Is intelligence equal to knowledge?

  • Medical
  • Thread starter octelcogopod
  • Start date
  • #26
857
2
quantumcarl said:
Experience would be a good candidate as a support mechanism for knowledge. But, what is the actual, physical make-up of knowledge? Is knowledge just some more electromagnetic patterns generated by several billion sodium/potassium pumps? Or is it genetically encoded? Or both???:confused:
U mean the knowledge that is not equal to direct experience, like "i know what i will do tomorrow"?

It could be a physical construct organised in such a way that it represents a model of some situation, which can then be interpreted by the observer. Though he doesnt observe the real situation directly (and thus does not know from direct experience), he does observe the construct which may be similar to direct experience to some degree.

Im just speculating btw.
 
  • #27
Rade
PIT2 said:
Last week i posted a topic that showed that it now does look like mendelian genetics is wrong:https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=121972
Yes, very interesting post about role of RNA, but this type of research does not suggest mendelian genetics (e.g., the genetics from DNA) is "wrong", only incomplete.
 
  • #28
755
0
PIT2 said:
U mean the knowledge that is not equal to direct experience, like "i know what i will do tomorrow"?

It could be a physical construct organised in such a way that it represents a model of some situation, which can then be interpreted by the observer. Though he doesnt observe the real situation directly (and thus does not know from direct experience), he does observe the construct which may be similar to direct experience to some degree.

Im just speculating btw.
Imagine how a deer has "knowledge, comprehension and understanding" of standing and walking in about 5 minutes or less after being born.

We call this "innate" and we call it "instinct". But it knows how to balance, it uses visual cues and utilizes all the other instrinsic cybernetics of walking.

What is instinctual knowledge? How is it encoded? How is it interpreted without prior experience?

I could go on for another mile of text... but I'll spare you and myself the torture. Please consider my question... however!
 
  • #29
857
2
quantumcarl said:
Imagine how a deer has "knowledge, comprehension and understanding" of standing and walking in about 5 minutes or less after being born.

We call this "innate" and we call it "instinct". But it knows how to balance, it uses visual cues and utilizes all the other instrinsic cybernetics of walking.

What is instinctual knowledge? How is it encoded? How is it interpreted without prior experience?
Consider the body as a blueprint/template that can be interpreted by direct experience and acted upon. How this interpreting works without prior experience(if this is the case), it beats me, but i would think that it starts in a very abstract way.

If u look at ur own body movements, u can see that u do not need to understand the workings of all muscle cells in order to move an arm. U do not even have to think in any language to do this. Perhaps its like a person using a computer. Though the person is in control of the thing and can produce the results he wants, he doesnt understand its parts or their workings. These parts however are automated according to a design blueprint, which work without any experience or understanding of them being required. The only understanding the person needs is of the graphical user interface - GUI.

In another topic there was the idea that 'consciousness exists to make itself unneccesary', which talked of consciousness making learned skills automatic:

In a very real sense, then, the purpose of consciousness -- why it evolved -- may be for the assemblage of complex nonconscious skills. In harmony with the general plasticity of human brain development, people have the capability of building ever more complex automatic “demons” that fit their own idiosyncratic environment, needs, and purposes. As William James (1890) argued, consciousness drops out of those processes where it is no longer needed, freeing itself for where it is...Intriguingly, then, one of the primary objectives of conscious processing may be to eliminate the need for itself in the future by making learned skills as automatic as possible. It would be ironic indeed if, given the current juxtaposition of automatic and conscious mental processes in the field of psychology, the evolved purpose of consciousness turns out to be the creation of ever more complex nonconscious processes.

http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jab257/Bypassing_the_Will.pdf
In organisms, these 'learned' skills could be stored inside genes (whether they are produced by random mutations + natural selection makes no difference, it simply means that the skills were acquired (= 'learned') through RM+NS). The result would be that an organism could use the body as a whole, without understanding its parts. This way direct experience (which represents the GUI mentioned above) could have direct control over the parts. The direct experience can, through intelligence, create very simple concepts very easily, such as:

"I smell A, I like smell A, I want to smell it again".

Upon thinking this, the automated parts can be activated to achieve the goal. A newborn deer may sense gravity then start walking this way, driven by a simple concept formed by direct experience.

Perhaps if we kill everyone who doesnt speak english and do this for another 10 million years, the english language would be encoded in our genes and we would know it from birth :biggrin:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #30
755
0
PIT2 said:
Consider the body as a blueprint/template that can be interpreted by direct experience and acted upon. How this interpreting works without prior experience(if this is the case), it beats me, but i would think that it starts in a very abstract way.

If u look at ur own body movements, u can see that u do not need to understand the workings of all muscle cells in order to move an arm. U do not even have to think in any language to do this. Perhaps its like a person using a computer. Though the person is in control of the thing and can produce the results he wants, he doesnt understand its parts or their workings. These parts however are automated according to a design blueprint, which work without any experience or understanding of them being required. The only understanding the person needs is of the graphical user interface - GUI.

In another topic there was the idea that 'consciousness exists to make itself unneccesary', which talked of consciousness making learned skills automatic:



In organisms, these 'learned' skills could be stored inside genes (whether they are produced by random mutations + natural selection makes no difference, it simply means that the skills were acquired (= 'learned') through RM+NS). The result would be that an organism could use the body as a whole, without understanding its parts. This way direct experience (which represents the GUI mentioned above) could have direct control over the parts. The direct experience can, through intelligence, create very simple concepts very easily, such as:

"I smell A, I like smell A, I want to smell it again".

Upon thinking this, the automated parts can be activated to achieve the goal. A newborn deer may sense gravity then start walking this way, driven by a simple concept formed by direct experience.

Perhaps if we kill everyone who doesnt speak english and do this for another 10 million years, the english language would be encoded in our genes and we would know it from birth :biggrin:
Kill everyone who doesn't speak english? Its been done and continues.:mad:

I think that genes and the DNA molecule require quite a bit less time than 10,000,000 years and less extrinsically imposed modification for them to be encoded with configurations that can be considered reflexes or instincts..... or "habits" as Mr. Charles Darwin calls them.....

Charles Darwin said:
I will not attempt any definition of instinct. It would be easy to show that several distinct mental actions are commonly embraced by this term; but every one understands what is meant, when it is said that instinct impels the cuckoo to migrate and to lay her eggs in other birds' nests. An action, which we ourselves require experience to enable us to perform, when performed by an animal, more especially by a very young one, without experience, and when performed by many individuals in the same way, without their knowing for what purpose it is performed, is usually said to be instinctive. But I could show that none of these characters are universal. A little dose of judgment or reason, as Pierre Huber expresses it, often comes into play, even with animals low in the scale of nature.

Frederic Cuvier and several of the older metaphysicians have compared instinct with habit. This comparison gives, I think, an accurate notion of the frame of mind under which an instinctive action is performed, but not necessarily of its origin. How unconsciously many habitual actions are performed, indeed not rarely in direct opposition to our conscious will! Yet they may be modified by the will or reason. Habits easily become associated with other habits, with certain periods of time, and states of the body. When once acquired, they often remain constant throughout life. Several other points of resemblance between instincts and habits could be pointed out. As in repeating a well-known song, so in instincts, one action follows another by a sort of rhythm; if a person be interrupted in a song, or in repeating anything by rote, he is generally forced to go back to recover the habitual train of thought; so P. Huber found it was with a caterpillar, which makes a very complicated hammock; for if he took a caterpillar which had completed its hammock up to, say, the sixth stage of construction, and put it into a hammock completed up only to the third stage, the caterpillar simply reperformed the fourth, fifth, and sixth stages of construction. if, however, a caterpillar were taken out of a hammock made up, for instance, to the third stage, and were put into one finished up to the sixth stage, so that much of its work was already done for it, far from deriving any benefit from this, it was much embarrassed, and in order to complete its hammock, seemed forced to start from the third stage, where it had left off, and thus tried to complete the already finished work.

If we suppose any habitual action to become inherited - and it can be shown that this does sometimes happen - then the resemblance between what originally was a habit and an instinct becomes so close as not to be distinguished. If Mozart, instead of playing the pianoforte at three years old with wonderfully little practice, had played a tune with no practice at all, he might truly be said to have done so instinctively. But it would be a serious error to suppose that the greater number of instincts have been acquired by habit in one generation, and then transmitted by inheritance to succeeding generations. It can be clearly shown that the most wonderful instincts with which we are acquainted, namely, those of the hive-bee and of many ants, could not possibly have been acquired by habit.
From: http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/darwin/origin/oos8_1.htm [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Related Threads on Is intelligence equal to knowledge?

  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
5K
Replies
11
Views
48K
Replies
59
Views
12K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
22
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
7K
Top