Memory & Intelligence?

No, I don't think it matters if what you're looking for is a solution- a solution is a solution no matter how you get it.
I also think it meets the criteria of "perceived" intelligence-perception and reality are often two very different entities.
(But that wasn't your original question).

The only thing I was arguing is that it isn't a true or accurate representation of raw or natural intelligence.

What about my "glasses/sight enhancement vs. glasses/reading enhancement" explanation don't you agree with?

It's a fair point, and it's why I could not help sneaking in a reference to the Turing Test in my first post, I knew this point would have potential merit and someone might address it!Well, I guess I see glasses as a technological adjunct no different (for all intents and purposes within the context of my perspective in this here thread) than a knife that enables you to cut food more effectively, or a hearing aid that enables you to perceive sound more effectivltly, or caffeine / nicotine that (arguably) enhances mental functionality, or a memory extension technology (either externalized hardware based or internalized learning system) that allows you to enable your intelligence more effectively.

To me, even language is a technology that allows you to communicate more effectively. In fact, you could posit that language is a technology that allows the more complete enabling of intelligence (as without it complex constructs might not be possible to either disseminate let alone mentally assemble) in a way that has certain parallels to memory extension technology.

I don't automatically differentiate (within our context here) between technologies that are hard externalized, and other types such as computer or human languages. To me they serve the same underlying purpose: enabling / amplifying (or even creating) resources be they perceptual / intellectual / physical or otherwise.

The above in no way denigrates your views as you clearly have a thoughtful perspective, only that it would seem mine is more all-encompassing and adheres less to present day convention, whereas yours is more focused on the specifics of certain more accepted ideas.

Some would say their cup of brains is half full, some would say their cup of brains is half empty, me I would say my cup of brains depends on how the glass is held. Corny metaphor I know!

I think that's a great way to look at it, as well as recognizing that everyone's cup of brains is either half-empty or half-full of a different combination of "whatever"... and that's what makes figuring it all out- which combinations of "whatever" produce the most "intelligent" or "productive" people- so interesting.

Because you can have loads of intelligence, and be pretty unproductive..it's all potential and I think a mark of true intelligence is the ability to make the most of whatever potential you're granted - whether that's achieved artificially or fully under one's own steam.


Yes, glasses are a tool, like a knife is a tool, and a hearing aid is a tool. But the tool is useless unless there is the underlying ability to discern what to do with and how to use that tool, along with the mental processes that take the stimulus provided, albeit, perhaps enhanced via a specific tool, and make some sense of it.

So, I maintain that glasses have nothing to do with and in no way enhance what are the crucial mental processes that must be present in order for someone to be able to read. Nope, I still don't connect glasses with reading ability at all except as an adjunct to basic sight. If I did, I'd have to connect light bulbs or candles or flashlights with reading ability (at night anyway).
Do you see what I'm saying? You may have sight and you may have light, and those things may facilitate the physical act of reading, but if you do not have the crucial mental processes necessary - those things are useless in reading- whereas you may not have sight or light, but if you have the crucial mental processes necessary for reading - you can still read.

.
This is really interesting. If you want to move on to language - let me know - but I don't want to hijack your thread.
Happy New Year by the way...

Much thanks and all the best to you as well! If you want to wander down a different path I would be pleased. It's not as if tons of posters all falling over themselves to contribute! (Funny thing that, you never know how well a thread is going to be received)

When thinking about the role of memory in intellect, one might ask;

How big is the memory?
How quickly can new information be precisely compared to information in memory?
How quickly can new information be approximately compared to information in memory?
How quickly can abstract notions, patterns, shapes, sounds, smells and physical sensations be compared to the new data?(The new data will often include many such links.)
How quickly can the new information be absorbed and used to slightly (or even radically) adjust all of the pre-existing memory to include the new data when relevant?
How often are the pathways that require high-end computation actually used?
I could think of more...if I was a bit smarter :wink:

Hope you had a nifty New Years!

You make a lot references in your post to the function of comparators (for want of a better word) but that does not seem (in the strictest sense a least) to be a function of memory per se.

Also although I understand your question "How often are the pathways that require high-end computation actually used?" I do not get the relevance to your opening sentence "When thinking about the role of memory in intellect, one might ask" because is would seem to me the "pathways that require high-end computation" would be more likely to support logic functions not memory functions.

I started another thread to expand on all future aspects without trampling this thread's more specific question of the function of memory on perceived intelligence, or aidan's expanded question of the nature of language and intelligence.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2461364#2461364