[The following is a guest post by Illuminaticatblog and does not necessarily reflect the views of Pumpkin Person]
Some say intelligence cannot be measured because all we can know are the behaviors people do and not what is actually happening. So intelligence is just a word or label.
The concept of in-telling is the fact that we tell ourselves what is happening. We understand, we know and we confirm this to ourselves. But what do we know? It is about what we have as an inclination to associate one thing with another. To group and to divide. This is abstract and concrete. It is in relation to ourselves and things with other things. “(Patterns)” in perception and decisions.
Calling intelligence only abstract means that behaviors, as assumed to correlate with a general factor, and this (g), is what opponents of intelligence call a reification. Making an idea a real thing which is just an abstraction. But where do behaviors come from? First, we have a goal in mind for what it is we are doing. And what we do is in accordance with how we think things work.
If we can figure out how best to achieve a goal we do that approach. But it is the case that we must self-monitor what we do to fix mistakes. If we fail we must understand why and try again. IQ tests have only one right answer. But in life what we do either works or does not work and there are many ways to do things.
A procedure is a specific way of completing a task under given circumstances. It’s called rote memorization. It is what in the economy we are trained for so as to get things done. But being able to memorize a task is not the full picture of intelligence. What needs to be done is to come up with procedures for things that have not been done yet. This is where experimentation comes in. We find out how all the little steps work and then combine them into the big view to get to the goal. We then evaluate the big procedure to tell us what is the best way.
The best way to do something is not always apparent and that is why we have the concept of multiple intelligence. But this is just a way of categorizing skillsets. It is not the main skillset producer. People become specialized in what they do solving problems in certain areas. But whether someone gets good is a matter of the central coordinator that amalgamates patterns to do tasks. This means certain people can learn to do many skills instead of a few.
In short: We combine patterns to do big tasks. People can combine many things more than others but then it is about the goal they choose that matters. This evaluation is separate from what they are capable of doing in full. Because multiple ways of doing things exist. But sometimes the way to get something done requires understanding the situation and executing a plan.
So behavior is not reification it is task specific. What is the goal? Did I do it? What went wrong? This is in effect about big vs little goals. Task-specific goals only measure one’s coordination at a small scale. On a big scale, we combine tasks. Which takes a new coordination effort. David defeated Goliath with a single stone.
The Thief and the Cobbler
Cobboler defeats the entire One Eye war machine with a single tac
Pumpkin Person 
STOP FUCKING DOING THIS. HE IS A ROBOT. STOP IT.
If you let him guest post again I will hunt you down.
Whenever puppy gets tempted to post a guest post from rr or anime he should post a nirvana video instead.
In some moment of conversation, a pure intelligence question pops up, that divide those who clearly don’t understand from those you can’t tell. And their reaction can be anger.
It happens to me yesterday. A distance cousin of my wife is an investment banker with a very young partner level in a prestigious investment bank doing IPOs, LBO and debt structuring for governments and some coverage for big Fortune500 companies.
He is short and very muscular. I told him it was great but it was easier for him than for tall people to get muscular. He told me he didn’t understand how I could say something stupid like this that he always here btw. I told him because it is true. That was beyond his understanding capacity.
I suppose there is many patterns like ways of getting it (short distance runner body versus marathon runners etc etc ) that don’t imply pure logic, but many fall beyond the line … That’s an intelligence (or lack of it) manifestation. Everyone feels sorry for the one who doesn’t get it, start laughing and it’s even worse.
But the thing starts being impressive when everyone who is laughing at your is wrong like the Vos Savant Monty Hall problem Some people were able to reach it by doing experiments or computer science problems but I would argue it’s not really grasping the logic. It’s an indirect limited understanding.
You just dont get it Bruno. Its autism. Only a specialist in physiology is going to know that its easier for shorter people. I mean even thats disputed. Its such a weird thing to say to a person.
Some of the stuff Bruno says is weird, other stuff is perfectly normal. The probably is you’re too naive to tell the difference.
It’s actually incredibly normal for men to make passive aggressive comments like that about other men as a way of asserting dominance.
But you wouldn’t know because you have no status.
>Only a specialist in physiology is going to know that its easier for shorter people
It’s common knowledge in body building circles. If the question is “look muscular”, not absolute muscle mass, then the less volume a muscle has to fill out to appear large on a particular frame the better. Square cube law and all that.
I would say that ChatGpt gives the balanced middle ground answer that gives him an average IQ not only around 125-135 but wiseness. It won’t go through the pure logic but will provide an open Mind a lot of good material to think.
There is no definitive answer to this question as several factors can affect an individual’s ability to gain muscle mass, such as genetics, diet, exercise routine, and hormonal levels. However, some studies suggest that individuals with a shorter stature may have an advantage when it comes to gaining muscle mass compared to taller individuals, all else being equal.
One reason for this is that shorter individuals tend to have a lower body mass, which means that they have a higher ratio of muscle mass to body weight. This higher muscle-to-weight ratio can make it easier for them to build muscle mass than taller individuals.
Additionally, shorter individuals generally have shorter limb lengths, which can result in greater leverage and mechanical advantages during certain exercises, such as squats and deadlifts. These exercises are essential for building overall strength and muscle mass.
However, it is essential to note that genetics and individual differences play a significant role in muscle development. While being shorter may provide some advantages, it does not guarantee that an individual will gain more muscle mass than a taller individual with similar effort and training intensity. Ultimately, building muscle mass requires a combination of hard work, proper nutrition, and consistency in training.
The no.1 factor for muscle mass is race.
Lol. In what way?
I don’t know about overall muscle mass between races, however blacks have thinner skinfolds than whites (meaning the calipers to measure body fat have less skin to grab), which contributes to, all else equal between races, a more “3D look”. (Some kind of DXA study mixed in with calipers would be a solid start. But I am unaware of anything like that. If anyone knows of any leads, send them my way. I’ve been looking for these for years.)
And there are body fat differences between Asians and whites as well.
“Asian ethnies have differing levels of body fat at the same BMI. This implies that what works for whites regarding BMI won’t work for Asians, since these ethnies, when compares with whites of a similar BMI and WC, had higher rates of body fat. The relationship between BMI and body fat levels is ethny-specific (Deurenberg, Deurenberg-Yap, and Guricci, 2002), though Filipinos and Asian Indians have higher levels of body fat regardless of the BMI standard used (Oza-Frank et al, 2009), which is one of the most important tells in ascertaining whether one is at-risk for DM and other maladies. It is not particularly interesting that Asian emigrants to America see their weight increase, as this is noted when the scourge called the Western diet crosses the Pacific. But what is interesting here is the rates between each Asian ethny, what they eat, and what causes the relationship.”
But blacks aren’t stronger than whites.
The only study of its kind I am aware of had some pretty huge confounds, and in my opinion pound-for-pound strength matters more (weight lifted divided by body weight).
Though due to differences in somatotype and therefore body levers and limb lengths, the races would excel at different lifts.
Depends on how you measure it- total muscle mass? Doubt it. Muscle mass gain as a percentage of original muscle mass- probably true.
There would also be breadth-length ratios as well. Maybe taller people don’t have the breadth proportionate to length. So robust tall people aren’t common enough to even out things.
On the other hand I have noticed that if you have 2 people with similar BMI and overall composition percentages, the taller person seems to be skinnier.
Same question for running to ChatGpt :
There is no definitive answer to whether the best long-distance runners are typically shorter or taller than the best short-distance runners like marathon runners. There are many factors that contribute to success in distance running, including training, technique, genetics, and body composition.
However, some research suggests that there may be a slight advantage for shorter runners in long-distance running events. This is because shorter runners generally have lower body mass and a higher ratio of muscle to body mass, which can make them more efficient runners. They also tend to have a lower center of gravity, which can improve their balance and stability while running.
On the other hand, taller runners may have an advantage in certain aspects of short-distance running, such as sprinting, due to their longer stride length and potentially greater muscular power.
It’s important to note that there are many exceptions to these general trends, and there are many successful runners of all heights and body types in both long-distance and short-distance running events. Ultimately, success in running comes down to a combination of natural ability, training, and dedication.
He will get wiser when he will be able to access more and more specialized databases like elite sport physicians.
Tall short distance sprinters are an abnormality. Typically 100m sprinters are the shortest and 400m sprinters are the tallest. Marathoning is a totally different beast so the requirements among other factors could be so different that their links to height could have an impact the trend in a totally different direction.
Im playing Code Vein a japanese dark souls type game. A bit easier than dark souls maybe. Very weird story. The japanese love storytelling. I remember I sat for 1 hour watching video is yakuza like a dragon before I actually started gameplay lol.
I played Xenosaga episode 1 when I was a teen (PS2) . There were very long cutscenes in the game. Some over an hour—the story is really dense. (Xenoblade series on Switch is another.) The Trails series (PC, PS4, PS5) is yet another. Especially Cold Steel 1-4, between fights and cutscenes sometimes it’s 2 hours until it’s over—and I love that. (If you want to get into Trails start at Trails in the Sky 1, 2, and 3 and then Trails to Zero, Trails to Azure and then Cold Steel 1-4. Trails into Reverie comes out in June. Can’t wait.
I didn’t exactly get the point of the post but it was interesting. And I learned what reification is.
Hes a fucking robot what is there to learn
You’re such a woman!
Any typical heterosexual male who read Illumanaticat’s post would be “Bro, that is some deep fucking shit!”
Women on the other hand would be like “he’s weird, he writes like a fucken robot”
Because you’re schiz and have extreme female brain, you have have no capacity to appreciate logical systematic reasoning so you react like a woman does.
That’s also why you don’t care about money and status, because those things are needed to get women and you don’t want one of those.
I mean give me a break, you’re probably queer.
How long before you cut off your dick and change your name to phylicia.
Bye Phylicia, my beautiful geisha!
Your childhood:
Yeah, Cat actually says profound things every now and then. He just uses weird language to convey his thoughts.
I don’t know if I’d say Philo has a female brain for hating on Cat all the time, but it is extremely unnecessary. It’s like Mugabe’s weird rant against modern video games.
I think the cognitive part of his brain is very female but the emotional part is very male. I think Cat is the opposite though this blog is toughening him up.
How can you 2 not see everything that is wrong with this guy?
Why do you get off on pointing out what’s wrong with him? Are you a sadistic psychopath?
Pill did you torture small animals when you were a kid?
Anime is a very annoying person with very severe autism. If I don’t say anything Anime will literally guest post every day and you will facilitate it because you….have certain thinking patterns.
the wisdom of the masses is rarely wisdom but just precoordinated mass delusion
…I also used the wrong name and email. I’m sorry Pumpkin but can you ignore my replies?
ok i didn’t post them
When I was speaking with ChatGpt about things I don’t know, psychology, medicine, economy, history, JQ, I thought he was very wise because he was mimicking « le moi » 😂
But then when I switched to things I know, it not only is confused and bad, but it’s a pathological liar that makes things up, and is even able to either stand his ground or say it is sorry and won’t repeat the same mistake, and just do it again immediately. It is a junkie on lies and wilde mistaken implicit inferences. It’s really a waste of time because nothing can be taken for granted.
I wonder if that can even be corrected. Its pattern recognition « logic » is a recipe for saying crazy stuff that looks real. It makes me wonder about Steve Sailer then …
Ask it for citations for claims and it will literally make them up, with fake quotes and all. That’s hit-or-miss, though.
I thought this was going to be an elaboration of what Anime mentioned about intelligence (or was it consciousness?) being void, or something to that effect. Intelligence isn’t tangible, and defining it by the behavior that it produces, or contributes to, is a reification of something fundamentally immaterial. You can’t scoop out a brain and sift through it to find a single particle of material intelligence, but its manifestation does have a connection with the material movements of its structure so it also doesn’t exist as an inanimate wisp that just happens to possess any intelligent being. All this tells me is that abstract things are real and have an influence on material things, and my ability to recognize it means it’s real in some meaningful sense.
“You can’t explain each causal link behind something so it doesn’t exist” is nonsensical.
Made comments on the Feynman post before reading this, but I totally agree, Anime. Most IQ tests are about how well you can solve heavily parameterized problems within a certain amount of time and say little about your penchant for pattern recognition. I respect most the ability to connect seemingly disparate phenomena with elegantly pithy concepts and theories – getting to the bottom of things. This is why I read PP. It’s not only his g but its being coupled with a willingness to induce heterodox yet coherent explanations. ’tis the fulcrum of real inquiry and progress. Give me a place to stand and a lever long enough, and I shall move the world.
Thank you. I appreciate that.
Are IQ tests like thermometers? Is intelligence IQ ike temperature?
Temperature depends on the existence and consistency of every other physical law to be a consistent (universally agreed upon) scale.
Is matter a wave or a particle? Nothing is concretized until measured (the wave function collapses). It’s pointless to argue whether IQ is like temperature when we don’t even know what temperature depends on. We don’t know what anything is dependent on fundamentally because we don’t know what decides how a wave function will collapse. We just know it is consistent when we measure it (like intelligence is, given a good test and sample size).
If the universe behaves consistently despite us not understanding it fundamentally (physics), and the mental manipulation/reception of the properties of the universe is part of the universe (intelligence), there is no reason to assume intelligence is any less consistent than what it is a component of.
This is especially because intelligibility is REQUIRED to understand measurements and physics in any capacity. All the relationships between things and properties are intelligible or they aren’t “relationships” and can’t be understood by anything (by definition), even the physical world itself.
So stating that intelligence, which is simply the capacity to process intelligible things, is somehow immeasurable makes no sense… because measuring is a process of using intelligence (again, even if it happens “automatically” with no explanation and intelligent agent in the physical world as materialists believe) as it expressly involves manipulating intelligible properties.
What might this “good test” be, and what’s the difference between a “good test” and “bad test”? Hereditarians have argued for decades that temperature is like IQ and thermometers are like IQ tests but those arguments fail. And we do have a theory, the kinetic theory of gases. The construction of temperature and thermometers are nothing like IQ and IQ tests. Temperature is a physical property, and IQ is posited as a psychological trait, and is therefore immeasurable as I argued.
It seems to me that sight or color vision are two counter-examples to your hypothesis:
Sight is a psychological trait. Same for color vision.
They are not physical traits even if there is a physical input. Two people in the same place won’t see the same neither in sight nor color discrimination.
There is no well established theories of sight nor color discrimination (even if it’s more advanced than for intelligence).
Both can be perfectly measured (even before we had any theories)
What do you take “measurement” to mean? You know that emission theory and intromission theory, and opponent color theory and stage theory exist right? In any case, the temperature/thermometer analogy was used since IQ-ists (Jensen, Urbach, Eysenck) try to say that if one accepts that thermometers measure temperature then one must accept that IQ tests measure intelligence. That claim is outright false, as I have successfully argued, since the history of both are completely different.
That is a great point Bruno.
RR, you keep wanting people to give you an exact concrete unit for intelligence, and I think meaningful “distinctions” or properties a mind can hold or process could be a good contender for that. But obviously, no one can perfectly measure that as it is far too complicated and is basically an abstraction that is close to the fundamental makeup of reality, like logic itself.
We can measure the temperature of something by a quick feel, or numerous visual cues like steam coming off, or condensation accruing on the surface. So even though those are not perfect measures of temperature, they correspond to a real measure. If two things are fairly close in temperature, we can’t tell what’s hotter without a more refined tool than sight or feel. This is very similar to not being able to figure out who is more intelligent when people are close in intelligence or one has a superficial appearance of intellect (such as in a movie or when wearing something).
“if one accepts that thermometers measure temperature then one must accept that IQ tests measure intelligence. That claim is outright false, as I have successfully argued”
IQ is not a thermometer it is a radar for brain function:
For example, you can measure if some read a series of letters and numbers at 20 feet and your are able to read it at 10 feet, you have 20/10 vision compared to him. If you also read it at 20 feet, it’s 20/20.
For colors, you can write a letter or figure in one color and choose a very close color background. Those who read it can discriminate those colors, those who don’t can’t (you’ve checked they have sufficient sight before so that’s not interfering).
Those are very simple measurements and totally objective of a non physician trait for wich we don’t have a good scientific explanation yet.
I think it ruins your hypothesis.
Bruno,
(1) You’re talking about visual acuity. (2) You’re talking about color vision with two functions—color discrimination and color constancy. We have a pretty good idea of how we see and discern color, and we have theories of them as I have stated yesterday. So this doesn’t ruin the hypothesis.
Lurker,
The error in your thinking is that temperature is an actual physical property. The thermometer, other tools we had before the thermometer, and even human touch actually have discerned between a property that actually exists. The property that thermometers measure is temperature. On the other hand, what’s the property that IQ tests measure? The need for a measurement unit is important, along with a specified measured object and object of measurement—but even the main IQ-ists have admitted that there is no unit of measurement for IQ like there is for weight and length. Thus, IQ crumbles.
“Actual physical property”? Considering no one knows what makes a physical property any different from a mental property, besides the space it seems to occur, that is a distinction of no consequence to measurement. I’ve already gave examples of fake distances in movies or videogames, which you can measure but don’t represent anything in the physical world besides the bytes the data that are organized in a spatial pattern and the lights in the monitor screen. As long as I can establish some scale that is consistently measured in some unit, it is measurable.
“The thermometer, other tools we had before the thermometer, and even human touch actually have discerned between a property that actually exists.”
Problem-solving ability is an actual mental property. Amount of information one can think of or memorize is an actual mental property. Amount numbers one can memorize in a number sequence is an actual mental property. A mood is an actual mental property.
Are you saying these properties don’t actually exist? Or are you saying because we can’t put them on a number line according to some tool that they aren’t real? That’s the point of psychometric tests, an attempt to measure something we haven’t yet found a perfectly accurate tool to measure. Intelligence differences are something most people understand is real, because we know information is real, has a concrete component and magnitude, and the ability to manipulate information in a logical manner is real.
“The need for a measurement unit is important, along with a specified measured object and object of measurement—but even the main IQ-ists have admitted that there is no unit of measurement for IQ like there is for weight and length.”
I literally just gave one. Amount of distinctions/distinct information quanta is a unit.
“besides the space it seems to occur” – that’s a huge difference and what distinguishes mental from physical properties.
If mental properties were identical to physical properties, then any change in one entails a change in the other.
Mental properties can change without any corresponding change in physical properties.
So mental properties aren’t identical to physical properties.
“As long as I can establish some scale that is consistently measured in some unit” – what’s the measurement unit for IQ that’s relatable to weight or length?
“That’s the point of psychometric tests” – Funny, since psychometricians merely assume that psychological traits are quantitative without an argument. Psychometrics isn’t measurement (Uher).
Click to access 30461%20UHER_Psychometrics_is_Not_Measurement_%28AAM%29_2020.pdf
“I literally just gave one” – What is “distinct information quanta” and what makes it a measurement unit? How does it then relate to IQ tests? The fact of the matter is, the necessary components for metrication of IQ don’t exist. Certain cognitive processes are, of course, needed to answer IQ test items along with academic knowledge which is the reflected in the correlations between IQ and achievement tests (they’re merely different versions of the same test). But this doesn’t establish a theory of mental measurement. Not in the slightest.
Again, even though IQ-ists have claimed that IQ tests and thermometers are similar, a closer look at the development and theory of temperature and thermometers throws their claims straight into the garbage.
@Lurker,
memorization without understanding is impotent, thus you get people like rr.
It’s hilarious that you say that I don’t understand my own arguments.
“It’s hilarious that you say that I don’t understand my own arguments.”
in your reality you “understand” them but they are only concepts not reality itself. you are trapped in a bubble your own small little delusional world.
“Mental properties can change without any corresponding change in physical properties.”
This is an empirical claim, so what evidence is this assertion based on?
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01676/full
“If mental properties were identical to physical properties, then any change in one entails a change in the other.”
Have you seen a mental property without a physical property?
“Mental properties can change without any corresponding change in physical properties.”
How does that make them unmeasurable? How does the fact that different mental states may occur in the same physical state of the brain mean that mental states are not measurable?
Furthermore where is your physics/metaphysics theory that shows that all subjective experience does not depend on the structure of the physical world? Obviously you don’t have one. So stop with this.
“So mental properties aren’t identical to physical properties.”
I never said they were “identical”, I’m saying there is no reason to assume there properties are different so that they cannot be measured.
“That’s the point of psychometric tests” – “Funny, since psychometricians merely assume that psychological traits are quantitative without an argument. Psychometrics isn’t measurement (Uher).”
Because most people understand that intelligence differences exist because they have better understanding of the subjective and abstract world than you.
Click to access 30461%20UHER_Psychometrics_is_Not_Measurement_%28AAM%29_2020.pdf
“What is “distinct information quanta” and what makes it a measurement unit?”
It is distinct information. What form information takes depends on the structure of the mind, obviously.
“How does it then relate to IQ tests? The fact of the matter is, the necessary components for metrication of IQ don’t exist. ”
Hmmm… maybe because we are testing the ability of a person to deduce/induce/recall information in an IQ test?
“Certain cognitive processes are, of course, needed to answer IQ test items along with academic knowledge which is the reflected in the correlations between IQ and achievement tests (they’re merely different versions of the same test). But this doesn’t establish a theory of mental measurement. Not in the slightest.”
That’s only because you are retarded.
“Again, even though IQ-ists have claimed that IQ tests and thermometers are similar, a closer look at the development and theory of temperature and thermometers throws their claims straight into the garbage.”
I’ve established how IQ can scale like a thermometer. It depends on what type of intelligible information you want to use a quanta.
@Lucker, what rr has is an inability to distinguish between his logic and empirical reality, he has no real discernment.
rr thinks men’s and women’s brains are exactly the same.
they are not:
It’s a good practice in theory that RR wants to get definitions and ideas into concrete language and valid logic, but he has some metaphysical assumptions that are wrong (like blank slatism or whatever form of dualism where he believes in brain “development” that somehow becomes a metaphysical mind without that mind being based on any pre-defined structure and being completely separate from the physical brain).
If there were actually an apriori argument that IQ differences do not exist (differences in magnitude of intelligence) all he would have to do is repeat it ad nauseum instead of ever arguing about how the IQ tests are made, because that wouldn’t matter if intelligence is immeasurable in principle.
TBF, he does repeat his arguments like “mental is irreducible to physical” quite a lot, but it doesn’t work because the physical is already defined on mental (abstract) properties. He just presupposes dualism.
Lurker,
“Have you seen a mental property without a physical property?”
No, but that doesn’t refute the premise. CNS activity is necessary for mental states but mental states aren’t CNS activity.
“How does that make them unmeasurable? How does the fact that different mental states may occur in the same physical state of the brain mean that mental states are not measurable?”
If they aren’t identical then M states are immeasurable. You asked me what distinguishes those two kinds of states and I provided an argument that distinguishes them (a form of a multiple realizability argument).
“where is your physics/metaphysics theory that shows that all subjective experience does not depend on the structure of the physical world?”
Where did I make this claim?
“I’m saying there is no reason to assume there properties are different so that they cannot be measured.”
The argument I provided establishes non-similarity between them.
“Because most people understand that intelligence differences exist because they have better understanding of the subjective and abstract world than you.”
Which part of Uher’s paper does this refute?
“It is distinct information”
What makes it a measurement unit?
“Hmmm… maybe because we are testing the ability of a person to deduce/induce/recall information in an IQ test?”
Hmmm maybe Vygotskian psychological and cultural tools explain why people of different social classes score differently due to differential access to information? Can you provide a reference or two for your claim?
“That’s only because you are retarded.”
How does that establish that the basic tenets of metrication exist for IQ?
“I’ve established how IQ can scale like a thermometer”
I’ve exhaustively established—and provided arguments—that temperature and IQ and thermometers and IQ tests are in no way, shape, or form identical. See article for arguments and try to refute them.
AK,
“rr thinks men’s and women’s brains are exactly the same.”
That image assumes “male” and “female” brains exist. When does a feature of a brain count as one typical of that of “male” and “female” brains? Why the mereological fallacy gendering brains, when gender is a property of selves? Where did I say that “men’s and women’s brains are EXACTLY THE SAME”? What’s the argument against the claim that brains are monomorphic and not dimorphic?
“That image assumes “male” and “female” brains exist.”
it does not “assume”, it is empirically proven with brain scans.
you simply do not understand the scientific method.
“scientific method”
A measurement is obtained by comparing an object to some standard. Any observation is useful to a scientist, but quantitative observations are commonly considered more useful. Even if the measurement is an estimate, scientists usually make quantitative measurements in every experiment.
“No, but that doesn’t refute the premise. CNS activity is necessary for mental states but mental states aren’t CNS activity.”
But physical CNS activity is a property, the same as mental properties.
“If they aren’t identical then M states are immeasurable. You asked me what distinguishes those two kinds of states and I provided an argument that distinguishes them (a form of a multiple realizability argument).”
You are claiming they are immeasurable in principle, yet this is only showing they may be immeasurable in practice.
The fact that the mind applies to the physical world, that minds don’t exist without brains, and other facts would imply that the mind is correlated on some important level with brain activity, which gives credence to minds being measurable in practice.
“Where did I make this claim?”
You are saying that the physical state of the universe has nothing to do with mental states because mental states are irreducible to physical states. That is implied by multiple realizability. Otherwise, it is implied that physical states do actually inform mental states.
“I’m saying there is no reason to assume there properties are different so that they cannot be measured.”
“The argument I provided establishes non-similarity between them.”
No it doesn’t. Multiple realizability only shows that subjective activity is not one-to-one correlated with physical brain states. It doesn’t show that subjective activity is immeasurable.
If I write ten words on a piece of paper or on a text program, I still have ten words. Different mediums that are both measurable. You have to show that because the medium is mental that it somehow is now immeasurable.
“Which part of Uher’s paper does this refute?”
I don’t know I’m not responding to Uher.
“What makes it a measurement unit?”
That fact that is concrete.
“Hmmm maybe Vygotskian psychological and cultural tools explain why people of different social classes score differently due to differential access to information? Can you provide a reference or two for your claim?”
I don’t have a reference; you can literally figure it out using your brain.
“How does that establish that the basic tenets of metrication exist for IQ?”
How does having a concrete unit of mental activity that exists in different quantities in different people that is then roughly measured by psychometric tests establish that the basic tenets of metrification of IQ?
How does rating pain on a scale from one-to-ten establish that a person can be in different amounts of pain?
“I’ve exhaustively established—and provided arguments—that temperature and IQ and thermometers and IQ tests are in no way, shape, or form identical. See article for arguments and try to refute them.”
No need.
I should say “discrete” not “concrete”, as in the number of distinctions a mind is capable of grasping is a countable number.
Sorry, I don’t have time to read that entire article. I’m studying for some certs right now. Can you point out examples within the article of brain state X having multiple corresponding mental states? I’ve known that this is true in theory; for example, activation in the amygdala can be associated with many different emotions, but I don’t know of any experiments where we did an MRI scan on someone going from anger to sadness to happiness and only the same exact brain state appeared each time.
To me, it would be impossible to prove, at the very least, due to the enormous noise of brain activity that occurs by the second. So, I would be highly impressed if the researchers found a way to do this.
Or did I misinterpret the point you were trying to make?
not exactly the same = dimorphic = sad
i dont believe in snitching but….i never posted this comment this is Mug posting under my pseudonym even though i agree with him still kinda weird.
AK,
“it does not “assume”, it is empirically proven with brain scans”
Nope. Joel’s work along with Eliot’s work shoes that this claim. Is false. Brains aren’t sexed or gendered, people and their selves are.
Lurker,
“But physical CNS activity is a property, the same as mental properties.”
How are they “the same”? In my view, they’re only the same if M properties are CNS properties. But identity theories are false.
“The fact that the mind applies to the physical world, that minds don’t exist without brains, and other facts would imply that the mind is correlated on some important level with brain activity, which gives credence to minds being measurable in practice.”
First claim is true, second claim is true, what “other facts” do you have in mind? Of course brain physiology is necessary along with having a body but mind isn’t identical or brain or body or any part of body.
“Otherwise, it is implied that physical states do actually inform mental states.”
What do you mean by “physical states do actually inform mental states”?
“Multiple realizability only shows that subjective activity is not one-to-one correlated with physical brain states. It doesn’t show that subjective activity is immeasurable.”
Putnam’s original formulation of the argument against type-identity theory argued that if type-physicalism is true then mental properties can be realized in exactly one physical way but it is empirically highly plausible that mental properties are capable of multiple realizations so it is empirically highly plausible that type-physicalism is false.
If subjective states were reducible to physical states, then they would be measurable like physical states.
If subjective states were measurable, then they would be objective and publicly observable like physical states.
Therefore, if subjective states were reducible to physical states, then they would be objective and publicly observable like physical states.
Subjective states aren’t objective and publicly observable like physical states.
Therefore, subjective states are immeasurable.
“I don’t know I’m not responding to Uher.”
But her paper shows that psychometrics isn’t measurement.
“That fact that is concrete.”
What do you take a “measurement unit” to be?
“How does having a concrete unit of mental activity that exists in different quantities in different people that is then roughly measured by psychometric tests establish that the basic tenets of metrification of IQ?”
That doesn’t answer this:
“Certain cognitive processes are, of course, needed to answer IQ test items along with academic knowledge which is the reflected in the correlations between IQ and achievement tests (they’re merely different versions of the same test). But this doesn’t establish a theory of mental measurement. Not in the slightest.”
Do you think scales are measures?
The history of the thermometer is actually the best argument AGAINST IQ as a measurement, ironically enough for hereditarians.
Melo,
Yes I understand that P2 is an empirical claim (although I am aware of at least one a priori version of MR). They also discuss another 2009 paper which shows some possible evidence of MR.
“The second study presents a broad comparison between foveal and peripheral crowding as evidence of MRT. The normal range of crowding scales with eccentricity. However, psychophysical models have clearly shown that the computation, integration, is the same across the visual field. This view of visual crowding as an indivisible and homogeneous phenomenon across the visual field contrasts with the high diversity of its neuroanatomical substrate across the foveal and peripheral vision. These neuroanatomical differences are remarkably relevant to MRT. Eccentric retinal regions project to the corresponding cortical areas that represent the peripheral parts of the visual field. This spatial specificity of connections between neurons contributes to the emergence of topographical cortical representations of the visual field (retinotopic maps). In the human primary visual cortex, as an object moves from foveal to peripheral locations of the visual field, the neurons that are activated varies from posterior to anterior parts of the calcarine fissure (Daniel and Whitteridge, 1961; Adams et al., 2007). This organization is preserved in the rest of the retinotopic visual areas (Wandell and Winawer, 2011). Although foveal and peripheral crowding may be associated with the same psychophysical mechanism, this topographical specificity hinders the hypothesis that they are based on the same anatomical structures”
Chapter 4 of this these also discusses empirical evidence of MR.
Empirical Evidence and the Multiple Realization of Mental Kinds
I’ll write something about this next week.
“How are they “the same”? In my view, they’re only the same if M properties are CNS properties. But identity theories are false.”
They are the same in the sense that the mind deals with them in the same way. We observe them through our subjective lens. It is up to you to show how mental properties are missing something that physical properties have, such that they would become immeasurable (even in theory).
“The fact that the mind applies to the physical world, that minds don’t exist without brains, and other facts would imply that the mind is correlated on some important level with brain activity, which gives credence to minds being measurable in practice.”
“First claim is true, second claim is true, what “other facts” do you have in mind? Of course brain physiology is necessary along with having a body but mind isn’t identical or brain or body or any part of body.”
Any other facts in neuroscience, evolution, and physics that link the brain to the mind.
“What do you mean by “physical states do actually inform mental states”?”
The physical state and structure of the brain and the physical world is correlated in some important way with the subjective state of the mind (as in there is some mapping with the physical world to mental states, though not necessarily one-to-one).
“Putnam’s original formulation of the argument against type-identity theory argued that if type-physicalism is true then mental properties can be realized in exactly one physical way but it is empirically highly plausible that mental properties are capable of multiple realizations so it is empirically highly plausible that type-physicalism is false.”
But that doesn’t mean that the mind is immeasurable in principle, just in practice, because we wouldn’t be able to test all mental activity in a physical world.
Given that I just gave an example of a quantum unit of mental activity (distinct information) we could still test the mind’s ability in the physical world, regardless of what is “actually” in the mind that can’t be accessed.
However, assuming the brain has more to with mental activity than simply being necessary, and that the structure is implicated in mental activity, we have more of a reason to believe that the whole of the mind is measurable through physical means (as opposed to just that which is relevant to the test). Since we do have a reason to believe that brain structure (like size or physical shape or chemical makeup) is implicated in mental activity due to many indirect measures, evolutionary arguments, and our own subjective experience, we have a reason to believe that we can get a good general grasp on the IQ of someone through empirical means.
“If subjective states were reducible to physical states, then they would be measurable like physical states.”
Physical states are measured through the mind, so are subjective states.
“If subjective states were measurable, then they would be objective and publicly observable like physical states.”
Again this only implies they are immeasurable in practice.
“Therefore, if subjective states were reducible to physical states, then they would be objective and publicly observable like physical states.”
Physical states must be reducible to mental states in order to be observable. So by measuring something physical you are already implying that the mind shares objective structure with the physical world. Part of this structure is discrete information. Intelligence is made up of components that are common to both objective and subjective states, which is discrete information. So the argument does not prove that IQ is impossible.
“Subjective states aren’t objective and publicly observable like physical states.
Therefore, subjective states are immeasurable.”
Immeasurable through a thermometer, but not in principle.
“But her paper shows that psychometrics isn’t measurement.”
I just showed how it was. I thought it was your job to repeat people’s arguments anyway.
“What do you take a “measurement unit” to be?”
Something made up of discrete units that can be compared in magnitude along an axis.
“How does having a concrete unit of mental activity that exists in different quantities in different people that is then roughly measured by psychometric tests establish that the basic tenets of metrification of IQ?”
That doesn’t answer this:
“Certain cognitive processes are, of course, needed to answer IQ test items along with academic knowledge which is the reflected in the correlations between IQ and achievement tests (they’re merely different versions of the same test). But this doesn’t establish a theory of mental measurement. Not in the slightest.”
It depends on what you mean by “theory”. The universe is not deterministic so that would imply subjective states are not deterministic so you are never going to get a deterministic mathematical equation of mental activity. There are also problems with taking any test as a perfect measure because they don’t directly measure mental activity.
But what I said does establish that true differences in magnitude of intelligence exists, and implies that psychometric tests are measuring that to some degree.
“Do you think scales are measures?”
Google’s quick answer:
“Scientific definitions for scale (2 of 2)
An ordered system of numbering or indexing that is used as a reference standard in measurement, in which each number corresponds to some physical quantity.”
It sounds correct except for the term “physical”. But given that some scientists are physicalists it would apply to the mind regardless.
“Joel’s work”
Who the fuck is this guy and why does it matter?
“Brains aren’t sexed or gendered, people and their selves are”
Brain scans show definitively that the brains of females have more medial-lateral connections and the brains of males have more anterior-posterior connections.
You have no empirical evidence to contradict this.
pp do you see any distinction between “cognitive ability” and “intelligence”?
I see intelligence as overall cognitive ability
“Bruno,
(1) You’re talking about visual acuity. (2) You’re talking about color vision with two functions—color discrimination and color constancy. We have a pretty good idea of how we see and discern color, and we have theories of them as I have stated yesterday. So this doesn’t ruin the hypothesis.”
RR, you just said we didn’t. But it’s irrelevant because those measure have been done before we had any theory about vision. Long before David Marr theory. So it really ruins your hypithesis in my book.
Why don’t you back your claims with some evidence?
And as for Color vision.
Bruno :
Can we compare precisely people ability to discriminate colors ?
Chat Gpt:
Yes, there are precise methods to compare people’s ability to discriminate colors. The ability to discriminate colors is called color vision, and it can be measured using various tests and tools.
One commonly used test is the Farnsworth-Munsell 100 Hue Test, which is a standardized color vision test that assesses an individual’s ability to distinguish small differences between colors. In this test, the individual is asked to arrange a set of colored discs in a specific order based on hue, and errors in color perception are recorded and analyzed.
Another test that is often used to assess color vision is the Ishihara Color Test, which involves identifying numbers or shapes hidden in a pattern of colored dots. This test is used to diagnose various types of color vision deficiencies, such as red-green color blindness.
In addition to these tests, other tools such as colorimeters and spectrophotometers can be used to measure the color discrimination ability of individuals. These tools can measure various color parameters, such as hue, saturation, and brightness, and can be used to compare the color perception abilities of different individuals.
In summary, there are various precise methods and tools available to compare people’s ability to discriminate colors, including standardized tests, colorimeters, and spectrophotometers. These methods can provide detailed information about an individual’s color vision and can be used to compare color perception abilities across individuals.
Bruno:
Since when are we able to do that, measuring color vision abilities distribution among population ?
CHarGpt:
The measurement of color vision abilities and the distribution of color vision deficiencies among populations have been studied for many decades.
One of the earliest studies on the prevalence of color vision deficiencies was conducted by John Dalton in the late 18th century. Dalton, who was color blind himself, conducted experiments on his own vision and that of his family members and colleagues, and he described his findings in a paper published in 1794.
Since then, many studies have been conducted on the prevalence of color vision deficiencies in different populations. One of the most well-known studies was conducted by Shinobu Ishihara in 1917, who developed the Ishihara Color Test mentioned earlier. This test has been widely used to diagnose color vision deficiencies and to study their prevalence among different populations.
Other studies have used various methods to measure color vision abilities, such as the Farnsworth-Munsell 100 Hue Test, which was developed in the mid-20th century. This test has been used in numerous studies to measure the color discrimination abilities of individuals and to study the distribution of color vision abilities among different populations.
In summary, the measurement of color vision abilities and the distribution of color vision deficiencies among populations have been studied for many decades, with early studies dating back to the 18th century. Since then, various tests and methods have been developed to measure color vision abilities, and numerous studies have been conducted to study the prevalence of color vision deficiencies among different populations.
Bruno:
Could you back the sight measurement ability before 1982 with scientific references ?
ChatGpt:
Certainly! Here are a few scientific references that support the measurement of visual acuity and color vision before 1982:
Snellen Chart: As mentioned earlier, the Snellen Chart was developed by Dutch ophthalmologist Herman Snellen in 1862. The chart has been used for over a century to measure visual acuity and is still widely used today. A scientific reference for the Snellen Chart can be found in Snellen’s original paper, “Letterproeven tot Bepaling der Gezichtsscherpte” (Snellen, 1862).
Ishihara Color Test: The Ishihara Color Test was developed by Shinobu Ishihara in 1917 and has been used for over a century to diagnose color vision deficiencies. A scientific reference for the Ishihara Color Test can be found in Ishihara’s original paper, “Tests for Colour-Blindness” (Ishihara, 1917).
Farnsworth-Munsell 100 Hue Test: The Farnsworth-Munsell 100 Hue Test was developed by Dean Farnsworth and Munsell Color Company in the 1940s. The test has been used for over 70 years to measure color discrimination abilities. A scientific reference for the Farnsworth-Munsell 100 Hue Test can be found in a paper by Farnsworth and colleagues, “The Farnsworth-Munsell 100-Hue Test for the Examination of Color Discrimination” (Farnsworth et al., 1949).
Retinoscopy: Retinoscopy, a technique for measuring the refractive error of the eye, was first described in the late 19th century by Ernst Abbe and Hermann von Helmholtz. A scientific reference for retinoscopy can be found in von Helmholtz’s book, “Handbuch der Physiologischen Optik” (von Helmholtz, 1867).
These references provide evidence for the measurement of visual acuity and color vision abilities before 1982, supporting the idea that precise measurements of sight have been available for many decades.
At the end of the day, the theories were developed before the tests used to discern any differences in them. Furthermore, the example of thermometers and temperature and IQ tests and IQ are in no way, shape, or form similar as I have successfully argued.
You never successfully argue anything. All you do is say you did.
I think you were on something good in denying the similarity temperature/thermometer and intelligence/IQ test.
You said you need either something physical – like temperature – or something you have a predictive scientific theory about. Else there are no valid measurement.
But the vision – sight OR colour – measurements deal with non-physical trait even before having any embryonic theory – with a perfectly valid measure in the full sense.
So your “philosophical” a prior argument is completely ruined. You still have an a posteriori argument but all the “Intellectual” dimension of your position is destroyed
I don’t take pride in it because I really like you very much and I learn by reading you. Not everything is IQ. Plus you seem to be a very decent person, I would go to your gym if I lived in your area and would trust you.
So Pumpkin seems to have put off Ganzir by (wrongly) denying his IQ recognition. The last thing I want is to have the same eviction effect with you RR …
I’m not optometrist but I think I have a good general understanding of the anatomy and physiology of the eye, enough to know that vision measurements deal with the physical aspect of the visual system. The Stroop test and color-naming test were developed directly off of the opponent-process theory of color vision. I don’t think the a priori argument is ruined, since in my article I have given a few a priori arguments against the measurement of psychology.
I don’t take any of this stuff personally, Bruno. I just enjoy arguing.
“Stroop test”
I scored in the 99th percentile on this task in 2009.
That means I am 1 in 100 times better at it than anyone else.
(135)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroop_effect
Brain imaging techniques including magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), and positron emission tomography (PET) have shown that there are two main areas in the brain that are involved in the processing of the Stroop task.[8][9] They are the anterior cingulate cortex, and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex.[10] More specifically, while both are activated when resolving conflicts and catching errors, the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex assists in memory and other executive functions, while the anterior cingulate cortex is used to select an appropriate response and allocate attentional resources.[11]
That’s very good 😊
((( I just enjoy arguing. )))
agrees with ian·mugabe
–
soph·ist·ry
noun
the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving.
“trying to argue that I had benefited in any way from the disaster was pure sophistry”
a fallacious argument.
plural noun: sophistries
^LOL.
It’s very nihilistic to not take seriously what you or others are passionately arguing about especially when it concerns the foundations of reality. On the other hand I think RR was just using it as a figure of speech, though he does seem to lean that way more than most people.
Lol trust a robot to actually remeber references to something obscure.
i also scored in the 99th percentile for the Stroop test i used to play that game a lot on Lumosity and on other brain game websites about a decade ago.
I got my score (135) on the stoop test the first time I took it.
I used to play the game puyo pop on the Gameboy Advanced.
Difficulty stopped getting higher at a score of 50,000.
The highest score is 999,999.
My score was 300,000. I played it for 4 hours and you could not pause the game. ian·mugabe gave that game movie example where the guy played the Kong game for over 24 hours.