What is the limit of human intelligence if any?

[Kerrie]

i agree nico, that and a strong will to be proven right.

loseyourname, you only have proven what i stated earlier:

to compare our abilities to a bat is to compare car to a bicycle. each are modes of transportation, but is one better then the other? only in specific instances. a car is much better at long distance travel, however a bike is much better at not polluting our environment and lower maintenance.

if you had read my words more carefully, you would have seen the admission that a car is much better for long distance travels. i am unsure why your need to have posted such a lengthy debate over a point i already made.

here is a link to an excellent theory of different intelligences:
http://www.thomasarmstrong.com/multiple_intelligences.htm

i don't believe we can measure intelligence in one lump sum, but rather take different aspects such as this theory suggests.

also, is the (slow) process of a society evolving necessarily proof of higher intelligence then other societies on earth? when i state evolving, i am referring to how humans have evolved from not knowing what fire is, to the formation of knowledge that has allowed us to harness energy (electricy, etc) and understand just how our world works.

 

[loseyourname]

if you had read my words more carefully, you would have seen the admission that a car is much better for long distance travels. i am unsure why your need to have posted such a lengthy debate over a point i already made.

Ha! I wasn't trying to argue with what you said. I was just curious about exactly what the impact was, so I looked up some chemical equations, conversion factors, and did some calculations. Call me a nerd, but I actually find it fun to figure these things out. It makes it very hard to fool me with propaganda.

here is a link to an excellent theory of different intelligences:
http://www.thomasarmstrong.com/multiple_intelligences.htm

I've taken this test before, and though I won't comment on the theory itself, I will say that the test is bunk. It tests your preferences, not your aptitudes. I scored near the max on every intelligence other than interpersonal and intrapersonal.

i don't believe we can measure intelligence in one lump sum, but rather take different aspects such as this theory suggests.

Jeez, Kerrie, did you read the post I made before the one about the car? I'm pretty sure I cleared this up. You're answering the question in the title of the thread, which is about intelligence. There are a million different ways of defining intelligence, so I don't even see how you begin to answer that one. I'm answering the question asked in the post, which pertained to understanding, which I think is very obviously limited. I included several additional examples. Heck, most humans barely understand basic algebra.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I've taken this test before, and though I won't comment on the theory itself, I will say that the test is bunk. It tests your preferences, not your aptitudes. I scored near the max on every intelligence other than interpersonal and intrapersonal.

So the fact that you scored high is evidence the test is bunk? :)

 

[Kerrie]

So the fact that you scored high is evidence the test is bunk? :)

you beat me to it

 

[Kerrie]

I've taken this test before, and though I won't comment on the theory itself, I will say that the test is bunk. It tests your preferences, not your aptitudes.

There are a million different ways of defining intelligence, so I don't even see how you begin to answer that one. I'm answering the question asked in the post, which pertained to understanding, which I think is very obviously limited. I included several additional examples. Heck, most humans barely understand basic algebra.

you call the Multiple Intelligence Theory bunk, but then you claim there are a million different ways of defining intelligence...did you not read the link?? The theory is stating the that there are different forms of human intelligence. In the beginning of this thread you claimed:

We're never going to know exactly how a bat (or any other creature that uses echolocation to "see") experiences the world, which is a limit placed on us by evolution,

now you are claiming intelligence is about understanding. So what is your definition of intelligence??The ability to experience the world or understand it to the best of your abilities?

It's clearly evident you need to loseyourwilltoargue and gainsomerealperspective.

 

[loseyourname]

You call the Multiple Intelligence Theory bunk

though I won't comment on the theory itself

Funny how you missed that little caveat, which I specifically put in so that you wouldn't think I was calling the theory bunk.

now you are claiming intelligence is about understanding.

You're answering the question in the title of the thread, which is about intelligence. I'm answering the question asked in the post, which pertained to understanding . . .

Notice how I make a distinction there between understanding and intelligence. I'm not claiming intelligence is about understanding. I'm claiming that I'm answering the question "Is there a limit to human understanding?" Rather than the question "Is there a limit to human intelligence?"

It's clearly evident you need to loseyourwilltoargue and gainsomerealperspective.

Please don't make fun of me. It's very unbecoming, especially of a moderator.

 

[loseyourname]

So the fact that you scored high is evidence the test is bunk? :)

I will say that the test is bunk. It tests your preferences, not your aptitudes.

The fact that the test asked how you prefer to go about solving problems, rather than actually giving any problems to solve, is evidence that it is bunk. Again, it tests preferences, not aptitudes.

Just so that, hopefully, there is no further misunderstanding (though I get the distinct feeling there will be anyway), I will say one more time that I am not commenting on the theory itself. It may or may not be bunk. I have no idea. The way it was explained to me when I took the test, the theory seemed perfectly consistent and it makes sense, although I have no idea what kind of evidential backing it has. I am only saying that the test does not in any way measure a person's intelligence.

 

[Kerrie]

Funny how you missed that little caveat, which I specifically put in so that you wouldn't think I was calling the theory bunk.

i wasn't aware there was a link for a test on this page. i only provided a link to the this theory. why are you then commenting on a test?? and like SA commented, if you scored so well on the test, yet think the theory is bunk, it's not a wonder why you feel so misunderstood. your train of thought is extremely inconsistent and downright confusing.

Notice how I make a distinction there between understanding and intelligence. I'm not claiming intelligence is about understanding. I'm claiming that I'm answering the question "Is there a limit to human understanding?" Rather than the question "Is there a limit to human intelligence?"

if this is the case, you are then off topic. i think here you are trying to twist the words for whatever reason that is not worth arguing. if you are choosing to participate in this thread, then address the question being presented.

Please don't make fun of me. It's very unbecoming, especially of a moderator.

not poking fun, but rather making a point. stop being so sensitive and argumentative.

 

[loseyourname]

i wasn't aware there was a link for a test on this page. i only provided a link to the this theory.

You also didn't read my post very carefully, because I stated pretty clearly that I was not criticizing the theory. I stated that so that hopefully such a misunderstanding as this would not occur.

if this is the case, you are then off topic. i think here you are trying to twist the words for whatever reason that is not worth arguing.

Nope. I'm just answering the question that the author of the thread asked. I'll post it here for you to read once more:

Do you feel that humans will ever reach a point where they just won't be able to understand something?

Notice the word "understand." I am inclined to say that my posting about the limits of human understanding were not off-topic. But I suppose it's your call. This is your forum.

and like SA commented, if you scored so well on the test, yet think the theory is bunk, it's not a wonder why you feel so misunderstood.

All right. Let me state one last time, as unambiguously as I possibly can: I do not think that the theory is bunk. I do not even know the specifics of this theory. I have no idea what kind of evidential backing it has. For this reason, I am not commenting on the theory in any way, positive or negative. Is that clear enough for you, or should I repeat it a fifth time?

 

[Nicomachus]

What's the deal here? I thought we were discussing epistemology? As far as this theory ... What so it basically says "Some people are good at math and some people are not but are good with language" or whatever ... big deal. Nothing revolutionary there. Oh well.
*Nico

 

[Kerrie]

i agree nico. i believe there is a certain amount of biological influence coupled with a will that drives intelligence, whether it be expressed artistically, intellectually, athletically or emotionally. certainly there can be something said for artists and their abilities (music, classical, etc) that the average human is unable to achieve. as i stated before, the only limit is what we place on ourselves. to elaborate more on that point, we are in direct control of how far we can take ourselves within the boundaries of our biology. if more were convinced of this fact, humanity as a whole could achieve so much more then we already have.