This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.
Makes sense to me. I'm not trying to determine the nature of intelligence so much as trying to make a more accurate (and consequently inane) expression of IQ. I'm not super happy with the importance accorded to IQ scores by most people who have decently high ones.
I like your interpretation though. It's much more...ehm...I like it better.
If viewed on this level of complexity, the video you linked me explained intelligence and IQ pretty well, I thought; your brain is built to allow conditioning by external stimuli, and it shapes itself to obtain maximum functional efficiency considering its environment. IQ is an arbitrary attempt at measuring this efficiency at an even higher level of complexity, although it does provide a somewhat reliable framework of reference; the difference between an average, above average and genius level IQ is clearly noticeable. However, I prefer not to measure the worth of a person solely based on their IQ, and opt to use the word "capacity" when describing intellectual capabilities rather than "intelligence." Take autistic savants, for example: incapable of basic social tasks, but extremely apt at things even great maths wizards can't do. Does this make them "intelligent?" How about if we say they have great capacity for a specific function? Explains "different intelligences."
Had to split this into two parts because the visitor messages only allow for 1k characters:
I find it's hard to determine the nature of intelligence thinking so regressionally. Think of it like this: if you look at a painting through a microscope, you miss a damned lot. The picture isn't actually a picture, and the microscope lets you see what it actually is... but then, you miss the picture itself.
hehe, sorry, that's the part that jumped out at me as "WTF???" the first time, and it took some googling to pin it down.
hm... it's interesting that you should mention IQ... One could think of it as the hash of several wave-function collapses: your odds of choosing a particular answer on the test oscillate with every brain-wave and increase in amplitude until you choose one and move on to the next. I wonder what it really means, from that context...
While my brain might saunter between IQ scores of measly 120-130s at best, I understand that consciousness is derived from the whole of neural interactions rather than individual parts (complete with a superficial familiarity with what quantum wave functions are about), especially ones so small as mere particles, so no worries
Then again, scientists studying quantum physics do joke around that your sofa dances in your living room while you aren't around... Careful, maybe your furniture is plotting your demise.
Be careful when you get to the part where they express consciousness as a wavefunction. It's not 'consciousness' in the sense of sentience, it's more a generalized function to express the frame of reference for a single oscillation - which at the level of neural oscillations (brain-waves) could directly correlate to the Human Experience. It's not saying particles or waves are literally conscious :P