[ExI] Fwd: Chalmers

[William Flynn Wallace]

I agree with all of that, John.  I don't know what else you can do with
intelligence research.  People don't think it is tested by the current IQ
tests, but have not come up with alternatives which are demonstrably better.

It tends to correlate with very many things, though not creativity.
Creativity suffers the same problems in that people don't agree with
creativity tests as measuring creativity.  I would agree that thinking of
unusual uses for a brick doesn't appeal to me either (a common test on
which I did poorly, so obviously it's no good).

We all want to know what intelligence is and I am going to enlighten you
now:  it is the ability to answer questions on an IQ test.  We accept that
chemistry class tests measure chemical knowledge, and that physics class
tests measure physics knowledge, but somehow are not happy with IQ tests,
even though they are the most useful tests we have.  I suspect some people
of sour grapes.

What would you like to see done in intelligence research?

bill w

On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 5:15 PM John Clark via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

>
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 5:29 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
> >I am assuming that the neural networks that increase in activity when a
>> certain stimulus is applied is the same - equal - isomorphic - whatever you
>> want to call it - as the conscious experience.
>>
>
> I think that is an excellent assumption but it is nevertheless just an
> assumption and one based on intellagent behavior; that's why you believe
> animals are more conscious than rocks and why you believe when one of your
> fellow human beings is taking a calculus exam he is probably conscious but
> when he is sleeping, or under anesthesia, or dead he is probably not. And
> that is also why intelligence theories are so much more important than
> consciousness theories.
>
> John K Clark
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> They don't produce the conscious experience as a separate response - they
>> ARE the conscious experience.  When that network lights up just as it did
>> last time and the time before and so on, when a red stimulus was presented,
>> you have nailed down where red is (or, I suppose if you want to be really
>> precise, that wavelength of red).  If you show a red apple, you get that
>> network and another one, presumably representing apples.
>>
>> Of course you also ask the subject what he is experiencing.  He'd better
>> say red or we are in trouble!
>>
>> I don't know that solipsism is amenable to proof.   bill w
>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> extropy-chat mailing list
>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20191218/703f4da7/attachment.htm>