Memory & Intelligence?

Quote:

How much does an individual's memory play in the general assessment of perceived intelligence

That's a really interesting question Chumly.
Since an intelligence test is a measure of accumulated knowledge and is scored based on what is perceived to be the standard of accumulated knowledge for people of comparable ages, our method for assessing intelligence would be pretty useless if someone had an issue with remembering what they had learned- except in the performance section where the ability to correctly evaluate spatial relationships and recognize patterns is tested for and assessed. That's a skill that can be performed off the cuff without a lot of memory involved.

My initial reaction is that intelligence is more about the ability to reason and make connections by either inducing or deducing. Anyone can be trained to perform certain repetitive tasks without learning the concepts behind them. An obstetrician once told me that a routine birth involved a certain number of ordered steps and that he could train almost anyone to be able to perform those steps in the correct order. The problem comes with knowing what to do when the situation moves beyond the routine, and that's when intelligence becomes obvious- when someone can apply concepts learned from one specific task or learning experience to another, and make reasoned judgements about what might happen next based on what has happened before.
So I guess memory really does play a major role in how successfully someone does that throughout life. You have to be able to remember the initial concept and how you were successfully able to apply it to be able to apply it again in some other situation- unless you're just an incredibly creative savant of some sort who is constantly reinventing and functioning in that way.
But yeah, I envy people who seem to have encyclopedic memories. I think they do at least appear to be more intelligent than those of us who don't have that ability.

0 Replies

Cool reply; the question of artificial memory enhancement from the low end of pad and paper on up to high tech enhancements such as laptops and/or internet access, and the implications of the Turing Test are also worthy of discussion. Why should the pragmatic measure of intelligence start and stop with the unassisted brain?

0 Replies

Quote:

Why should the pragmatic measure of intelligence start and stop with the unassisted brain?

Probably again, because of the need to apply some standard for measurement. I guess you could test for technological savvy or know-how by equipping all of your test takers with laptops that are loaded with comparable software and assessing who was able to make the most successful use of that particular resource ( I know I'd be the low scorer in that particular test Laughing

) but that would be testing for something altogether different than raw or unenhanced natural human intelligence.

Although again, the ability to use resources- or resourcefulness- is an important part of learning and I think an indication of intelligence. And again, memory is a big factor there as well.

And I do think computer and internet technology are somewhat of an equalizer for sure, in terms of enabling students to competively and successfully perform academically (in education) if not actually enhancing raw intelligence.

0 Replies

So perhaps as we move forward our use of machines will blur / equalize our individual strengths and weaknesses making particular use a cheap fast access memory to level the playing field and covertional IQ tests even if accurate for the unaided mind will not represent the real world, if that is not already the case to some fair degree.

The ultimate pragmatic question and test environment would ask: is external memory access relevant to the testing?

0 Replies

I don't think it's a fair or relevant adaptation to human intelligence testing. But that's just my opinion. What do other people think?

0 Replies

Are glasses a fair or relevant adaptation to human reading testing? I also would like to hear from others as much as I enjoy and appreacte your thoughtful posts.

0 Replies

Frauds would be revealed very quickly. Take a typical IQ Test question:

1-2, 3-4, 5-8, What comes next?
The genuine intellect will quickly determine the answer to be 7-16. How would artificial memory assist one in arriving at that conclusion?

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

How would artificial memory assist one in arriving at that conclusion?

That's easy: the memory could easily contain common (and not so common) number groups of which you could search for the correct one.

0 Replies

As an aside: since there are computer algorithms that can very quickly solve such questions, I would ask: are you now saying that the Turing Test vis-a-vis your "1-2, 3-4, 5-8, What comes next?" query is an indicator of "the genuine intellect"?

As an aside: since it's quite possible to say there is "genuine intellect" neither versed in base ten, nor experienced in solving number sequences, are you now saying that such individuals would not qualify as having "the genuine intellect"?

0 Replies

IQ tests are timed and though a computer could probably be taught to answer even picture/association problems; it would still be slowed by the fraud's requirement to feed the questions into it... as opposed to the frequently instant recognition of the genuine intellect.

For your aside; Yes. I believe the day will come when artificial intelligence surpasses our own... and by great measure. I subscribe in part to L. Ron Hubbard's theory that the human mind is essentially a computer and is likewise only capable of mistakes when files are corrupt or contain faulty information. I don't, however, believe that humans are capable of attaining the error-proof status he labeled as "Clear". I theorize that if one ever did; he would be indistinguishable from the near future's learning computers. Once AI reaches a level of communication commensurate with it's ability to learn facts and more importantly pseudo-facts; it will henceforth display a "personality" of it's own derived from the erroneous information it has absorbed (much as we do, IMO).

0 Replies

All well and cool, a few points if I may:

1) my arguments are based on the "general assessment of perceived intelligence" and not IQ tests per se, that more restrictive concept was forwarded by "aidan" and as such does not fully form my original position. My original position was "It seems that the ability to efficiently and quickly use memory can give the impression of increased abilities and intelligence over a similar individual with less memory ability."

2) even given your argument that data entry would slow results to the point that the fraud would be (presumably) easy to identify (I question this BTW) your argument does not appear to take into account custom data entry methodologies, or well practiced data entry methodologies or future data entry methodologies, or even why some arbitrarily relative speed differential would be cause to identify "genuine intellect" from some other label. After all if speed were the sole determining factor in "genuine intellect" than humans surely have no cause to boast compared to even yesteryear's computers!

3) Most importantly however (if any of this fun stuff should be seen as important) as per my initial post of linking memory with the "general assessment of perceived intelligence", you have not yet directly addressed:

Chumly wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
How would artificial memory assist one in arriving at that conclusion?
That's easy: the memory could easily contain common (and not so common) number groups of which you could search for the correct one.

4) I guess I also indirectly brought up the subjective nature of intelligence when I used the words "impression" & "percieved" but I'm not overly prepared to open that can of worms! If you wanna however, I'll go with it.

Not that you have to address any of my points; I have the flu and I'm siting in bed sniffing and watching TV and hoping something interesting might happen on this here thread. 'Tis all my friends!

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

All well and cool, a few points if I may:

1) my arguments are based on the "general assessment of perceived intelligence" and not IQ tests per se, that more restrictive concept was forwarded by "aidan" and as such does not fully form my original position. My original position was "It seems that the ability to efficiently and quickly use memory can give the impression of increased abilities and intelligence over a similar individual with less memory ability."

Then my answer would be a simple "of course". Memory most certainly plays a role in intelligence. For instance; how big is your mental blackboard? Take two chess players of equal experience against like opponents: If one's mental blackboard is sufficient to generally look 4 moves in advance and the other is generally limited to 2, there will be no contest. Not only will the one with the greater Ram space triumph, but will almost invariably belong to the more intelligent being.

Now say the lesser opponent has memorized the exact sequence of 1000 games by renowned chess players: Although this will increase his winning percentage dramatically, he will still be overmatched by the player with the ability to look deeper into the game. While memory plays an enormous role in predicting the winner, he with the genuine intelligence retains the advantage.

Chumly wrote:

2) even given your argument that data entry would slow results to the point that the fraud would be (presumably) easy to identify (I question this BTW) your argument does not appear to take into account custom data entry methodologies, or well practiced data entry methodologies or future data entry methodologies, or even why some arbitrarily relative speed differential would be cause to identify "genuine intellect" from some other label. After all if speed were the sole determining factor in "genuine intellect" than humans surely have no cause to boast compared to even yesteryear's computers!

Didn't you just remind me that your question was Human Vs. Human with greater memory+ help... such as a laptop or pen and paper? Neither would absorb a picture problem very easily. Pick a foundation or it's impossible to answer.

Chumly wrote:

3) Most importantly however (if any of this fun stuff should be seen as important) as per my initial post of linking memory with the "general assessment of perceived intelligence", you have not yet directly addressed:
Chumly wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
How would artificial memory assist one in arriving at that conclusion?
That's easy: the memory could easily contain common (and not so common) number groups of which you could search for the correct one.

Could contain, yes. But would it? Could you or I, armed with pen and paper or laptop anticipate a significant amount of the questions on an intelligence test? I'm thinking not likely. Even an internet search would be exceedingly time consuming compared to the genuine intellect that frequently spots the answers nearly instantaneously.

0 Replies

Interesting points! I guess we keep veering back to the more limited constraints of your intelligence test (somewhat slightly to my chagrin) as apposed to my broader view of the perception of intelligence but what the hell, it adds to the fun!

However, as to your search engine and its criteria; it could easily be limited to vastly less scope then something like Goggle, thus I do think you could have a focused search on larger computer files looking for the exact same number patterns, and I think it could be done in a very timely fashion, even more so if you had some experience in narrowing search criteria by some modest margin. Remember there is only one correct answer here!

As to character recognition being the deciding factor thus exposing the "fraud", well what about the "genuine intellect" who is blind? Do you then downgrade those will less sensory powers, in a similar way to how you downgrade those with less memory capacity? I reviewed this point earlier from a somewhat different perspective by saying "As an aside: since it's quite possible to say there is "genuine intellect" neither versed in base ten, nor experienced in solving number sequences, are you now saying that such individuals would not qualify as having "the genuine intellect"?

Interestingly enough (at least for me) although I would suggest memory is essential to using intelligence, and more memory can give the impression of more intelligence, I do not suggest memory per se is intelligence, but only that memory is needed to use intelligence. Further I would not outright say that the intellect with more memory capacity is more intelligent (all other things being equal) but only that the intellect with more memory capacity gives the impression of being more intelligent. A distinction without a difference? Perhaps yes, perhaps no....damned if I know for sure!

Understandably, when I talk about the discrete aspects of human intelligence by breaking it down into memory and intellect, I am not sure by any means whether the human mind really differentiates itself in such a simplistic discreet manner, only that external discrete memory aides are available. In any case, if you know how the human mind works in terms of memory versus intellect, perhaps they could chime in.

I am not sure what you meant by "Pick a foundation or it's impossible to answer" so if you want to amplify on that I'll try and respond in kind.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Interesting points! I guess we keep veering back to the more limited constraints of your intelligence test (somewhat slightly to my chagrin) as apposed to my broader view of the perception of intelligence but what the hell, it adds to the fun!

I'm not trying to limit your scope. I simply don't know how to articulate a working example without some controls. I'm not much of a philosopher.

Chumly wrote:

However, as to your search engine and its criteria; it could easily be limited to vastly less scope then something like Goggle, thus I do think you could have a focused search on larger computer files looking for the exact same number patterns, and I think it could be done in a very timely fashion, even more so if you had some experience in narrowing search criteria by some modest margin. Remember there is only one correct answer here!

One answer, yes; but two solutions! :wink: (odd/prime)

Chumly wrote:

As to character recognition being the deciding factor thus exposing the "fraud", well what about the "genuine intellect" who is blind? Do you then downgrade those will less sensory powers, in a similar way to how you downgrade those with less memory capacity? I reviewed this point earlier from a somewhat different perspective by saying "As an aside: since it's quite possible to say there is "genuine intellect" neither versed in base ten, nor experienced in solving number sequences, are you now saying that such individuals would not qualify as having "the genuine intellect"?

No. I don't think I'd attempt to categorize anyone on a small sampling of questions, let alone a single one. As for the blind; one would obviously need a different measuring stick though with zero empirical knowledge I'd wager the blind tend to exhibit a heightened degree of memory... which would surprise me not at all if that resulted in increased measurable intelligence.

Chumly wrote:

Interestingly enough (at least for me) although I would suggest memory is essential to using intelligence, and more memory can give the impression of more intelligence, I do not suggest memory per se is intelligence, but only that memory is needed to use intelligence. Further I would not outright say that the intellect with more memory capacity is more intelligent (all other things being equal) but only that the intellect with more memory capacity gives the impression of being more intelligent. A distinction without a difference? Perhaps yes, perhaps no....damned if I know for sure!

Again, I require controls for comment: I wouldn't necessarily equate exceptional long-term memory (think hard drive) to exceptional intelligence, but would definitely equate exceptional short-term (think RAM) memory to exceptional intelligence. The more mental blackboard space one has, the deeper he can reach into equations without losing track of his progress. For example: a man with limited mental blackboard space may only be able to multiply single digit numbers in his head. As mental blackboard space increases; so too does his ability to multiply larger numbers. In more practical settings, this same ability applies to more complex problems whether you have a real blackboard or not. While a computer can obviously perform complex equations effortlessly; how could it tell which equation to use in a practical real life setting? Example: Tell your computer Jack headed due south at 60 miles per hour, when he was half way home; he turned 90 degrees left and continued at the same speed until he got home. Jill left at the same time, went about 17 miles in a straight line to arrive at Jack's house at the same time he did. Then ask your computer: About how fast was Jill going? Now ask google. Idea

Chumly wrote:

I am not sure what you meant by "Pick a foundation or it's impossible to answer" so if you want to amplify on that I'll try and respond in kind.

Your examples have included increased human memory, and the aids of pencil & paper, laptops, the internet, and supercomputers of the future. Kind of a huge swing in determining the likelihood of spotting a fraud, wouldn't you think?

0 Replies

I am getting sleepy so I'll have to get back, thanks my man! I will say however that fraud spotting was not anywhere near as much a major initial point as was "How much does an individual's memory play in the general assessment of perceived intelligence?" not that I mind digesting fraud spotting in terms we have discussed.

I'll respond in more detail shortly but perhaps you can explain why basic vector analysis could not be used to derive the solution to "Jack headed due south" and why those variables could not be inputted into any number of popular computer programs, and why for all intents and purposes if I could do so without your knowledge, it would not be a sign of perceived intelligence, if not as per your IQ test as well?

Doesn't the end justify the means when it comes to perceived intelligence?
Does it matter how it was derived?
Why should the pragmatic measure of intelligence start and stop with the unassisted brain?
Are glasses a fair or relevant adaptation to human reading ability?

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

I'll respond in more detail shortly but perhaps you can explain why basic vector analysis could not be used to derive the solution to "Jack headed due south" and why those variables could not be inputted into any number of popular computer programs, and why for all intents and purposes if I could do so without your knowledge, it would not be a sign of perceived intelligence, if not as per your IQ test as well?

a) You'd need to know what you were talking about. b) You'd need to know what to input and c) this would take time, as the computer can't digest the problem as written. The genuinely intelligent human on the other hand, can simply spit out an answer. A clueless person with decent intelligence could measure a square and figure it out. A computer wouldn't know what to do with the information without a human's input... which was of course, my point.

0 Replies

Quote:

I'll respond in more detail shortly but perhaps you can explain why basic vector analysis could not be used to derive the solution to "Jack headed due south" and why those variables could not be inputted into any number of popular computer programs, and why for all intents and purposes if I could do so without your knowledge, it would not be a sign of perceived intelligence, if not as per your IQ test as well?

If, as you said you could use artificial intelligence without the person who is observing to gain some accurate perception of someone's intelligence knowing that you had, then yes, you could fool someone into thinking you were more naturally intelligent than you are. But what purpose would that serve?
And where would you go from there? Once someone had incorrectly determined that you were more intelligent than you really are, how would you continue the ruse- and why?

Quote:

Why should the pragmatic measure of intelligence start and stop with the unassisted brain?

The fact of the matter is Chumly, given your obvious ability to understand complex technological concepts and protocols, your facility with language, and ability to catalogue and organize complex ideas and information into cogent theories et. al, I'd guess you'd probably achieve an admirable score on any IQ test without any outside help.
But I think you're missing the simplest point. You're talking apples and oranges.
Technology is a tool. It certainly is a measure of one aspect of intelligence how one chooses to use that tool. But that ability is a by-product of natural or raw intelligence. It can't replace it.

Quote:

Are glasses a fair or relevant adaptation to human reading ability?

NO. Glasses improve one's ability to see. Not everyone who can see clearly can read while some people who cannot see at all (the blind) can read (Braille).
Reading is the ability to decode symbols and derive meaning from those symbols (comprehension).
While sight is certainly an asset in the physical act of reading, it is not necessary, and it's unrelated except in the most basic terms, to the mental processes that either enhance or deter one's ability to learn to read.

I think the mental blackboard as memory that Bill used to illustrate the role of memory in intelligence is helpful- although I think long term memory is important as well- in terms of stores of general knowledge and experience. But if you do not have the underlying intelligence or skills to know how to apply what your memory has stored- it's nothing but regurgitation.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Chumly wrote:
I'll respond in more detail shortly but perhaps you can explain why basic vector analysis could not be used to derive the solution to "Jack headed due south" and why those variables could not be inputted into any number of popular computer programs, and why for all intents and purposes if I could do so without your knowledge, it would not be a sign of perceived intelligence, if not as per your IQ test as well?
a) You'd need to know what you were talking about. b) You'd need to know what to input and c) this would take time, as the computer can't digest the problem as written. The genuinely intelligent human on the other hand, can simply spit out an answer. A clueless person with decent intelligence could measure a square and figure it out. A computer wouldn't know what to do with the information without a human's input... which was of course, my point.

You keep reemphasizing time-line considerations and I keep reemphasizing that perceived intelligence does not have to be based on arbitrary time lines, a bit of an impasse. As to the perspective of the operator-less computer I can't find a point that your concept fits into my text (in the present day sense) as to the future well we both have a guess about what's in store there!

0 Replies

aidan wrote:

But if you do not have the underlying intelligence or skills to know how to apply what your memory has stored- it's nothing but regurgitation.

I do not agree with your analysis of the glasses analogy (we could wander down that path more if you wish) but perhaps we could leave that aside for the moment and you could answer me this: if by either fully internalized actions or by some amount of external aid (such as memory enhancement being most discussed) an entity (of any description you care to apply) can produce the results of perceived intelligence, does it matter how this entity generated the results? Or for that matter improved its results with externalized aid?

If it matters, exactly why and how does it matter, in a real-world solution oriented scenario where both subjects get a suitable solution in a timely fashion?

0 Replies

Memory & Intelligence?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know