Intelligence: Inherent or Learnt?

[cacian]

Intelligence is the ability to do and see things beyond what a text book say.
If I am able to tell the time with having a watch on me on a daily basis is one type of intelligence albeit minor is still a type intelligent ability.
If I can deduct things for myself without turning to google is another type of intelligent skill.

Are humans intelligent by defaults or are we born to become intelligent because we care for learning?

[krishna_lit]

Are humans intelligent by defaults or are we born to become intelligent because we care for learning?

In a way , we're both. We're born with eqaul intelligence as the medical sciences say, so it proves that we're intelligent by default. Ours is the only life in the ecosystem that can transform the gained knowledge and carry it forward into next generations. Meaning, for example a rat, when it finds a path to move through a field, and when it has kids it can't actually teach its kids to follow the path that was already created, so each of their new generations start everything ab initio. They can't transfer forward the knowledge they've acquired all along the existence of their species. But when it comes to humanbeings, we always evolve. We have been apes, we've been early humanbeings, we've laid the foundations of myraid civilizations all along the history. We invented or rather discovered Science that exists in the universe all around us. This knowledge is being transferred into future, we didn't learn everything from the scratch, we've started using things that were already invented by the humanity's forefathers. In the same way, our kids will too do the same, they don't go back to orkut they directly start with Facebook or may be Google Plus then.. BUT, we can't limit our intelligence to one time period. We need to keep becoming intelligent with each passing day in the eternity, without which we stop the future to shape.

So, I hereby say, we're both: We born intelligent and also we become intelligent each and every day, but only if we let ourselves to.

[cacian]

I must admit I pass on evolution because I am intelligent enough to deduct that an ape is one thing and I am another.
Science is a creation rather then an invention. It is a tool one uses to manipulate intelligence into submission.
What is natural is good for our intuitive self and only through what is natural that we can conceive inartificial intelligence.
I do not rely on any branch of humans creations to tell me my right from right I have that in me.
I agree that the more we think of ourselves as one and only and others as their own and only that we learn to become the intelligence that we are due.
I see intelligence as no limit and it is not a number either. The less we preoccupy ourselves with studying shapes and sizes and linking them to our ability to think the closer we become to achieving our true potential of intelligence.
To call intelligence a square and a number I can add shape and memorise and the more we intelligence as a memory of the past.

[Volya]

I must admit I pass on evolution because I am intelligent enough to deduct that an ape is one thing and I am another.


If you say so cacian...

But that aside; creation/invention... what is the difference between the two (although 'invention' may have more mechanical/scientific connotations)?
I think that intelligence is inherent and learned. Some people are naturally more intelligent, however if this innate ability is not nurtured and used, then they won't be as clever as they could be. And if somebody is born stupid, there is a limit to how much they can learn/understand.

[cacian]

If you say so cacian...

But that aside; creation/invention... what is the difference between the two (although 'invention' may have more mechanical/scientific connotations)?
I think that intelligence is inherent and learned. Some people are naturally more intelligent, however if this innate ability is not nurtured and used, then they won't be as clever as they could be. And if somebody is born stupid, there is a limit to how much they can learn/understand.

Very good question.
I think the difference between the two lies is in the how each sets out to achieve.
An invention is established as progress because helps humans make life easier for them and a creation is a measure that tests achievement by defaults and is not always achievable. Let's call creation the other side of the coin of invention.
I personally do not understand the difference between clever and intelligent,
I do not believe that anyone is born stupid. What is stupid the lack of understanding one intelligence from another. Stupidity is not a disability that one is born with it, it is more the lack to grasp what the human mind of capable of.
Yes we are not all born with the same capacity to undergo intelligence in the same way but I believe that intelligence goes further then the ability to count memorise and shape.
About limits I do not think it is do with quantity and but quality. It is how we learn that we must concerns ourselves with and not how much.

[Volya]

Very good question.
I think the difference between the two lies is in the how each sets out to achieve.
An invention is established as progress because helps humans make life easier for them and a creation is a measure that tests achievement by defaults and is not always achievable. Let's call creation the other side of the coin of invention.
I personally do not understand the difference between clever and intelligent,
I do not believe that anyone is born stupid. What is stupid the lack of understanding one intelligence from another. Stupidity is not a disability that one is born with it, it is more the lack to grasp what the human mind of capable of.
Yes we are not all born with the same capacity to undergo intelligence in the same way but I believe that intelligence goes further then the ability to count memorise and shape.
About limits I do not think it is do with quantity and but quality. It is how we learn that we must concerns ourselves with and not how much.

Surely the other side of the coin from creation would be destruction. Perhaps the difference between the two would be that creation can relate to the creation of art, etc, whereas invention implies inventing or designing something to perform a specific task.

Clever and intelligent are more or less the same thing, although one could argue that 'clever' implies fast-thinking, whereas 'intelligent' would suggest a deeper understanding of what is going on.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I must admit I pass on evolution because I am intelligent enough to deduct that an ape is one thing and I am another.


:lol:

[Writing Penguin]

Intelligence is the ability to do and see things beyond what a text book say.


Interesting definition, though I can't find myself to agree. Could you try rephrasing that?

[cacian]

:lol:
easy tiger this is no laughing matter.


Interesting definition, though I can't find myself to agree. Could you try rephrasing that?

A book is a book and intelligence is something else.
What I mean to say is this
Just because something is written and we can read it does not mean we have understood its double meaning.
I can think of the book of The Lord of The Flies. It seems a straight forward story from the outset but from the inset there is more to the words then meet the eye.
A writer can write a story but paint a different picture of the story at the same time.
And so intelligence is the ability to see beyond a book.
The question is this:
Do we need to be smart to write a book? Or does anyone can write but unfortunately we do not all because we either have not been advised to or encouraged to do so.
In education for example there is no creativity in terms of literature. Pupils and students are not told taught or encouraged to become writers.
Education and learning today is passive. There is lot of stress on reading and analysing but there is nothing about creating a book for example.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

easy tiger this is no laughing matter.

Of course it is. I find myself unable to find any other apt response to "I must admit I pass on evolution because I am intelligent enough to deduct that an ape is one thing and I am another" than laughter . . . tiger.


A book is a book and intelligence is something else.


Truly revelatory.

[Phocion]

I think the irony of a denier of evolution pondering the question of intelligence is plain for all to see.

We know genetics play a role. We know that our early development is an extremely important period. We don't know much else. Enough of the pseudo-intellectual babble already.

[Charles Darnay]

I must admit I pass on evolution because I am intelligent enough to deduct that an ape is one thing and I am another.

............

Fine, Mutatis is right: it's too hard to express just how absurd this statement is.

[cacian]

I think the irony of a denier of evolution pondering the question of intelligence is plain for all to see.

Denial? There is no denial from my part. The irony is you no getting over the fact that I do not take to evolution and never will. What you think is irrelevant to my beliefs. You have yours and I have mine and this is quit.

We know genetics play a role. We know that our early development is an extremely important period. We don't know much else. Enough of the pseudo-intellectual babble already.

We? what we? enough of pondering now you are very right. Just accept the fact that there will be people like me who will not take evolution as a fact. It is as simple as this.
I accept the fact that you do but you can't. The issue lies in here and not intelligence or evolution for they are two separate things.


............

Fine, Mutatis is right: it's too hard to express just how absurd this statement is.

I do not know I could say the same that it is absurd you think it is absurd.

[Delta40]

If you don't subscribe to evolution, how do you know god didn't create the diversity of intelligence either through inheritence and learning Cacian?

[cacian]

If you don't subscribe to evolution, how do you know god didn't create the diversity of intelligence either through inheritence and learning Cacian?

Did God create intelligence or did he create people?
I would say he created people first then he gave them intelligence in a small exact correct dosage to see if they could fend for themselves and boost intelligence to a level where they would no longer destroy each other and themselves.
By the look of it many have not yet reached that level of fluent intelligence because they are still battling to survive let alone eat.
Intelligence is the drop that bursts the glass to break and what is left is what you run for if you can.
In French 'la goutte qui fait deborder le vase'
In other words we ain't got there yet.

[double post please deleted


If you don't subscribe to evolution, how do you know god didn't create the diversity of intelligence either through inheritence and learning Cacian?

Hi Delta40
Learning is part of intelligence. We have the ability to learn because we are intelligent.
God made perfect being by giving them intelligence. A human being by design is intelligence. Diversity is part of it we do not or see things the same way. All of us learn and become aware. Awarness is another part of our intelligence.
With the right encounters experiences one is able to develop intelligence and takes it to another level. I believe intelligence increases given the right opportunities to develop. It is up to us to decide what is rights for us because it is within us already.
Thinking things through independently is another form or process.
Everyone processes thinking differently. That is the way we are.
Inheritance of intelligence I am not so sure of it. Humans are born with the ability to know their right from wrong. The ability to develop sense and logic is through intelligence.
So I define intelligence is a system of thoughts and processes that beg to be used. Instinct is part of it. The more we question things and the more we excite the intelligence processes which then boosts it.
A bit a like a tennis ball. The more ones bounces it the higher it flies.
Or like sound waves the more notes with hit and waves we get.

[blazeofglory]

Intelligence is something that is not always learned. While I do not deny the fact that learning broadens our horizon and perfects our wisdom, I think people without a formal education is also at times equally, and at times more perceptibly intelligent.

Books and others’ opinions at times help us push the boundary of our thought processes and it enables us to embrace the bigger picture of life. Reading great books like the Mahabharata, Taoism or Zen indeed enhances our vision

[cacian]

Intelligence is something that is not always learned. While I do not deny the fact that learning broadens our horizon and perfects our wisdom, I think people without a formal education is also at times equally, and at times more perceptibly intelligent.

Books and others’ opinions at times help us push the boundary of our thought processes and it enables us to embrace the bigger picture of life. Reading great books like the Mahabharata, Taoism or Zen indeed enhances our vision

Hi blazeglory do you link wisdom to intelligence?
And would you consider a human learning from nature itself without the help of books for example?
When I look to the sun I see something that tells me about something else.
When I look at the stars it tells me something about the sun.
I see all around me and I can a system of links that all things are linked to one another.

[blazeofglory]

I somewhat cannot discern wisdom from intelligence. Tell me wherein exactly one is different from the other.

Yes you are right by observing natural entities directly gives us a lot more about them than something we gain from bookish erudition

[Phocion]

I do not know I could say the same that it is absurd you think it is absurd.
No you can't. Evolution is clear-cut, obvious, and proven. We can directly observe the process of evolution in simple organisms with minuscule life-span's. The fossils we have found of the intermediate links explicitly shows the progress of evolution on our species.

Denial? There is no denial from my part. The irony is you no getting over the fact that I do not take to evolution and never will. What you think is irrelevant to my beliefs. You have yours and I have mine and this is quit.


We? what we? enough of pondering now you are very right. Just accept the fact that there will be people like me who will not take evolution as a fact. It is as simple as this.
I accept the fact that you do but you can't. The issue lies in here and not intelligence or evolution for they are two separate things.We, as in the what has been shown through science and research; anything else in regard to this question is pure speculation, and not a kind of speculation where you can actually deduce anything.

Intelligence comes from the process of evolution. And i can accept your rejection of evolution thank-you, i just cannot understand it, because it is completely nonsensical.

I find your posts to be complete gibberish if i'm honest.

[Delta40]

what do you mean we are born with the ability to know right from wrong?

[cacian]

what do you mean we are born with the ability to know right from wrong?

A simple example of what I mean.
We know our brothers form our sisters. We know our families from strangers.
We know that families don't mix when it comes to getting closer physically or sexually. We know that is wrong. We do not need to be told it that we just know it is simply wrong.
From the minute I know that I should others things like dark can be scary because one cannot see. Light is better because we see more.
We know hunger. That is wrong/not good so we eat. That is right.


No you can't

Hello yes I can. Try me.

Evolution is clear-cut, obvious, and proven.
No it is not clear cut to me and it is not a shave either.

We can directly observe the process of evolution in simple organisms with minuscule life-span's. The fossils we have found of the intermediate links explicitly shows the progress of evolution on our species.
No I can't. YOU can.

We, as in the what has been shown through science and research; anything else in regard to this question is pure speculation, and not a kind of speculation where you can actually deduce anything.
I can't make head or tail of evolution. I do not know where to begin explaining to you how it will never make sense to me.
If I cannot make sense of it you will not make me. Put the blame on me if you like say it is my fault and I am happy with it as long as you do not shove evolution down my throat.


Intelligence comes from the process of evolution. And i can accept your rejection of evolution thank-you, i just cannot understand it, because it is completely nonsensical.

I find your posts to be complete gibberish if i'm honest.
Intelligence I have already. It is given to me by design default call it whatever. Evolution is an ideology. Ideology and intelligence are two very separate things. Again I cannot convince you and neither you to me but that is all part of the fun that we do not see eye to eye.
Gibberish however is you trying to force me to evolute into something I do not desire nor wish for. You cannot make me for all the forces are with me to drive the opposite way. Call it tension the right one that is.


I somewhat cannot discern wisdom from intelligence. Tell me wherein exactly one is different from the other.
Interesting because people do say wisdom is down to age but the question is this:
Does intelligence age? which it obviously does not because intelligence increases but never dicreases. What it can do however is stagnate if not pushed or provoked in the right directions. Wisdom is experience down to intelligence. Without intelligence there is no wisdom I do not think.

Yes you are right by observing natural entities directly gives us a lot more about them than something we gain from bookish erudition
Simplicity is at the heart of everything learning however is the complex that either make or break intelligence that is.

[Phocion]

Hello yes I can. Try me.

No it is not clear cut to me and it is not a shave either.

No I can't. YOU can.

I can't make head or tail of evolution. I do not know where to begin explaining to you how it will never make sense to me.
If I cannot make sense of it you will not make me. Put the blame on me if you like say it is my fault and I am happy with it as long as you do not shove evolution down my throat.


Intelligence I have already. It is given to me by design default call it whatever. Evolution is an ideology. Ideology and intelligence are two very separate things. Again I cannot convince you and neither you to me but that is all part of the fun that we do not see eye to eye.
Gibberish however is you trying to force me to evolute into something I do not desire nor wish for. You cannot make me for all the forces are with me to drive the opposite way. Call it tension the right one that is.
It may not be clear-cut to 'YOU', but it is still clear-cut. Your inability to grasp something that is so clear-cut is a clear example of someone lacking intelligence (seeing as this is a thread about intelligence). You have done a great service to your thread by providing yourself as an example of its antithesis.

You're just equivocating pointlessly, and it is annoying

[cacian]

Annoying is the trying to convince that a theory is the it and there is no beyond it. People do not stop just because a theory tries to tell me this is it. I am afraid I take it or leave it and in my case I leave it. It is my choice.


Intelligence is this: I will work out myself and where I come from my own way.
Let me do all the thinking. I do not want to rely on you or a scientist to tell me where I come from. I will search for it my way because I have the time the ability and a brain to work it out.
And if by any chance I happen to not care or want to find out about it then I won't. I can think of plenty searches I can do besides where a human came from.
Intelligence self reliance and deductions therein. I learn from my mistakes and will go on doing that until I achieve.
I don't consider a book a life saving experience in the same way that I do not read evolution to tell me about my origin. I am different from you I like to find things out for myself and that would be done outside and inside and everywhere I can think of besides a science book.
If life was a classroom I would have achieved world peace by now but as it stands evolution does nothing to stop destruction of a human scale never seen before and does not contribute to life or dying on a daily basis and that is the bottom line.
Knowing my origins from my needs does not quite fit in with my idea of living.

[Phocion]

You have to be one of the most solipsistic people i have ever encountered. With the contradiction-ridden philosophy you claim to have there, you might as well throw away every single thing you own created by man and go live in a cave somewhere.

You can not dismiss all the achievements of man based on the fact they have not come from your 'intelligence' or deductions. Your idea of intelligence is completely fallacious besides: you seem to think it something imbued from birth, but you don't even realise that without your perceptions you would be incapable of thought, let alone intelligence (though maybe thought is intelligence - in a way).

[Charles Darnay]

The grand flaw with these sorts of threads - let's call them CTs - is that they often begin with a question that has no intention of being discussed/explored. Since the only matter I can equate this to is the political-style debates - allow me a platform.

Good ladies and gentlemen,

Stop it.

Thank you.

[cacian]

The grand flaw with these sorts of threads - let's call them CTs - is that they often begin with a question that has no intention of being discussed/explored. Since the only matter I can equate this to is the political-style debates - allow me a platform.

Good ladies and gentlemen,

Stop it.

Thank you.
Dear Charles
I see no politics in debates or threads of CTs as you call then only exploration and if in between on feels turbulence that is only because one has not adjusted their seat belts or if they have their seats are not adjusted to them.
Prepare to fly but do not expect smooth height never said it was easy.


You have to be one of the most solipsistic people i have ever encountered. With the contradiction-ridden philosophy you claim to have there, you might as well throw away every single thing you own created by man and go live in a cave somewhere.

You can not dismiss all the achievements of man based on the fact they have not come from your 'intelligence' or deductions. Your idea of intelligence is completely fallacious besides: you seem to think it something imbued from birth, but you don't even realise that without your perceptions you would be incapable of thought, let alone intelligence (though maybe thought is intelligence - in a way).

Ok for the sake of maturity and intelligent debate with regard to this thread why don't you lead by example say something intelligent and see if I can match it.

[Volya]

Ok for the sake of maturity and intelligent debate with regard to this thread why don't say something intelligent and see if I can match it.

I think he/she (I can't tell from the username) already has. Heshe believes evolution is true, and you don't. That really does show a lot about the intelligence of a person...

[cacian]

I think he/she (I can't tell from the username) already has. Heshe believes evolution is true, and you don't. That really does show a lot about the intelligence of a person...

Believing in evolution is not saying something intelligent it is just repeating what someone else and science has said or done.
To say something intelligent to me is to say something new that has not be said before and so upon it I or anyone one would come in to see if one can match it. By this one would either approve it disapprove it and or say something new to replace it. That is the nature of intelligence tit for tat.

[Volya]

Believing in evolution is not saying something intelligent it is just repeating what someone else and science has said or done.
To say something intelligent to me is to say something new that has not be said before.
And so I or anyone one would come in to see if one can match it and so will either approve it or disapprove it and or say something new to replace it. That is the nature of intelligence tit for tat.

Believing in evolution is not a sign of 'intelligence', I agree. However it is a sign that somebody has a very basic grasp of biology. NOT believing in evolution, is a sign of somebody lacking in intelligence (in that subject).

[Phocion]

Believing in evolution is not saying something intelligent it is just repeating what someone else and science has said or done.
To say something intelligent to me is to say something new that has not be said before and so upon it I or anyone one would come in to see if one can match it. By this one would either approve it disapprove it and or say something new to replace it. That is the nature of intelligence tit for tat.Blindly believing anything doesn't constitute intelligence, it is the ability to weigh up the facts of an argument and to draw the correct conclusion that does. In this case outright refutation of evolution is an incorrect conclusion to draw.

[cacian]

Believing in evolution is not a sign of 'intelligence', I agree. However it is a sign that somebody has a very basic grasp of biology. NOT believing in evolution, is a sign of somebody lacking in intelligence (in that subject).
Ok. Biology is me I have got it in me.
I now am a body and mind what more biology do you want.
If I do not understand evolution it that does not mean I do not understand biology. It means I do not get what the scientists are getting at. It means I do not understand Darwin the scientist.
And then I look at evolution itself and and when I compare it with my ideologies and I realise that it does not fit. So what I am left with again is my own biology that I shall to explore until I find a fit or not. It really does not matter either.
Intelligence requires that before I agree I must have my own view points and ideologies in advance in order to cope with what it thrown at me only then I can compare against existing established ones.
If there is a match then it is a eureka and if there is not then it is a fail or a pass. That is all there is to it.
I could not agree on a whim with nothing on me to compare it with.
Agreeing is as much part of a solution then it is with disagreeing.
A good example is this:
Why add one to nothing to only obtain another one?
I add something to something else in order to get a new outcome.
In mathematical terms there is no point in adding 1 to 0 if I am going to obtain 1 again. It makes no sense because there is no progress there it is stagnation by design.

[Delta40]

A simple example of what I mean.
We know our brothers form our sisters. We know our families from strangers.
We know that families don't mix when it comes to getting closer physically or sexually. We know that is wrong. We do not need to be told it that we just know it is simply wrong.
From the minute I know that I should others things like dark can be scary because one cannot see. Light is better because we see more.
We know hunger. That is wrong/not good so we eat. That is right.

knowing lightness from darkness is NOT an ability to know right from wrong Cacian.
People are not born with an innate moral code. It is a socialised learned one - People growing up by themselves will never develop in a meaningful way and will have no idea about what is right and what is wrong, let alone the gift of speech. We rely on socialisation and the teachings of that particular community to guide us in conduct that is acceptable
Hunger is biological and has nothing to do with right or wrong.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Are we really going to argue evolution with cacian again? Really?

[Phocion]

knowing lightness from darkness is NOT an ability to know right from wrong Cacian.
People are not born with an innate moral code. It is a socialised learned one - People growing up by themselves will never develop in a meaningful way and will have no idea about what is right and what is wrong, let alone the gift of speech. We rely on socialisation and the teachings of that particular community to guide us in conduct that is acceptable
Hunger is biological and has nothing to do with right or wrong.Agreed. Though we do certainly have a social instinct that is innate, but that social instinct can easily be used to do any number of disgusting things - just in a group.

[cacian]

knowing lightness from darkness is NOT an ability to know right from wrong Cacian.
People are not born with an innate moral code. It is a socialised learned one - People growing up by themselves will never develop in a meaningful way and will have no idea about what is right and what is wrong, let alone the gift of speech. We rely on socialisation and the teachings of that particular community to guide us in conduct that is acceptable
Hunger is biological and has nothing to do with right or wrong.

Delta40 I have faith in humans that they do know their right from wrong. I think there in all of us to feel pain as well as happiness and that in itself is manifestation of what is good for us and what is not. We have feelings and through them there is that greater knowledge of satisfaction and deception.

I guess if one takes it back to Adam and Eve they both knew about the forbidden tree/apple because it was explained to them. They understood the warning. This clearly indicate that humans understand good and bad.
Bu the choices they both made was not carefully thought out. They did not weigh out the consequences of their actions. Their response/ reaction was solely driven by impulse simply because they knew they could go against god.
And so they did fully aware that they were in wrong. As a result of it they go thrown out.
Adam and Eve for the epitome of good and bad.

I think humans know their priorities well, selfishness is one, egoistical is another.
The knowledge of good and bad is inherent, but what it boils down to is the type choices one makes that break that bond of good. Decision making is what it is all about.

Anyway Delta that is my interpretation of things.
If I know my right from wrong then I ought to know my good from bad and bad experiences do not make for bad people.
What makes for bad is bad decisions due to lack of thinking things through.

[Delta40]

I'll play. Adam and Eve both knew about the forbidden tree because it was explained to them? LMAO! You just proved my point which is they didn't know until somebody else informed them eating apples from a particular tree was wrong (is this intelligence innate within all of us? I learnt it at Sunday School myself) - by themselves it would never have occurred to them to NOT avail themselves of so called forbidden fruit since they never knew it to be such until somebody told them it was.

Anyway, cases of children raised in extreme isolation don't support your views and I also appreciate how you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink!

[cacian]

I don't know I think you can take a horse to the river and make it drink if you wanted to. Pavlov comes to mind.

[Volya]

I don't know I think you can take a horse to the river and make it drink if you wanted to. Pavlov comes to mind.

What on earth does that have to do with Pavlov...

Pavlov was the dude who experimented with reflex reactions (If I recall my biology lessons correctly). Now you could condition a horse as much as you wanted, but if it doesn't want to drink then it won't.

[Delta40]

Cacian opened a discussion with the intent to defend her views while hoping to change the view of others. Get out while you can....

[Charles Darnay]

What on earth does that have to do with Pavlov...

Pavlov was the dude who experimented with reflex reactions (If I recall my biology lessons correctly). Now you could condition a horse as much as you wanted, but if it doesn't want to drink then it won't.

Maybe if you place some sugar in front of a horse and as it is eating the sugar, spray it with a hose. Science!

[certificatejew]

Learned behaviors are the result of life experiences. Inherited traits, on the other hand, are the result of biology. Physical traits, such as hair or eye color, are easier to understand as being inherited since there is a usually a clear genetic explanation. Other more abstract inherited traits such as personality quirks or tics may also have a biological basis.
Certificate IV in Training and Assessment (http://www.livtraining.edu.au/cert-and-assessment/)

[cacian]

Cacian opened a discussion with the intent to defend her views while hoping to change the view of others. Get out while you can....

:leaving: :smile5:

[MorpheusSandman]

I look at evolution itself and and when I compare it with my ideologies and I realise that it does not fit. The best way to determine truth is to compare reality with your ideologies and reject reality when it doesn't fit; true story.

[russellb]

M oral sentiments ie fundamentally 'other regardingness' probably have some element of innateness though they will presumably develop or no in relation to the environment. Reflective moral knowledge implies language which is an acquired characteristic. However, it does seem to me that either our reflections are directed by 'external' factors... that is'biopsychosocial' conditioning or they originate in 'the subject'... which would be an existentialist account of ethics. It would appear that to be 'authentic' is to become explicitly aware of ones moral freedom. I think in reality most of us have a sense of ethics being a requirement that is independent of our volition. I am sympathetic to the idea that ethics has a biological aspect in terms of there being basic sentiments. Of course conventional morality shifts but i wonder if there is some universal thread to such social morality. Perhaps it is 'that which is seen to benefit the group' (which would make sense in evolutionary terms) and may which account for some good things and some terrible things...such as child sacrifice and genocide.

[cacian]

The best way to determine truth is to compare reality with your ideologies and reject reality when it doesn't fit; true story.

To determine a truth is like looking for a needle in a hay stack. I like to think truth comes to me or anyone without even trying. A bit like a squash game. Ever played it?
And so I call it strike of luck or strike it lucky. But that of course everyone has their own philosophy of life mine is engage and see what happens.

[Rainyhawaii]

Believing in evolution is not a sign of 'intelligence', I agree. However it is a sign that somebody has a very basic grasp of biology. NOT believing in evolution, is a sign of somebody lacking in intelligence (in that subject).

I disagree. Not someone could be very intelligent in biology and still be a religious nut. Someone could be totally learned in biology and still believe god created humans. Bam! Here we are. Rather than evolution. Evolution is not a fact that can be proven (yet) it is still an opinion.

As for the main discussion response. Intelligence is learnt, not inherent. We have the ability to be intelligent, but we still have to learn to be intelligent. Case study: Genie: a child kept in extreme isolation.

[cacian]

As for the main discussion response. Intelligence is learnt, not inherent. We have the ability to be intelligent, but we still have to learn to be intelligent. Case study: Genie: a child kept in extreme isolation.

Genie? I have never heard of it.
A child in isolation even less.

[MorpheusSandman]

To determine a truth is like looking for a needle in a hay stack. I like to think truth comes to me or anyone without even trying.No. To determine truth is more like looking at the terrain and comparing it with your map. If the map matches the terrain, then the map is true. Our brains are like maps, our senses are our connection to the terrain. The goal should be to make the former match the latter. Truth doesn't come to people without engaging in this process. You can't hope to accurately draw a map without venturing out into the terrain, and it's a fact that people regularly draw maps without ever venturing out, and they're incredibly bad at it. Our intuition has been proven wrong consistently throughout history, to the point I have no idea why people think our intuitions about truth are the least bit reliable. Of course, it's easier for people to just draw the map and then ignore the territory even when people are pointing out that they don't match; people don't like to redraw their maps, especially when they have so much invested in them already. Evolution is very much like that. The only people who reject it are simply ignoring the terrain, either naively or willfully, because they don't want to have to redraw their maps.


Someone could be totally learned in biology and still believe god created humans.No.


Evolution is not a fact that can be proven (yet) it is still an opinion.No.

[cacian]

No. To determine truth is more like looking at the terrain and comparing it with your map. If the map matches the terrain, then the map is true. Our brains are like maps, our senses are our connection to the terrain. The goal should be to make the former match the latter. Truth doesn't come to people without engaging in this process. You can't hope to accurately draw a map without venturing out into the terrain, and it's a fact that people regularly draw maps without ever venturing out, and they're incredibly bad at it. Our intuition has been proven wrong consistently throughout history, to the point I have no idea why people think our intuitions about truth are the least bit reliable. Of course, it's easier for people to just draw the map and then ignore the territory even when people are pointing out that they don't match; people don't like to redraw their maps, especially when they have so much invested in them already. Evolution is very much like that. The only people who reject it are simply ignoring the terrain, either naively or willfully, because they don't want to have to redraw their maps.

Interesting Morpheus but isn't mapping a concept of being exact rather then being true?
Just asking.
To match something to something else is exactness.

[MorpheusSandman]

I don't think there is any accurate gauge for what's true outside of exactness. I mean, I guess you can use "true" in a more nebulous way to speak of feelings ("it's true I feel like X about Y"), but when you're talking about how things external to ourselves function, the whole map/territory relationship is, IMO, the only valid method. Otherwise you're just guessing, and we don't have a good track record with guessing. Reality is far stranger than we ever imagined.

[cacian]

I don't think there is any accurate gauge for what's true outside of exactness. I mean, I guess you can use "true" in a more nebulous way to speak of feelings ("it's true I feel like X about Y"), but when you're talking about how things external to ourselves function, the whole map/territory relationship is, IMO, the only valid method. Otherwise you're just guessing, and we don't have a good track record with guessing. Reality is far stranger than we ever imagined.

Ah guessing my favourite word. I like guessing and I think the more we do the more intuitive we become. Intelligence is part of intuition after all.

[MorpheusSandman]

I don't think intelligence has much to do with intuition. I think intuition has more to do with creativity, since intuition is basically how we fill in the gaps of our knowledge, creating something out of either nothing or a very vague something. You can guess all you want, and perhaps you will come to rely more on your intuition because of it, but none of that means that your intuition and guessing is actually correct. Perhaps it's intuitive that the sun revolves around the Earth and that there are gods ruling over the tides or throwing lightning, but neither turned out to be correct.