24 replies to this topic

[dataangel]

I've read alot of stuff talking about one of the goals of transhumanism being to augment human intelligence, and I'm wondering if anyone has actually found ways of doing that have actually worked for them.

http://www.hsdebate....Speak_Fast.html

As a highschool debater I came across this, which I figured to be true from personal experience (I definitely process information faster now).


Areas of improvement that interest me:

-Memory
-Computational speed
-Error frequency
-Creativity

Anyone found any methods for improving these or other aspects of intelligence?

[Lazarus Long]

Hello Dataangel I would like to thank you for joining our discussion and I thank you for bringing this up.

This is the lead paragraph from the above cited text. Speak Fast

The best evidence available indicates that speedy speaking makes you
smarter.  This claim has a now solid base of research support from nearly
a quarter-century of studies in cognitive psychology.  To a cognitive
psychologist this claim would not be surprising nor would it necessarily
even be considered controversial: a considerable body of evidence is now
available to substantiate the claim that speaking faster makes one
smarter.

"Fast Talking" is something that I was going to raise from a distinctly different perspective. It is also synonymous with "lying". This isn't just a a slang phrase, it is the historical recognition of what is more often going on by the practitioners of this behavior. Con Artists, thieves excusing their deeds, politicians, and deceiving spouses all attempt to manipulate others through this practice and it is derivative of what from another point of view I define as a "Charismatic Characteristic".

One reason the forum environment is ostensibly more objective is that it provides an inherent period of reflection for both the writer and the reader. It also provides the ability to repeat the review of an idea as well as allowing subsequent readers the ability to review both the original idea and perspectives that have been offered in response.

This is a relatively new phenomena of "Cognitive Development" it is qualitatively different then just the old academic exercise of written peer review in Journal form because it is dynamic, interactive and significantly quicker with the ability to augment supporting data and opinion in a global manner. It is an example of the "New Methodology of Cognitive Development".

Yet in an ironic way it is also allowing the realization of an ancient principle of "Mentorship" realized in a trans-corporeal fashion and globalized for impact. The teacher can become the student and exchange the role rapidly without a threat to a hierarchical relationship between them due to the power of the ideas, along with the anonymity of the protagonists.

This is not necessarily important for the "speed" of expression that is evaluated in the "debate form" rather it is qualitatively distinct in the speed for evaluation of an idea that is possible with this new form of what the mechanistic models you propose above fail to recognize is at the core of all "Cognition","COMMUNICATION .

All of these are important:

-Memory
-Computational speed
-Error frequency
-Creativity

but is it not interesting how you missed one quintessential principle for example?

It is the "Universalized Communicative Ability" of HUman Intelligence and this is not the only aspect. Translation, both Linguistic and Semantic, is at the core of all Mental Enhancement.

This is one of the reasons I am encouraging a return to Neurophysiological study and development of both direct identification and stimulation of the centers within the brain for this function. Also the broad development and application of both psychoactive neurotransmiters that are safe and effective at enhancing learning ability based upon the actual chemistry of cognitive function being deciphered and a return to an empirical analysis of Dynamic Field Characteristic for the Human Mind. It needs to be determined with certainty if there exists a "living activity for Cognitive Function" that is not just a result of synaptic discharge but a qualitatively distinct Field Topology reflective of "Coherent Energy Field of Cognition" interfaced with a cellular support matrix.

It is very important to determine the reality behind this perspective before "tinkering" too much with either the mechanism or chemistry of the brain. But it is also a prerequisite for a second aspect of learning that you have overlooked which is the possibility of "Downloading Data" directly to the Cerebral Cortex and simultaneously providing a realistic method for trans-corporeal experience, such that individuals could travel through direct mental observational extension in a qualitatively distinct manner that is quantum levels better then "virtual reality".

Such travel isn't even predicated on global consideration but would allow surrogate travel off planet through kiosk transceiver stations placed off-world and utilizing disposable nanobots for the tactile exploration.

Much of what inhibits learning is predicated on cultural bias defined as linguistic inability and social prejudice. The ability to become fluent rapidly in any language including computer language will irrevocable alter the relation of humans between those that can and those that WON'T in a single generation. It leads to phase two.

Phase two is Universalized Existentialism and allows anyone to go anywhere, anytime, in order to gain real time experience through remote surrogate data sensory transceivers. This allows the ability for everyone to control the sources of all information and break the control over learning that has been a "Socio-Cultural" prerogative of all Institutional Social Structure for the entire history of Humans. "Distance Learning" taken to an quantum exponential level of possibility.

This also allows a third form of enhanced cognitive ability and here we have to address a qualitative aspect. If you use a calculator do you understand the process? Is a Math Coprocessing chip smarter then one that is not?

My sense of it is yes. But I think this should be debated.

Regardless, imagine having the most advanced possible Scientific Math Coprocessor interfaced with your brains existing functions. The real question that we need to look at is more subtle and this the third aspect of cognition that your mechanistic approach failed to recognize (look closely at this) "PATTERN RECOGNITION".

I am jumping the gun here and releasing an condensed overview of what I have been preparing for submission both here and to the Singularity Institute for evaluation. Consider this post an abstract.

My paper is called "On Consciousness" and attempts to redefine the characteristics of cognition in order to Unify our understanding of the spectrum describe by the poles of physics and poetry, a synthetic resolution of deductive and inductive reasoning that can allow for invention as distinct from discovery.

It should be understood that "Speed" is NOT necessarilly synonmous with learning anymore than a "symptom is the disease". There is a mistaken qualitative relationship here. Speed is reflective of being more intelligent, not the intelligence itself. Making the brain work faster doesn't necessarilly mean that we will become more intelligent, this is a simplistic analysis and is logically not necessarilly a reversable relationship.

  Speech rate determines working memory capacity and working memory
capacity is a critical component of cognitive ability.  The argument is
that simple, but the support for it is formidable.  Two relationships must
be shown to establish this argument :

1)  speech rate determines working memory capacity.  
2)  working memory capacity is a critical component of cognitive ability.

(Also from the text of cited article)

The use of the word "Determines" in this passage is descriptive of the erroneous relationship being assumed. Again, symptoms guide the determination (diagnosis) of the disease but assuming that treating just the symptoms will treat the disease is false because it is the disease which "Determines" the symptoms not the symptoms which determine the disease. There is a double meaning for the word "Detrmine" being applied here that is presumptive and erronous to assume in an a priori fashion.

By the way it is also a culturally defined bias. [ph34r]

I propose that you re-examine cognitive function and look again at the importance of SLOWING DOWN in order to qualitatively enhance "COMPREHENSION". This isn't just true for language but as in the example of the forum presentation it is true for the evaluation of ideas. Reflection, review, hypothesis testing and re-evalution are steps of learning that the speed argument overlooks.

Why do computers lock up on paradox or loop into closed patterned thought? Think about the ability of the human mind to resolve paradox through "Guessing", Pausing for Reflection, and "Active Archiving" a problem. How would these processes be made into algorithms for computer function?

Have you ever heard Stephen Hawkins speak? You had better be patient.

[Lazarus Long]

By the way Dataangel I would very much enjoy it if you would relay my rebuttal of this argument to your proposition to your "debate group" as a topic for debate in order to establish and define the dialectic of the argument.

You have provided a thesis and I have responded with the antithetical argument but I wonder if we might not serve our mutual cause better by synthesizing the next phase of discussion more quickly.

I would also recommend a closer examination of the four aspects of linguistic acquisition, reading, writing, speaking, listening. All three are effected by "Rate" at which they occur but there exists an inverse relationship. Intelligent people all read faster but they are intelligent precisely because they Recognize when it is necessary to slow down and critically examine specific aspects of the text they are reading.

Slowing down for reading improves everyone's comprehensive ability. Slowing down for speaking improves the ability of all listeners to comprehend what is being said. Even the article acknowledges this:

 Debate pedagogy is sometimes criticized because debate competitors
speak "like auctioneers", are "incomprehensibly fast", or talk "at a
ridiculous pace".  Occasionally, those objecting press the point by
insisting that either individual debaters or that debate as a whole "slow
down or else".  The proper response to the critics is that speedy speaking
is a pedagogically sound practice:  speaking faster improves cognitive
ability.

The article makes the mistake that is classically defined in socio linguistic terms as "Cultural Bias" and this is because we, in our society are attempting to dissect the dynamic relationship of the four cognitive behaviors I mention above into a false dichotomy herein. Only one is important to our culture and we are less interested in their interactive character and more focused on a reductionist emphasis on our ability to enhance only one. This reflects our cultural misconception that Speed equals Intelligence as opposed to the more universal understanding that Intelligence is simply capable of faster cognitive operation.

I would suggest to all Software Writers that it would help at times for their programs to slow themselves down and not just allow for, but encourage a period of integration such that the machine doesn't lock up. I am aware that some programmers are doing this already. I call it an application the Reflective Analysis Algorithm.

I think that machines that can do this will be SMARTER and significantly more capable of continuing their function while passively reflecting on seemingly paradoxical notions.

But now I am taking all the surprise out of what I was going to submit :(

Well I will just have to add there is more

[Mind]

Speed is a component of intelligence.

There are a couple different ways that people like to talk about intelligence, and it breaks down into a qualitative vs. quantitative type argument (this is based on what I have observed when reading about what other philosophers and neuroscientists think about intelligence).

First there is the "uber-intelligence" (my term) that a lot of people like to talk about. It is an attempt to look at intelligence from afar...to step outside of our own head and judge how intelligent we are as compared to a bird or a rock. There is an attempt to discern different levels of intelligence and speculate about higher levels of intelligence that we have not yet achieved.

Then there is the "nuts n' bolts" of intelligence. Speed is one of the bolts. Memory is one of the nuts. This is the measurement of intelligence by results not theory. Say there is an intelligent being that, speaks and remembers twice as fast as their counterpart. The being that "thinks" (and remembers) twice as fast will talk about more subjects, read more information, and remember more facts throughout its lifetime. Other beings who encounter the fast thinker will get more information than conversing with the slow thinker...and will judge (purely on quantity of results) that the fast thinker is "smarter". It is not that the slow thinker cannot figure out the same problems or provide the same information...it is just the plain fact that the fast thinker can do it quicker...that makes him seem more intelligent.

If the fast thinker/talker can achieve the same results as the slow thinker/talker in half the time...well...I would have to say the fast thinker is more intelligent. Again, this is based purely on results, not on the algorithmic processes going on inside the head of each thinker.

[Lazarus Long]

But there are also many cases in which the slow thinker results in a more profound and "better" result because of due dilligence and the unwillingness to rush to judgement.

Fast is not the only measure and yes I agree we are talking about the result as qualitatively more important. Perhaps we are examining a fallacy like a race between a Tortoise and a Hare.

[Lazarus Long]

Heraclitus
Presocratic Philosophers, Heraclitus

His Life and Philosophy

Heraclitus, son of Vloson, was born about 535 BCE in Ephesos, the second great Greek Ionian city. He was a man of strong and independent philosophical spirit. Unlike the Milesian philosophers whose subject was the material beginning of the world, Heraclitus focused instead on the internal rhythm of nature which moves and regulates things, namely, the Logos (Rule). Heraclitus is the philosopher of the eternal change.

He expresses the notion of eternal change in terms of the continuous flow of the river which always renews itself. Heraclitus accepted only one material source of natural substances, the Pyr (Fire).

This Pyr is the essence of Logos which creates an infinite and uncorrupted world, without beginning. It converts this world into various shapes as a harmony of the opposites. The composition of opposites sustains everything in nature. "Good" and "bad" are simply opposite sides of the same thing.«To God all things are beautiful and good and just, but men have supposed some things to be unjust, others just».


[The Obscure Philosopher]
Heraclitus is characterized in the history of philosophy as the «obscure» philosopher, because of the difficulty of his works. Timon the Fliasios (satirical poet, c. 300 CE.) called him «Eniktin», that is the one who creates enigmas. Heraclitus wrote a single book, with the title «On Nature», perhaps divided in three sections : cosmology, politics and theology.

He dedicated it and placed it in the temple of Artemis, as some say, having purposely written it rather obscurely so that only those of rank and influence should have access to it, and it should not be easily despised by the populace. When Socrates read Heraclitus book said that «The concepts I understand are great, but I believe that the concepts I cant understand are great too. However, the reader needs to be an excellent swimmer like those from Dilos, so not to be drowned from his book». (Diogenis Laertius, «Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers», Socrates 22)

Fragments
Fragment 50, Hippolytus Ref. Ix, 9 1 I
Listening not to me but to the Logo's it'is wise to agree that all things are one. (1)

Fragment 1, Sextus, adv.math VII, 132
Of the Logos which is as I describe it men always prove to be uncomprehending, both before they have heard it and when once they have heard it. For although all things happen according to this Logos men are like people of no experience, even when they experience such words and deeds as I explain, when I distinguish each things according to its constitution and declare how it is; but the rest of the men fail to notice what they do after they wake up just as they forget what they do when asleep.(1)

Fragment 2, Sextus, adv.math VII, 133
Therefore it is necessary to follow the common; but although the Logos is common the many live as though they had a private understanding.(1)

Everything rests by changing.(2)

Plato, Cratylus
All thing are in flux.(1)

Time is a child playing checkers, the kingly power is a child's.(2)

Fragment 126
The hot substance and the cold form what we might call a hot-cold continuum, a single entity.(1)

Fragment 10, Aristotle, de mundo 5, 396b20
Things taken together are wholes and not wholes, something is being brought together and brought apart, which is in tune and out of tune; out of all things there comes a unity, and out of a unity all things.(1)

In the circumference of a circle the beginning and the end common.(2)

Fragment 54, Hippolytus Ref IX, 9,5
An unapparent harmony is stronger than an apparent one.(4)

Fragment 208, Themistius Or. 5,p. 69 D.
Nature loves to hide.(2)

Fragment 209, Hippolytus Ref Ix, 9, I
They do not apprehend how being at variance it agrees with itself: there is a palintonos (counter-stretched) harmony, as in the bow and the lyre.(4)

Fragment 18, Clement Strom. II, 17, 4
If one does not expect the unexpected one will not find it out, since it is not to be searched out, and is difficult to compass.(1)

Fragment 80, Origen c. Celsum VI 442
It is necessary to know that war is common and right, is strife and that all things happens by strife and necessity.(1)


Plato Cratylus 402a
Heraclitus somewhere says that all things are in process and nothing stays still, and likening existing things to the stream of a river he says that you would not step twice into the same river.(1)

Fragment 30, Clement Strom. V, 104, 1.
This world [the same of all] did none of gods or men make, but it always was and is and shall be: an everliving fire, kindling in measures and going out in measures.(1)

Fragment 16
Most hard is to apprehend the unaparent measure of judgment, which alone holds the limits of all things.(1)

Fragment 55, Hippolytus Ref. IX 9,5
The things of which there is seeing and hearing and perception, these do I prefer.(1)

Fragment 107, Sextus, adv.math VII, 126
Evil witnesses are eyes and ears for men, if they have souls that do not understand their language.(1)

Fragment 61, Hippolytus Ref. IX, 10, 5.
Sea is the most pure and the most polluted water; for fishes it is drinkable and salutary, but for men it is undrinkable and deleterious.(1)

Fragment 60, Hippolytus Ref. IX, 10, 4
The path up and down is one and the same(1)

Fragment 111, Stobaeus, Anth. III, I, 177
Disease makes health pleasant and good, hunger satiety, weariness rest.(1)

Fragment 88, ps-Plutarh Cons. Ad Apoll. 10, 106E
And as the same things there exists in us living and dead and the waking and the sleeping and young and old; for these things having changed round are those having changed round are these.(1)

Fragment 13
Pigs like mud (1)

Fragment 9
Donkeys prefer rubbish to gold (1)

Dogs bark at every one they do not know.(2)

Fragment 58
Cutting and burning, which are normally bad, call for a fee when done by a surgeon.(1)

Fragment 59
The act of writing combines straight, in the whole line, and crooked, in the shape of each letter.(1)

Fragment 23
There would be not right without wrong.(1)

Fragment 53,Hippolytus Ref. IX, 9, 4
War is the father of all and king of all, and some he shows as gods, others as men; some he makes slaves, others free.(1)

Fragment 90, Plutarch de E. 8, 388d
All things are an equal exchange for fire and fire for all things, as goods are for gold and gold for goods.(1)

Sextus adv. Math. VII, 129
According to Heraclitus we become intelligent by drawing in this divine reason [logos] through breathing, and forgetful when asleep, but we regain our senses when we wake up again. For in sleep, when the channels of perception are shut, our mind is sundered from its kinship with the surrounding, and breathing is the only point of attachment to be preserved, like a kind of root; being sundered, our mind casts off its former power of memory. But in the waking state it again peeps out through the channels of perception as though through a kind of window, and meeting with the surrounding it puts on its power of reason...(1)

Fragment 36, Hippolytus Ref. IX, 10,6
To him, being there, they rise up and become guardians, wakefully, of living and dead.(1)

Fragment 62, Hippolytus Ref. Ix, 10,6
Mortal immortals, immortal mortals, living their death and dying their life.(1)

People that love wisdom must be acquainted with very many things indeed.(2)

Every beast is driven to pasture with blows.(2)

Fragment 67, Hippolytus Ref. IX, 10, 8
God is day night, winter summer, war peace, satiety hunger [all the opposites, this is the meaning]; he undergoes alteration in the way that fire when it is mixed with spices, is named according to the scent of each of them.(1)

Fragment 102, Porhyrius I Iliadem IV 4.
To God all things are beautiful and good and just, but men have supposed some things to be unjust, other just.(1)

Fragment 32, Clement Strom, V, 115, I
One thing, the only truly wise, does not and does consent to be called by the name of Zeus.(1)

Fragment 92, Plutarch de Pyth.or. 6, 397A
The Sibyl with raving mouth, according to Heraclitus, uttering things mirthless, unadorned and unperformed, reaches over a thousand years with her voice through the god.(1)

Fragment 36, Clement Strom. VI, 17, 2
For souls it is death to became water, for water it is death to became earth; from earth water comes-to-be, and from water, soul.(1)

Fragment 118, Stobaeus. Anth. III,5,8
A dry soul is wisest and best.(1)

Fragment 117, Stobaeus. Anth. III,5,7
A man when he is drunk is led by an unfledged boy, stumbling and not knowing where he goes, having his soul moist.(1)

It is pleasure to souls to become moist.(2)

Fragment 45, Diogenes Laertius ix, 7
You could not find out the boundaries of soul, even by traveling along every path: so deep a measure does it have.(1)

Macrobius S. Scip. 14, 19 (DK 22A15)
Heraclitus said that the soul is a spark of the essential substance of the stars.(1)

Fragment 85, Plutarh Coriol. 22
It is hard to fight with anger; for what it wants it buys as the price of soul.(1)

Fragment 67a, According to the scholiast on Chalcidius
Heraclitus compared the soul to a spider which rushed to any part of its web which is damaged.(1)

Fragment 101, Plutarch adv. Colotem 20, III8c
I searched out myself, [or I investigate myself].(1)

Fragment 119, Stobaeus Anth. IV, 40, 23
Man's character is his daimon, [or Man's morality is his daimon].(1)
(comm.:The etymology of the word daimon is the daemon, the one with an attendant power of spirit.(See Socrates' daemon). Today's meaning of this word is the evil spirit: devil. We must see the difference between those two ways of thought an explain these fragment.

Fragment 43, Diogenes Laertius IX,2
Insolence is more to be extinguished than a conflagration.(1)

Fragment 44, Diogenes Laertius IX,2
The people must fight on behalf of the law as though for the city wall.(1)

Fragment 114, Stabaeus Anth. III, I, 179.
Those who speak with sense must rely on what is common to all, as a city must rely on its law, and with much greater reliance. For all the laws of men are nourished by one law, the divine law; for it has as much power as it wishes and is sufficient for all and still left over.(1)

Fragment 29, Clement Strom. V. 59, 5
Those The best choose one thing in place of all else, 'everlasting' glory among mortals; but the majority are gutted like cattle.(1)

Fragment 49
One man is as ten thousand for me, if he is best.(1)

[Lazarus Long]

G. W. F. Hegel
August 27, 1770 - November 14, 1831

Hegel's Philosophy of Mind

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

Along with J. G. Fichte and F. W. J. von Schelling, Hegel (1770-1831) belongs to the period of “German idealism” in the decades following Kant. The most systematic of the post-Kantian idealists, Hegel attempted, throughout his published writings as well as in his lectures, to elaborate a comprehensive and systematic ontology from a “logical” starting point.

He is perhaps most well-known for his teleological account of history, an account which was later taken over by Marx and “inverted” into a materialist theory of an historical development culminating in communism. For most of the twentieth century, the “logical” side of Hegel's thought had been largely forgotten, but his political and social philosophy continued to find interest and support. However, since the 1970s, a degree of more general philosophical interest in Hegel's systematic thought has also been revived.

Hegel and the Greeks

By stating "the Greeks" we think back to the beginnings of philosophy; by stating "Hegel" we think to its completion. Hegel himself understands philosophy in such a manner.

Within the title "Hegel and the Greeks" it is the whole of philosophy within its history that speaks, and that today in a times in which the collapse of philosophy becomes flagrant; because it has migrated into logistics, psychology, and sociology. These autonomous domains of research assure themselves of increasing importance and polymorphous influence as functional forms and performance instruments in the political-economic world, that is, in an essential sense, of the technical world.

However, this collapse of philosophy, determined from afar and irresistibly, is not without further ado the end of thinking, but rather something else, however withdrawn from public accessibility. What follows will ponder for a while on this in an attempt to bring to mind the matter of thought. The matter of thought comes into play. Matter means here that which, by its nature, the presentation requires. To correspond to such requirement, it is necessary that we let ourselves gaze from out of the matter of thought and prepare for thought , determined by its own matter, to transform itself.

********************
(Just a few exceprt from the linked pages and libraries.)

I would suggest to all that are interested in the definition of intelligence to at least try to read and reflect on all that has been deciphered of this "Holy Grail Quest" of Philoshophy in almost three thousand years by trying to see how far we have come and yet how little the distance in all these years from the Presocratics to the Post Hegelian Rationalists.

I also think that while I haven't done so, the Eastern Philosophers also belong in this discussion because of their relevant perspective and subtle distictions from Western Philosophy. This is true fromLao Tse and Confuscious till today. Though I must admit I am dismayed at how little modern work I have been able to identify as salient to contribute that was not defined in spiritual terms, such as Feng Shui.

This relationship of issues is not lost on Hegel who also wrote the Phenomenology of Spirit that can be found at the link to Hegels works I put above. Regardless, Whether we are talking about Descarte or Chomsky we are talking about the Mind, not as just an organ of he body but as a Thinking Being, a Sentient Identity possessed of Intelligence.

The quest for Intelligent Life on Earth is a long and arduous one that requires much more patience then hurry amd more then a little bit of good humor as well.

Eastern and Western Philosophy.

[Lazarus Long]

It is still true after millions of years of human development that the best and surest method of increasing intelligence is to study. Study everything and in depth, the way the Whale knows the ocean,the Eagle understands the Earth from the sky, and the Worm knows the soil beneath your feet.

Even if we get to do this faster what we are learning will recede away from us like the edge of the Universe Expanding since the Big Bang. The relative difference in speed between walking and our faster rocket is neglible incomparaison to the speed of light.

Do better what we already do and then perhaps we will make the best of doing it faster. There is no substitute for discipline and due dilligence in the search for truth about the universe in which we live and sometimes we should be wary of thinking that this can be just made faster. This can also be seen as just a leap of faith.

Yes it is faster but it introduces an entire new set of problems defined in the distinction between Belief and Knowlege.

[dataangel]

In debate we call what you just did a kritik -- you're pointing out an underlying assumption in the arguments/discourse, in this case over the nature and definition of intelligence. I'll be sure at the very least to send your comments to the author

My favorite quote of the ones you posted by Hereclitus: "... the many live as though they had a private understanding"

One thing bothers me about your ideas concerning depth of thought versus speed of thought. If two individuals go through the exact same thought processes (and thus have the same depth of thought), but one accomplishes this faster than the other, why shouldn't the faster one be considered more intelligent?

Also, what is your definition/understanding/view of the nature of intelligence? Furthermore, by your definition, how does one improve/expand/increase one's own intelligence, as first asked in this thread?

[Lazarus Long]

Still here but I have lost my last ten posts due to line and comp problems and I have been fixing that problem as well as dealing with real world issues. I haven't forgotten you. But I have to do most of my response offline and and then copy/paste or run the risk that when I am online my machine will freeze and wipe out hours of work again.

I have a brand new P4 on order & coming next week, but now I just have to upgrade the carrier pigeon modem 31k that we are limited because of how remote my home. I promise to get back soon.

Please forgive my tardiness

Immortals are just going to have to learn patience if they expect to do everything forever [!]

[Lazarus Long]

OK I have finished getting therapy for my Laptop pony and giving ver a new ISP Barn in which to feed and pass the night. Ve seems much more content with the content and I will be back to you soon. I just have to finish leaving a trail of money for the broadband people to follow into the forest and get me a hook-up.

[Lazarus Long]

I was speaking generically but since you mention it I am glad to hear that because the CPU in particular that I am getting is an AMD Athalon XP 1.8 gig, model 2200. There are a few other goodies on board too like the 120 gig HD and 512 MG RAM that goes to 1 gig as soon as the price drops.

I am glad to know that I purchased wisely.

[dataangel]

Donde esta Lazarus?

[Lazarus Long]

In debate we call what you just did a kritik -- you're pointing out an underlying assumption in the arguments/discourse, in this case over the nature and definition of intelligence. I'll be sure at the very least to send your comments to the author

Yes, and I am saying the underlying arguments cannot be overlooked for a reason; they clearly outline causal dimensions for how we define intelligence. There is a problem allowing the measures of intelligence to function exclusively as the definition of intelligence, it creates a kind of tautological fallacy that the definition then falls prey to. I agree about how many of the measures (like being able to "talk fast" and by the way, "listen well") are demonstrative of intelligence but these reflect intelligence as opposed to define it. As behaviors however the relationship is causal and neither casual nor inconsequential. The four elements of Language define intelligence collectively, not as isolated phenomenon.

There exist four principle aspects of language aforementioned as two receptive and two productive cognitive behaviors. Listening and reading are passive/receptive and speaking/writing are active/demonstrative. All the assumptions being made for "Speaking" visa vie the original arguments regarding "Fast Speaking" cannot be isolated from the writing production component of cognition. Additionally both exist in a necessary relationship with the two passive behaviors that balance and reinforce the definition of intelligence in the same manner a foundation holds aloft a building.

Without the supporting passive behaviors the fast talk would just be garbled babble for a lack of substantive information parleyed verbally at the limits of auditory cognition.

My favorite quote of the ones you posted by Heraclitus: "... the many live as though they had a private understanding"

I included the Pre-Socratic philosophy in the discussion because many of the core disputes regarding intelligence today have in principle, been around as paradigms these last three-millenium. While we are trying to reduce the issues into ever-finer "bytes and pieces" it is not however true that any major categories or definitions have been outlined in all this time. I propose this as an evidentiary problem of anthropomorphizing the definition of intelligence to prove the hypothesis by weighting the definition so as to define our pre-disposed conclusion that we humans are intelligent. We should be wary of thinking that intelligence should be defined as only we experience it as human activity.

Prayer is an human cognitive activity also defined by the Heraclitan quote you enjoy, prayer is a funny form of cognitive behavior because when you talk to God it is a good thing, but if you hear the voice of God speaking to you it is perceived as neurotic/psychotic behavior. This view is hinged upon the objectification and division of perception into multiple states of cognitive awareness.

What is the private knowledge of the infinite? What is a private understanding? It is behavior predicated upon the responsibility of choice and specifically, individual choice.

One thing bothers me about your ideas concerning depth of thought versus speed of thought. If two individuals go through the exact same thought processes (and thus have the same depth of thought), but one accomplishes this faster than the other, why shouldn't the faster one be considered more intelligent?

If you are you defining any specific task as the "test" of intelligence then this is completely subject to the standards of the "tester" and you are not in fact testing "Individual Intelligence" as much as doing a comparative skills assessment of the two (or more) individuals. I don't necessarily hire a brilliant pianist if what I am seeking is an experienced Aeronautics Engineer. The false assumption is that the behavior reflecting intelligence on any one (single) subject can be sufficiently objective in character to qualify as a Universal Standard.

Also, what is your definition/understanding/view of the nature of intelligence? Furthermore, by your definition, how does one improve/expand/increase one's own intelligence, as first asked in this thread?

The Nature of Intelligence is a very important issue unto itself and I would like to make this the prime focus of our discussion but to answer the second half first, one improves/expands/increases their intelligence by exercise, practice, challenge, and study. All four primary behaviors of Language are the base mechanisms of intelligent function and must be simultaneously stressed. These are the highly cerebral methods of Cognitive development and need to be balanced with a subjective experiential component of interactivity on a social and physical level.

This principle can be reduced to the classic Mind/Body development that can subsume within its definition the standard of "Fast Speaking" and do so by explaining why it is valid in relation with other standards as physical behavior and not just mental activity. Any definition of "intelligence" that seeks to be completely objective and abstract by not depending on a specific human and physical behavior must find a measure that is not behavioral or related to external environmental criteria. But that said the methods for improving intelligence are at least valid to test for effectiveness and consistency with respect to educational goals.

We should hope the goals of education include the fostering of "Thinking Skills" then finding a way of measuring human expression for these skills is also a way of testing and improving methods. Herein lies the importance of "Fast Speaking" as a measure of specifically "Human Intelligence" but speed is only half the measure of this graphic analysis that should be viewed multidimensionally. For example you are glossing over the charismatic and highly subjective importance of the presentation of the speaker. Eloquence is derived through non verbal criteria almost as much as the actual words spoken. Speaking skills in general, and "Fast Talking" certainly depends upon lexicon and syntax as much if not more than volume, tone, and rate of expression.

So how would I go out on a limb and define intelligence?

First I would try and distinguish between "Human Qualities" of intelligence and a definition of Sentience that is transcendent of the limits defined by human behavior. I think principles implied by behaviors such as "Pattern Recognition" can be a better (more objective) measure, for example imagination as the ability to perceive and thus be aware personally of phenomenon outside one's specific sensuality reality.

This reflects learning of various types of experience and conceptual definitions like understanding the behavior of the Universe at the subatomic level and the vicarious experience of putting one's self into a fictional protagonists role. It isn't a question of being able to deliver the fastest fact packed lecture pedagogically possible. It is not inconsistent for debaters to attempt to rationalize their own behavior as qualitatively the best, I just see it as a little self-aggrandizing. Intelligence though is not just about the competition of intellect, in fact to a certain extent it reflects unintelligent behavior if applied socially. Social debate can be used as a way to resolve conflict but as often as not it can engender conflict even more easily.

I credit accurate use of speed as it reflects knowledge of craft, but as reflective of pure intellect, or causal as distinguished from being consequential of Intelligence, I find suspect. There are too many subjective qualities about speech behavior that make it imply a specific "purpose to speech" this aspect is served by the "quality of delivery" for ideas as opposed to simply the "rate".

I will add to this issue of "the definition of intelligence" but also there is the aspect of intelligence as it defines and distinguishes self interest and collective relation. There is in fact much more to this definition and I will add my perceptions as we proceed but let us digest the points made until now first. Please accept that also at play is a highly subjective quality of culture that "values" different aspects of the behaviors we define as intelligent in humans and this is contrasted by a naturalistic model of intelligence as it represents successful survival behaviors, the hard roots of Social Darwinism.

[dataangel]

I never meant to say that speaking speed was intelligence in and of itself, but I don't feel it is, as you put it, "reflective." Rather, if I begin to read as fast as I can orally, over and over, and my intelligence increases, then I'd say that the speaking was the cause of it (provided I was in a perfect testing environment in which no other things could factor in). That might not be the most indepth analysis, i.e. it could be that the speed speaking challenges the brain, triggering an intelligence increase, but in any case the beginning and the end are clear: Speak faster->Get smarter, even if we're not conscious of the passive/active relationships going on. I understand that being a good listener/reader may be reflective of intelligence, but at the same time I don't think anyone is going to dispute that reading increase's one's intelligence, and that the more one reads, the better one gets at it. Noting this, it's impossible to accept only a reflective relationship.

I'm not quite sure what you were identifying as a consequence of anthropomorphizing intelligence. Could you rephrase/clarify?

I agree with your point about the one standard, but now look at it this way: if we knew every type of thought process/characteristic that was reflected by the intelligent, and one did all of these processes faster than another, why then shouldn't the former be considered more intelligent?

As for the objective measurement you speak of, you mention that external environment criteria would have to not be considered. I'm not sure how you're interpreting this, but I wonder if you're excluding the possibility of nurturing intelligence with this view (i.e. solely nature).

I know full well that if any politician went on camera and began speed reading his speech not only would most not understand him, but even if they could, they wouldn't be very moved. But I don't think this dismisses the idea that speaking faster increases intelligence (and thus implicitly increases something other than it's own skill, i.e. reading fast to get better at reading fast).

It is not inconsistent for debaters to attempt to rationalize their own behavior as qualitatively the best, I just see it as a little self-aggrandizing.

Again, could you clarify/rephrase?

Going a bit more into the idea of intelligence being a consequence of speaking rate: Even if you lose your eloquence as a speaker, I don't think that's the point. First off, you don't lose your ability to speak eloquently by practicing speaking faster, infact most debaters can switch between modes quite easily. Second, the article doesn't claim that fast speaking makes better speakers, but smarter people. Noting that a person has X intelligence before they start speed speaking, and then has X+50 after they practice speed speaking, indicates the speaking is responsible. The practitioners of the study used only rate as a determinater, not eloquence. Also, one thing that you have to remember is that 99% of CX debate is preparation -- which means that most of the time debaters are reading off a page as fast as they can -- not speaking off the top of their head (the studies worked like this too).

On the note of cultural values, I would think that a key aspect of intelligence would be how well one can adapt to extremely varied situations, and in this aspect would transcend one particular culture.

[wall]

Talking is a form of exercise for the mind.
Lifting weights is a form of exercise for the body.

The faster the reps are when you lift weights, the more possitive the effect will be on your muscles.

Therefore, the faster you speak words, the more possitive the effect will be on your mind.


Basicly, it is more demanding on your mind to produce the words and sounds at a faster pace, just like it is more demanding on your muscles to lift the weight at a faster pace.

As for whether it is more benificial for the listener to be listening to fast or slow speak, we are talking about the speaker, so that shouldn't be a factor.

Now of course you can argue that speaking words has a quality factor while all weights are the same - but to that you can counter-argue that the content of which you speak does not matter, because that is not the part of the mind we are exercising. We are doing more specialized exercise on just the ability to recall words in general and speak and comprehend them accuratly with speed.

[Malpoet]

Talking is a form of mental exercise and undoubtedly beneficial. Being a slow speaker might be an indicator of limited mental capacity, but not necessarily because there are so many other aspects of the functioning of the human mind.

Early in the debate Lazarus referred to the speed of speech of Stephen Hawking. The fact is, of course, that Hawking cannot speak at all. He carries out his verbal communication through a computer and the speed of delivery is dependent on his ability to trancribe his thoughts to the synthesiser through his very limited body movements.

The speed by which those of us who are not speech disabled convey our thoughts through our mouths will vary greatly, but it does not fully convey the speed or quality of thought on behalf of the speaker.

Speaking regularly, relatively quickly and in challenging circumstances, such as debate, is likely to enhance the quality of mental processes.

More fundamentally, it does not seem to me that increasing intelligence is of overwhelming importance. Human beings have accumulated vast amounts of knowledge throughout their development. It became possible to transfer this knowledge more effectively from generation to generation with written language and durable recording material. In the last few decades this capacity has vastly increased through improvements in the storage and distribution of information.

We are now very close to being able to connect ourselves more directly to the whole body of human knowledge and employ computer assistance to our brains to improve the processing of that knowledge to achieve our purpose. Whatever that may be!

How we use these new abilities and ensure that that they are beneficial rather than destructive will be a key issue over the next couple of centuries. Meantime, exercising our limited human brains by engaging in quality debate is likely to improve the chances of a speedy transition to a better post human future. Whether it will increase human intelligence or not I am not sure.

Regards

Malcolm

[Lazarus Long]

Currently I am travelling Internationally and haven't the time for a proper rebuttal but I just wanted you to know that I am following the thread as I can alot time.

Two small point however, first reading is passive, and evn speed reading is a passive exercise. Comprehnsion is a very important measure of reading at any speed. Writing would be the analogue of talking and is an active behavior. Passive behaviors are receptive and active behaviors are productive. Speech is active and productive so it is not fair to compare speech to reading, but is fair to compare it to writing. What I was referring to was the consistent importance of comprehensibility that runs through all four prime behaviors of communication.

Now to your point of using "fast talking" as means to improve intelligence is not the same as using it to "measure intelligence" but the article in question does attempt to do so. And eloquence isn't just a function of clear, concise, and measured, rhetoric, it is the quality that distinguishes meaningful speech from babble. I also think that breadth of lexicon, as well as proper syntactical form is a measure as well.

You have in fact tacitly denied the importance of this and I will return to discuss this again later when I have more time for some fast typing.

Second,
The issue of anthropomorphizing Intelligence is relatively simple, we are caught in a tautology if we define Intelligence in strict terms of Human Characteristics as opposed to reasoning ability. Talking is a human quallity, communication doesn't depend exclusively upon speech capability, as mentioned in the Stephen Hawkins example.

BTW, I am aware of how he generates speech and that was my point, but I also have heard many people of very great intelligence take the time to measure their word use and I think it demonstrates more intelligence then just spewing words like an auctioneer.

I thiink the measure of speech capability is valuable in and of itself, I have personnally studied public speaking and I'm known for fast talking and quick response ability but I challenge the view that this is causing my intelligent to be enhanced as opposed to being an effect of my intelligence. In other words we are still at odds over the causal relationship defined here. Is this a cause of intelligence or an effect?

I also have mastered foreign language as an adult and I am intent on being polylinguistic so the issues here also relate to other areas of cognitive psychology that I study in relation to psycho and social linguistics. IN fact I study advanced linguistics among other areas nad this is why to a certain extent I said that it is self servng for debators to define intelligence in terms that are inherent in the practice of their particular craft.

The reason I said that fast talking is culturally biased is that there are more than few cultures that frown on the practice as not simply rude but a quality of clowishness, crudity, immaturity, and downright foolishness. If these cultures have such different standards is it fair to simply say that ours are better and then count them less intelligent?

Enough I have run out of time. But this is making my ability to type improve so thanks.

My best to all for the holidays.

laz

[istopdeath]

Intelligence is to vague so I propose the aerobic of the acceleration of the socialization of survival aptitude in both aspects of quality of experience and length of experience.
Are not self worth and self preservation core issues of both psychology and its composite attribute, sociology?
As it is a fact that portions of humanity have caused the expansion of the human life span, then is this not the essence of intelligence responding in context.

[SiliconAnimation]

I think the issue of intelligence is not souly based on speed. Like Lazarus said, there is also depth. I'm sure there are many other factors involving a complete analysis of intelligence.

For example let us say the fast thinker is more intelligent. What is fast? His ability to page over tedious materials in search of a single word? A sentence? A meaning? Now how fast does he apply it to his knowledge base in current memory? What about processing data into tangible equations and then exposing them again to the knowledge base?

The slow thinker or deep thinker now has the processing ability. He can apply his learned behavior, which is in his short term memory, to the knowledge in his long term memory. The data demodulation is precise, and because of his "slow" thinking, which may be in fact error correction, he can better understand the data presented to him. However, he cannot page through massive amounts of data, nor communicate it in a short amount of time.

Both of these people, fast and slow thinkers have their speeds. It is the processes we must be concerned with behind the intelligence. How many processes does a mind go through to reach its destination? What types of stimuli fuel the processes?

Now, like stated above this is like depth. Speed which you can cycle through the depth is intelligence. At least until... We discover a process that was overlooked and the whole speedy system jumps right off the edge of sanity into oblivion! Heh, heh. Seriously though...

In digital data sampling there is the timespan of which the audio clip has been recorded. The quality of the digital signal is based on how quick the sample rate can record in the smallest amout of time.

I'm unfamiliar with this anology I'm about to relate to you guys but I will throw it out as a thought for someone else to elaborate on perhaps.

Running full speed, just realizing the cliff in front of him. The animal falls over unable to stop in time. (but hes really good at running)

Walking across the earth barely aware of his surrowndings, the animal notices a gap ahead of him. He slows to a crawl, and looks over the edge. He identifies it as a negative direction to plot between himself and his destination. He makes a "Duh" sound and plots a new course. lol

I hope that communiates the thought I had and can't seem to bring properly into the english language. *kicks his english data demodulation device*

[Lazarus Long]

I came back home to a larger debate Dataangel, and if you would like to contribute to that one see the many topics now available in Politics and Sociology. Of course I am discussing issues of War and Peace, Life and Death, and Authoritarianism and Freedom. I think the debate is becoming vastly more important and less academic.

Sorry about not returning to the discussion earlier but let us say it wasn't just the depths of the dilemma I have been sounding but a word to the wise of the breadth of problems in common that we face.

Eloquence trumps mere velocity always, like a wormhole in time. Speed just ain't all its cracked up to be as my personal heroes on Columbia discovered.

Edited by Lazarus Long, 25 March 2003 - 07:29 PM.