The rise of civilizations is from rapid adaptation of first-hand observations. The fall of civilizations occurs when theories override contrary observations. Government by data and urgency can restore the original vitality that created this civilization, and can prevent the inevitable decline resulting from theory-driven decision making.
If I take a month to come up with some solution, then it is hard to argue that a non-human animal could not come up with an equivalent solution over a longer period of time. Given enough time, Darwinian evolution could come up with the solution without any IQ type intelligence at all. A definition of intelligence that is unique to humans demands a time limit on coming up with an answer.
Following up on my last post, I am also wondering about where IQ comes from. As noted there, there seems to be a genetic component to IQ because IQ tends to be stable over an individual’s lifetime, and there seems to be an environmental component since IQ scores have been increasing in recent generations.…
IQ data is similar to bright ultraviolet light: it can provide very good illumination (with compatible sensors) but it must be used with abundant caution. Fine-resolution IQ discrimination must result in major implications for the culture, if that discrimination is occurring. I believe it is occurring with the emerging social specialization of an emerging human hive.
An initial consciousness could through design, refactoring, and replication build up the universe without any further miracles beyond the initial consciousness in the first place.
Behind this messy argument is a deeper concern I have that we are doing a disservice to young people by presuming that they really do need more than a decade to learn advanced skills. We can subject young people to more intense education than we are now, and that they could have college-graduate level skills before they become 18 years old. Yet, we think that such an expectation is unwise as if it risks losing something more valuable. Perhaps we fear the young person’s loss to easy access to the presumption of innocence.
The modern era of machine learning, though, presents us an example where we can begin to suspect a separate level of intelligence, and one that feeds on our intelligence. As we sense this happening, we realize that we’ll get no sympathy from the machine for the exact same reason we don’t recognize naturally occurring intelligence in non-humans.
With big data, we end up with deep historical data from distant events. There will be something needed to fill in the gaps that were mysteries at the time. That gap filler will be spontaneous data whether we acknowledge it or not. Even if we as humans leave the gap unfilled, we can’t be sure that our data analytics or machine learning algorithms won’t fill it. When it does, how can we be sure it won’t come up with a supernatural explanation that it keeps to itself?
Just like the fact that I can’t interest an advanced piano teacher doesn’t diminish the fact that such teachers exist, the fact that science can’t engage the immaterial teacher says nothing about the existence of such a teacher. The teacher is simply uninterested in engaging, and have every good reason to not engage.
Learning is an instinctual behavior. If we had to be taught how to learn, we could never learn that lesson.