On intelligence & IQhttps://www.pscp.tv/w/b7DSEDFWR2p2cUFYUlllS098MWRSSlpta1BRck1HQiPaAXczH1pEGvCjxYyo-c89ueVAavqGxem6NWuLCoxZ …
-
My fault for not expressing things more clearly. Given we agree minds are universal, it cannot be the case that there are "some things some people can do, in principle others cannot" nor that some skills can't be acquired unless we "alter the brain" as you said. :)
I don't *necessarily* agree that "minds are universal" — that's not my starting point nor a position I'm trying to defend, although I'm unswayed by arguments against it. I do think that some computations require inputs, memory or time that is not available to a human brain today.
-
-
Universality (of minds) is a software feature. Memory + time available (clock cycles) are properties of hardware (brains). I expect people to differ in the hardware to some extent...but this isn't what makes them people or "intelligent" on my view. The software does that.
-
Then frankly, please leave this stuff in philosophy club and out of my discussions on real human beings, who have hardware of various means bestowed upon them via mechanisms entirely beyond their control.
- 7 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Even if minds are universal, I don’t see why you wouldn’t sometimes be required to alter them for them to be able to do something. “In principle” fudges the issue. The line between idealisation and fantasy is very vague most of the time.
-
What would be an example of altering the mind in your view here?
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I think you two are talking about two different issues. ToKTeacher is talking about the qualitative side. You're talking about the quantitative side.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.