Is it possible to become more intelligent?

[Hawkeye]

I think that it is measured on a continuum, which is a given, which therefore means there is no maximum, which might also be interpreted as ...

This would mean the brain has unlimited potential. As a brain is a finite tool we use this is impossible.

 

[Montresor]

This would mean the brain has unlimited potential. As a brain is a finite tool we use this is impossible.

I reject this axiom, and therefore your conclusion.

Efficient use of the brain is demonstrated on a continuum as well as intelligence.

Because you have not seen it before does not mean it is impossible. What is impossible, however, is the logical process of deduction that would lead to your conclusion.

 

[Hawkeye]

I reject this axiom, and therefore your conclusion.

Efficient use of the brain is demonstrated on a continuum as well as intelligence.

Because you have not seen it before does not mean it is impossible. What is impossible, however, is the logical process of deduction that would lead to your conclusion.

You are reaching infinity with finite values. You cannot use more than 100% of your brain.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Infinity brings in a lot of paradoxes.
And sorry, you weren't claiming:

∞ = -∞

You were claiming:

∞ = 0

Please elaborate what kind of deficiency and incompleteness intelligence presupposes? It implies only the potential, only the ability, which it is, by definition.

potential and ability means something is not yet actual and something can be changed for the better, i.e. deficiency.

 

[BigApplePi]

"Snafuuuuuuuu! I summon theeeee..."

Spoiler

Spearman's g

Ah snafupants. Where did he go?

As I recall he defined two types, but I choked on the names, not the meanings.

1. The intelligence we are born with.
2. Learned intelligence.

He said, if I have it right, one can be changed, the other not.

 

[BigApplePi]

Is it possible to train your brain to potentially make you more intelligent?

Here is another answer to this Q.

This is an answer for INTP's and you may generalize it for other temperaments. INTP's have Ti Ne Si Fe. This means INTP's are either at ease or at least aware of those cognitive functions. This makes for intelligence in those departments. Te and Se are lacking in affection*. They definitely exist in the real world and are part of intelligence**. Therefore if you gain a tolerance for them, you will gain intelligence.

*I.e. an INTP does not warm to them.
**Assuming intelligence is how to deal with "stuff", stuff is open to anything one may encounter.

 

[Lucifer van Satan]

potential and ability means something is not yet actual and something can be changed for the better, i.e. deficiency.

You are not talking about intelligence. You are talking about a manifestation of intelligence, which does not need to occur.

We can all be extremely intelligent in some aspects, but there is maybe not enough deficiency in the world around us for that to be revealed.

 

[Brontosaurie]

You are not talking about intelligence. You are talking about a manifestation of intelligence, which does not need to occur.

We can all be extremely intelligent in some aspects, but there is maybe not enough deficiency in the world around us for that to be revealed.

if it's not manifest why assume it exists?

this is why i distinguish between infinite intelligence on the one hand and intelligence in a useful sense on the other. the concept of intelligence breaks apart when you maximize it. intelligence is a thing's awareness and flexible perception of the utility of other things in its strife to self-perpetuate.

when the subject of intelligence is maximal, there is no other thing left beside it; no object, nothing to be intelligent about.

 

[Hawkeye]

Then why not just say infinite intelligence does not exist?

 

[Brontosaurie]

Then why not just say infinite intelligence does not exist?

to emphasize the circularity of the spectrum

 

[Cherry Cola]

thats exactly what he said except he explained why? :S

 

[Lucifer van Satan]

if it's not manifest why assume it exists?

this is why i distinguish between infinite intelligence on the one hand and intelligence in a useful sense on the other. the concept of intelligence breaks apart when you maximize it. intelligence is a thing's awareness and flexible perception of the utility of other things in its strife to self-perpetuate.

when the subject of intelligence is maximal, there is no other thing left beside it; no object, nothing to be intelligent about.

Did I actually assume it exists?

No.

We are dealing with theoretical scenarios which are only logically possible.

Now, if the ultimate intelligence solves everything, the objects wouldn't disappear. They would simply be solved. Also, if the ultimate intelligence solves everything, you are assuming it isn't intelligent anymore. Well, it was and it proved that by solving everything. Unless your definition is so extreme that it actually needs it to always do something in order to be intelligent. Yet, if that is the case, the definition is hardly useful, or practical, as you claimed.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Did I actually assume it exists?

No.

you did imply that intelligence can exist as a latent quality without any manifestation.

Now, if the ultimate intelligence solves everything, the objects wouldn't disappear. They would simply be solved. Also, if the ultimate intelligence solves everything, you are assuming it isn't intelligent anymore. Well, it was and it proved that by solving everything. Unless your definition is so extreme that it actually needs it to always do something in order to be intelligent. Yet, if that is the case, the definition is hardly useful, or practical, as you claimed.

how is an object "solved"? a problem is solved. when no object or problem exists because the intelligence is all-encompassing and flawless, it no longer makes sense to call it an intelligence, just like when all is object.

 

[Lucifer van Satan]

you did imply that intelligence can exist as a latent quality without any manifestation.

I did. We were going through various definitions of intelligence. This of course holds in the real world because intelligence is a POTENTIAL.

how is an object "solved"? a problem is solved.

Well, here is what you said:

when the subject of intelligence is maximal, there is no other thing left beside it; no object, nothing to be intelligent about.

That kind of object: a problem. A bit odd, you said "object" first.

Why doesn't it make sense to call it intelligence? It can well solve all the problems all over again, satisfying your definition of "useful" intelligence.

 

[BigApplePi]

Then why not just say infinite intelligence does not exist?

Okay God. I may be compelled to call on You to weigh in on this. Are you omniscient or not? If You can't let us know by next Thursday I will assume You are busy. Else, what about a sign?

 

[Brontosaurie]

It can well solve all the problems all over again

it has no problems to solve. it's spent.

 

[Perfectly Normal Beast]

I will assume You are busy.

Lol x a million - that's exactly what happens!

(but we really all are terribly impressed down here)

 

[Lucifer van Satan]

it has no problems to solve. it's spent.

Assuming that it has finite memory, it isn't.

 

[Lucifer van Satan]

Okay God. I may be compelled to call on You to weigh in on this. Are you omniscient or not? If You can't let us know by next Thursday I will assume You are busy. Else, what about a sign?

Don't bother him with signs! A forum reply is good enough for me.

 

[Etheri]

It implies only the potential, only the ability, which it is, by definition.

No definition has been given?

I think he's going from the assumption that intelligence is the ability to solve problems. If infinite intelligence implies you can instantly solve all problems, then it becomes redundant within moments after it's existence due to the lack of problems left to solve.

This reasoning only holds iff there exists a set complete set of solutions to all problems, something which I think is rather unlikely.

As to your infinite = 0 equation :
Taking things to 'infinity' can be fun, but it doesn't always lead somewhere. If there was infinite money, then all this money loses it's value (infinite inflation) and there's no money at all. infinite = 0

This doesn't hold if you never bring this 'infinite money' into the system, but then you don't have infinite money from the system's point of view either way.

I think that it is measured on a continuum, which is a given, which therefore means there is no maximum, which might also be interpreted as ...

This is logically flawed. The easiest example is an open interval. This is a continuum in which you can indefinitely find larger numbers. You'll never reach the upper limit, but there's a maximum regardless.

 

[kvothe27]

You could try the following game. It's meant to increase short-term memory. It may or may not work. You could test it by taking an IQ test before and after a trial period. Report back when you're finished.

http://brainworkshop.sourceforge.net/

 

[Lucifer van Satan]

No definition has been given?

I think he's going from the assumption that intelligence is the ability to solve problems. If infinite intelligence implies you can instantly solve all problems, then it becomes redundant within moments after it's existence due to the lack of problems left to solve.

Infinite intelligence (in the real sense of the word) would only imply that it can solve all the problems. In the sense that we are arguing, it does.
No it does not become redundant and here's why.
Assuming that the set of all problems is finite.
It has an enormous amount of problems to solve. Its intellect does not imply that it should could memorize solutions to all of them, and memory was not the part of the equation. Also, the amount of problems-solutions, we all could agree, would be too large to store.
Assuming that the set of all problems is infinite.
If it requires a finitely small amount of time to solve each problem, it will take infinite amount of time to solve them all, so it will never be redundant.
If it can solve all problems in an infinitely small amount of time, it again couldn't memorize them all or store them all, returning to the previous argument.

 

[Etheri]

Infinite intelligence (in the real sense of the word) would only imply that it can solve all the problems. In the sense that we are arguing, it does.
No it does not become redundant and here's why.
Assuming that the set of all problems is finite.
It has an enormous amount of problems to solve. Its intellect does not imply that it should could memorize solutions to all of them, and memory was not the part of the equation. Also, the amount of problems-solutions, we all could agree, would be too large to store.

Assuming that the set of all problems is infinite.
If it requires a finitely small amount of time to solve each problem, it will take infinite amount of time to solve them all, so it will never be redundant.
If it can solve all problems in an infinitely small amount of time, it again couldn't memorize them all or store them all, returning to the previous argument.

Arguing for the sake of arguing here and I do not share this idea, I just see where he's coming from...

Case 1 : Memory is just another problem. Add one problem to the set of solutions to search. You're infinitely intelligent but you can't think of a way to store your genius? Whelp.

If it takes finite time to solve each solution, then I agree on case 2, which is more likely to begin with. In all honesty, as i said, I don't think a single set of solutions for all problems exist.

 

[Lucifer van Satan]

Arguing for the sake of arguing here and I do not share this idea, I just see where he's coming from...

Case 1 : Memory is just another problem. Add one problem to the set of solutions to search. You're infinitely intelligent but you can't think of a way to store your genius? Whelp.

If it takes finite time to solve each solution, then I agree on case 2, which is more likely to begin with. In all honesty, as i said, I don't think a single set of solutions for all problems exist.

We are arguing for fun. Why else would anyone do anything?

Well, we are arguing only the logical possibilities.

The odds are (overwhelmingly, to add) that you will not simply have enough matter in the universe to mark the information. Very easily, the set of problems would be too large to store in the physical world. Sorry, but even infinite intelligence cannot solve what is unsolvable by definition. And storing all that data, as you agreed, which may be infinite or almost infinite, will be one of the unsolvable problems.
Another example of an unsolvable problem: "Prove that 3 is even."

 

[Brontosaurie]

Assuming that it has finite memory, it isn't.

why would that be the default assumption about something explicitly infinite?

 

[Lucifer van Satan]

why would that be the default assumption about something explicitly infinite?

Intelligence does not imply memory.
Also, in order to be infinite, memory must take infinite space, which cannot be the case.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Intelligence does not imply memory.
Also, in order to be infinite, memory must take infinite space, which cannot be the case.

reasonably the limit that it asymptotically approaches is to be all-encompassing, to comprise everything. there's no need to introduce a component such as "space" to the calculation when simple predicate logic and intuitive notions of infinity and its correlation with completeness suffice. regardless of whether space is a real material class fundamental enough to be relevant to such an abstract subject matter as the one at hand, an infinite intelligence would occupy all there is of it - because an exhaustive, complete, perfect, infinite representation (in that algorithmically its parsing and subsequent transcription never ceases) needs as much data as the object which it represents exhibits and, under materialism/monism/occam, the universe is all which causally connects with us and all that could theoretically be available and included.

 

[Hawkeye]

A person with unlimited intelligence has an infinitely greater potential at solving a problem than a dead person.

The two are not the same; one will solve the problem, the other won't.

 

[Brontosaurie]

an intelligence can be unlimited only insofar as the universe for which it is defined is.

there is a limit if the universe has a limit, but that doesn't preclude infinity in algorithmic/procedural sense.

the two are all but nominally the same: one wouldn't have something to be a problem, the other wouldn't be something to have a problem. all and nothing. both are empty sets. both are imcompatible with subjectivity, perspective, awareness, meaning, intelligence.

being all in one sense cannot be demarcated from being all in every sense given said monistic assumptions. i.e. being infinitely intelligent - possessing such quality as that which intelligence approaches as it increases interminably - must mean being universally infinite - being everything, never halting ones being, forever being on, finally being all.

 

[Hawkeye]

an intelligence can be unlimited only insofar as the universe for which it is defined is.

there is a limit if the universe has a limit, but that doesn't preclude infinity in algorithmic/procedural sense.

the two are all but nominally the same: one wouldn't have something to be a problem, the other wouldn't be something to have a problem. all and nothing. both are empty sets. both are imcompatible with subjectivity, perspective, awareness, meaning, intelligence.

Unlimited intelligence does not mean you've solved everything. It means you have the potential to solve anything; however, you may not necessarily have the capability. It's what makes it different from being omnipotent.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Intelligence does not imply memory.
Also, in order to be infinite, memory must take infinite space, which cannot be the case.

Why did you bring up the phenomenon of memory again? You've tossed infinity from intelligence unto memory; unto space, all with the same result confirming Brontosauries assertations.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Unlimited intelligence does not mean you've solved everything. It means you have the potential to solve anything; however, you may not necessarily have the capability. It's what makes it different from being omnipotent.

potential vs. capability

seems like hairsplitting to me.

the crux is simply that a perfect intelligence, the most advanced one imaginable within the constraints of our overall logic (remember that "infinity" is human construct and adaptive heuristic, too), would have to include all that is as substrate for its calculations, thus eliminating the object which is also needed to define intelligence (roughly: awareness of surroundings i.e. self/other split).

so, intelligence has a maximum somewhere else than at either of its limits... infinite intelligence is a real thing - in birth and death and technological singularity - but also a trivial thing. the complexity happens along the way. i think we should be able to agree on this. sorry if i messed things up.

 

[Hawkeye]

Yes memory unlike intelligence has a spatial extension because it has to do with time and everyone knows time=space. Go and burn yourself on a stake you pseudo-intellectual piece of shit.

I have infinite Zebra, therefore intelligence albeit itself finite is actually infinite. Infinite Zebra.

Therefore you are either suggesting that intelligence is completely separate to the brain, or that the brain has some infinite value.

Which is it?

 

[Cherry Cola]

uh intelligence as a concept has nought to do with the brain?

 

[Hawkeye]

uh intelligence as a concept has nought to do with the brain?

Again, this depends on what one defines intelligence to be; for example:

If intelligence were defined as the performance of how we analyse and process stimuli; then intelligence is limited to the brain/object that does the processing.

For humans we are limited by the speed at which we can think.

If time were not an issue, we'd be limited by our lifespan.

 

[Brontosaurie]

that's a very narrow definition of intelligence. i'd argue that we have to extend it beyond our biological substrate in order to explore its limiting behavior fully. however we have access to the lower limit and qualitatively, anything that's barely intelligent is equivalent to infinite intelligence since intelligence is tautological at both of its limits.

 

[Hawkeye]

that's a very narrow definition of intelligence. i'd argue that we have to extend it beyond our biological substrate in order to explore its limiting behavior fully. however we have access to the lower limit and qualitatively, anything that's barely intelligent is equivalent to infinite intelligence since intelligence is tautological at both of its limits.

The definition I used was a generalisation of 4 dictionaries and the rather large Wikipedia page on intelligence.

Here are some of the definitions:

The ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.

The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge.

the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : reason; also : the skilled use of reason

the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests)

Where an intelligent agent is a system that perceives its environment and takes actions which maximize its chances of success.

 

[Brontosaurie]

"If intelligence were defined as the performance of how we analyse and process stimuli; then intelligence is limited to the brain/object that does the processing.

For humans we are limited by the speed at which we can think.

If time were not an issue, we'd be limited by our lifespan."

we're not talking strictly about human intelligence. it ought to be understood. as said, though, we do technically as humans have access to one of the limits - but intelligence decreases at both of them. which was the overarching point i tried to make i guess. clarification: infinite intelligence is possible but trivial; there's no more to it than there is to birth or death. it's just the other route to the same tautological non-proposition, the same bare form.

ok, the definition you quoted wasn't narrow - but your implementation of it in context, with emphasis on humanity, was.

 

[Hawkeye]

"If intelligence were defined as the performance of how we analyse and process stimuli; then intelligence is limited to the brain/object that does the processing.

For humans we are limited by the speed at which we can think.

If time were not an issue, we'd be limited by our lifespan."

we're not talking strictly about human intelligence. it ought to be understood. as said, though, we do technically as humans have access to one of the limits - but intelligence decreases at both of them. which was the overarching point i tried to make i guess.

ok, the definition you quoted wasn't narrow - but your implementation of it in context, with emphasis on humanity, was.

You can replace human with a computer, or any other intelligent being or thing; the same limiting factors apply. The final definition on my last post was actually referring to A.I.

 

[Brontosaurie]

You can replace human with a computer, or any other intelligent being or thing; the same limiting factors apply.

the limit being that you can't be more than everything or less than nothing?

if so, then i don't know what we're arguing about.

 

[Hawkeye]

the limit being that you can't be more than everything or less than nothing?

if so, then i don't know what we're arguing about.

My point is that there is a limit to intelligence in reality. Infinite intelligence is not a real thing.

 

[Brontosaurie]

My point is that there is a limit to intelligence in reality. Infinite intelligence is not a real thing.

how do you know that it's not real that humanity or other intelligent life eventually transcends its biological foundations and expands infinitely, ultimately subsuming everything, resulting in a collapse corresponding to the big bang?

 

[Brontosaurie]

ow ow y y nds nds tely, tely ng ng, ng co co ng ng

 

[Hawkeye]

how do you know that it's not real that humanity or other intelligent life eventually transcends its biological foundations and expands infinitely, ultimately subsuming everything, resulting in a collapse corresponding to the big bang?

 

[Lucifer van Satan]

Why did you bring up the phenomenon of memory again? You've tossed infinity from intelligence unto memory; unto space, all with the same result confirming Brontosauries assertations.

The same result? I pointed out something that cannot be achieved without memory, internal or external (space consuming in both cases) that wasn't even a part of the equation. His definition required that you constantly solve problems, and you do if you cannot memorize them all.

 

[Brontosaurie]

allowing one trend to continue infinitely may cause it to undergo complex variations. in this case i speculate that an intelligence ever expanding within the universe means the collapse of the universe.

i can't see more of a real limit to intelligence than to any other phenomenon. i would like to know what this limit is, if indeed it is something else than the theoretical limits i've described myself. you already admitted that the physical limits of our brains and lives are no good candidates.

perhaps we're simply both saying that as what initially resembles intelligence progresses infinitely, it ceases to be intelligence in any way. but that's because of the infinity, not intelligence...

 

[BigApplePi]

Here is a possibility I didn't think of and refuse to think of now. Don't do this at home:

Beat your head senseless* against a brick wall. If you wake up you will be more intelligent than when you started.
___________________________________________
*An acquaintance tried an alternative: Jumped into six feet of water with hands tied behind back. Someone dried him out but it didn't work because he wanted to go back .

 

[ActiveMind]

There's this guy named Dave Asprey who came out and said he was able to increase his IQ by 20 points within a week using some kind of sound machine that was connected to his head, IIRC.

Oh wait!!! Found a link to his site:

http://www.bulletproofexec.com/how-to-add-2-75-iq-points-per-hour-of-training/

 

[ZenRaiden]

Neurons that do not get used in young age atrophy and are replaced by neurons that are more active. For example if you talk a lot you learn to be a good speaker, if you do not talk in general you will be much worse at speaking. The same goes for doing calculations. If you do not do calculations you will in general be bad at them and if you do a lot of calculating you will be perfect at it. This goes for art and for other things. Brain in general is mealable and I think it was already said that principal " Use it or lose it " is the key principal in any case.

 

[Lucifer van Satan]

allowing one trend to continue infinitely may cause it to undergo complex variations. in this case i speculate that an intelligence ever expanding within the universe means the collapse of the universe.

i can't see more of a real limit to intelligence than to any other phenomenon. i would like to know what this limit is, if indeed it is something else than the theoretical limits i've described myself. you already admitted that the physical limits of our brains and lives are no good candidates.

perhaps we're simply both saying that as what initially resembles intelligence progresses infinitely, it ceases to be intelligence in any way. but that's because of the infinity, not intelligence...

We weren't discussing if a human being could have the unlimited potential.
And you do have infinitely many problems to solve.
1+1, 1+2, 1+3...
And we haven't even started.
Therefore, since it needs a finite amount of time to solve each one of them, it will never solve all of them.
This basically refutes your premise that it would cease to be intelligence in the first place, for it still fulfills all the definitions we were arguing about.