we may be
But this is no winter now
The frozen misery of centuries
Cracks, breaks, begins to move
The thunder is the thunder of the floes,
The thaw, the flood, the upstart spring.
Thank God our time is now
When wrong comes up to meet us everywhere
Never to leave us 'til we take

The greatest stride of soul folk ever took
Affairs are now soul size
The enterprise is exploration into God
But where are you making for
It takes so many thousand years to wake
But will you wake, for pity?s sake

 

[kevin]

Thanks Micheline - I enjoyed that.

My cry was forever, "Will I wake for pity's sake."

I don't want to go off topic twice... but...

Is there any measure for Spiritual IQ?

Perhaps there should be.

--Anomalous

 

[bruce]

Micheline, lovely poem. Thanks for sharing it.

I'm a skeptic by nature. Whatever phantasmagoric creatures have manifest to me as being reliable, were battled with doubt. Crystals, for example, were just such a skepticism as this. Then a friend gave to me a piece of amber. Said it connects one with one's center. I didn't question it because I happened to trust this person completely, and it was lightweight and easy to wear. There's no doubt now in my mind that rocks have consciousness. In the metaphor sense, I already knew this, having always been fascinated with stones, and now living surround by bare mountains. In the image I posted above, each of those tiny stones were hand sifted from the sandy dirt, just outside my front door. Each one is conscious, albeit on a barely audible level, but each does vibrate. And let's remember that crystal is a superior energy storage agent.

 

[bruce]

Where this starts to fall apart is by differentiating, compartmentalizing, individualizing. Perhaps this is the scientist that Martin referred to earlier. But if all that is is one, then that is the consciousness we share. All that is is conscious because consciousness is all that is.

This comes back to my difference with Chris. None of what I've just said makes any reasonable sense to him, because his own filters skew what he needs to "feel" conscious.

 

[bruce]

Instead of trying to explain consciousness within the current superparadigm, we need to accept that consciousness is as fundamental as matter?in some ways, more fundamental

 

[lightofdarkness]

Bruce - it is the metabolic rates that matter in areas outside of genetics (IOW doing things within a life form's lifetime not programmed as such)

In our systems there is a window bounded by too slow a rate and one cannot 'link the dots' 24/7 - this is labelled as 'cretanism'. Too fast a rate and we get psychosis. (thyroid gland issues can get into all of this as the hormones released influence metabolic rates)

All of this is demonstratable and covered in empirical research (for metabolisms, cycles etc "google" on "chronobiology" )

At this time, with the ongoing research in neurosciences etc etc there is no need to "accept that consciousness is as fundamental as matter" - your particular prose suggests there IS a need FOR YOU and that is an acceptable perspective amongst the set of possible perspectives given our neurology. IOW the ANALOGY/METAPHOR can be useful but that does not mean it is 'real' and such blind faith is not 'science' ;-)

IDM includes the presence of 'blind faith' as a property of our being (fundamentalism, be it religious or secular shows this - as does expressions of genetically-determined singlemindeded where there is no consideration of any 'NOT' state) but it is not useful in trying to fathom our being and our universe - Science DEMANDS A/NOT-A and our brains show that basic development demands it too.

MY focus is on what is POSSIBLE given an understanding of the methodology used by our species, and other neuron-dependent species, to derive and communicate meaning. You seem to be more focused on asserting some particular 'is-ness' rather than accepting that what is being delt with is 'bigger' than first thought by many - as with the IC itself in that ALL hexagrams apply to any moment - the trick is consistantly finding the 'best fit' for the local conditions. Our consciousness has not covered that, thus showing its particulars focus. It is with work on neurosciences that we have started to see the scope of our information processing unconsciously.

Given that current Science research has led to the IDM model, and that model, when applied to past paradigms, has re-structured perspectives (and so brought out the XOR material etc) so that model is 'useful' in coming up with what seeds our expresssions (and that includes descriptions of consciousness and issues of fundmentalism, relativism etc etc)

And so I have the perspective I have where I have repeatedly emphasised that all of consciousness is covered in the IC through the use of hexagrams as analogy/metaphors in descriptions of particular aspects of consciousness (and for that matter, given self-referencing in a unique context, the development of the aspect into the perception of a discrete entity)

In the dynamics of stimulus/response we see a mediation position in the middle out of which also comes representation - consciousness works off DELAY and so that middle position.

In the act of conserving energy in a thermodynamic universe, the mediation position 'disappears' once the mediation is complete and a suitable response has been habituated to deal with the stimulus. BUT, in OUR complex neurology that mediation position dominates to a degree it favours 'mediating contexts' and so we perpetuate the middle position through creating mediation-driven collectives. Rocks etc do not do this ;-)

Chris.

 

[martin]

Good article, Bruce. Puts it very clearly.

"All these approaches assume that consciousness somehow arises from, or is dependent upon, the world of space-time-matter. In one way or another they are trying to accommodate the anomaly of consciousness within the materialist superparadigm. The underlying beliefs are seldom, if ever, questioned."

"The underlying beliefs are seldom, if ever, questioned." That seems to be the main problem.
The belief that consciousness arises from neurology and other physical factors is not recognized as a belief.

Charles Tart, in an article about out-of-body experiences, puts it this way:
" I am a scientist, which I consider a noble calling that demands the best from me, and I?m very much in favor of using genuine science to help our understanding in all areas of life, including the spiritual. Scientism, on the other hand, is a perversion of genuine science. Scientism in our time consists of a dogmatic commitment to a materialist philosophy that explains away the spiritual rather than actually examining it carefully and trying to understand it (Wellmuth, 1944). Those of you who have a negative feeling when I first mentioned science have probably gotten it from encounters with scientism. Since scientism never recognizes itself as a belief system, but always thinks of itself as true science, the confusion is pernicious."


Chris writes:
"At this time, with the ongoing research in neurosciences etc etc there is no need to "accept that consciousness is as fundamental as matter" - your particular prose suggests there IS a need FOR YOU and that is an acceptable perspective amongst the set of possible perspectives given our neurology. IOW the ANALOGY/METAPHOR can be useful but that does not mean it is 'real' and such blind faith is not 'science' ;-)"

There we have it, scientism. The belief that consciousness is fundamental is declared to be a matter of personal need and faith (and even blind faith) that is "not science".
On the other hand the belief that consciousness emerges from neurology is not recognized as a belief. It is "science".

Why this odd assymetry?
Has science verified that consciousness indeed arises from neurology? Has it verified that brain activity is more fundamental than consciousness?
Has it falsified that consciousness is less fundamental?
No, it hasn't. Science only shows that there are correlations between brain states and subjective experience. The rest is belief, faith, an unproven hypothesis. And every genuine scientist (in the sense of Tart) will admit that.

 

[martin]

Oops, "Has it falsified that consciousness is less fundamental?" should be "Has it falsified that consciousness is more fundamental?"

 

[martin]

Meanwhile, we can theorize about consciousness and awareness till our brains fall out of our skull but the best way to know it is still to perceive it in ourselves.

I believe it was Wittgenstein who once said something like (I don't remember the exact wording) "don't think about it, watch it!"
And according to some sources Wittgenstein had an IQ of around 200, which makes him IQ-wise one of the most intelligent people that ever lived.
Now, if such a man says "stop thinking about it!" there must be something in it, me thinks, ummm feels, err, senses.

 

[martin]

Btw, a HIGH IQ is interesting, but what interests me more is my and your HAIKU.

My haiku
is forever beyond words
yet I never speak anything else

 

[bruce]

I'm pretty satisfied with your response, Chris, considering. IE: ?there is no need to "accept that consciousness is as fundamental as matter" - your particular prose suggests there IS a need FOR YOU and that is an acceptable perspective amongst the set of possible perspectives given our neurology.?

I agree, there is no need to accept this or any other hypothesis. It is a ?best fit? scenario.

The Christian seeks a relationship with God.
The Scientist seeks an explanation of God.
The Mystic seeks to experience God.

So with you chasing neurons and me chasing dreams, it?s all chasing God.

 

[bruce]

I've never heard words more true than your - our - haiku.

 

[micheline]

Kevin- a measure for spiritual IQ?....hmmmmm, doubt there could be one.

*fools* would score highest..but

*Fools* slip through the cracks of any kind of instument of assessment

 

[soshin]

My haiku
is forever beyond words
yet I never speak anything else

This is even better than Bassho! ;-)