The freeze dance game is an analogy of what lock down subjects to young people. In that game, someone plays music that everyone enjoys dancing to. When everyone starts getting well into their dancing, someone stops the music and everyone must freeze in their position. Anyone who continues to move is taken out of the game, even if that movement involves catching ones balance. When translated to real life, it is most hazardous for the younger generations.
Given what we see in nature, we have good moral reasons to hope that evolution is unintelligent and that accidents can result in excellent designs. If a superior intelligence is responsible for these advanced designs, then we would have to ask what we should do if it turns out that this superior designer is actually a villain.
Evolution of species may really be an evolution of an ecosystem. That ecosystem could respond emotionally and that emotion motivates it to find some solution to relieve that emotion. Emotionally driven intelligence would almost always come up with flawed designs. Those designs would satisfy the emotions instead of the intelligence.
We should study observations separately from derivations from theories. The deliberately ignorant takes the position that data is superior to science. There is a valid place for the deliberately ignorant when included in teams with domain experts representing each of the relevant scientific disciplines. In order to work, the deliberately ignorant needs to be skilled at his craft of being ignorant in the right way to propel the team towards a new solution without annoying everyone to the point of being expelled.
In this increasingly globalized world, we confront the question of how well groups may govern themselves optimally not only to survive within their local context but also keep up with the standards of the global norms. The goal is for self government but that government should thrive at a comparable level to the global norm. What is that measurement that will determine a group’s success at self-governing?
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.