What's your position on mentalese, the mind's language?

@A1fredo

Dennett's correction seems reasonable. "Dennett points out that a chess program can have the attitude of “wanting to get its queen out early,” without having representation or rule that explicitly states this. A multiplication program on a computer computes in the computer language of 1’s and 0’s, yielding representations that do not correspond with any propositional attitude."

Mentalese seems reasonable but as Dennett is illustrating it would be easy to confuse an algorithm with a higher level function. Intelligence as it is manifested in the world isn't entirely a product of the individual. Humans because they have actually language can transmit abstractions across time and space achieving a higher degree of swarm intelligence. Dennett refers to these transmissions when they are productive as thinking tools. An excellent piece of hardware can be made less useful by poor programming. To turn it on to use the programming however you do have to have a series of low level programs and hardwire. That is why the symbology aspect of Mentalese is misleading. Symbols invoke a conceptualization of a higher than necessary function. Improper socialization not only alters the software but the hardware because of the way the brain evolves during development. The nature and nurture of things is complex. Bad hardware however is a show stopper.

My problem with Dennett is he underestimates the importance of instinct in human behavior and seems to have latched on to the idea of emergent properties. The issue of differences of kind vs degree is very important. I'm of the opinion that all life is "intelligent" and for the most part it is a matter of degree not kind. As it relates to this discussion all computers more or less function the same way some have more horse power than others. That horse power however isn't just related to the engine but how it is connected to the drive shaft. What kind of carburetor it has. The fuel it has available. The atmosphere it is operating in. How it is tuned and other factors. Differences in kind do exist but for the most part we can't discussion them because there nature is unclear.

@wolfhnd well, I don't know about Dennett, I lack education, but here's my theory and why I ask. The way I see it, we must first separate the brain into different parts, not physically not functional, but... We... I'd have to do a lot of redefining.

When I say "subconscious" I mean a "layer" of our brain capabilities that is not available to us. It's the core of our brain and processes, the hidden master within ourselves that controls us.

So by "us," or the "consciousness" would be what we can potentially be aware of and use of our brain and capabilities. Not tu confuse with consciousness in general.

Our brains are extremely smart, all of our. No exception. We can calculate the beauty of music before we are aware we are perceiving it. So IQ differences are completely meaningless as far as I'm concerned. Is like being mad at a supercomputer for not being able to be survive if submerged in water. And there are several parts that our brain uses that we don't know. Know what Blind Sight is? Some bling people can see, they just don't know it. But their limbic system do, so they can feel the information they need from the environment.

There was this experiment where they asked the blind people whose problem was not I the eyes, but somewhere in the brain to guess the path of a red light spot. And they did. Perfectly. They just felt that was the answer, but didn't know why. Their subconscious could see, but their consciousness's yellow rca cable was disconnected. But their emotions let them know.

Now, we know that we have these reactions that are linked to physical stimuli that we can't control, I can't remember the name, like moving your hand away if you put it on fire. Well, there's a version for the limbic system, where we can feel what to do, but it's still a conscious choice. That's why we can react emotionally quickly. I have an example in episode 6 of my series, but too long to explain

Thing is, I think the subconscious is is like this black processing box that processes everything. It takes the sensorial inputs and let us know the outputs in mentalese. We think we are very rational when we do logic step by step, but we don't think like that. When we deconstruct our reasoning, we are merely tracking back our minds' logic, but we didn't do all that ourselves when thinking it. We just wonder like retards and look up waiting for our brains to send us the output in mentalese. All we do is translate it to our language. When you see the Peterson thinking face, its the same expression as a live translator has. I think that's what we are doing.

And we are not meant to notice any of this. I hope I explained myself somewhat coherently. Let me know what you think. Wish I had visual aids to explain myself better.

@A1fredo

IQ is a useful tool to determine educational goals along with personality assessment. In and of itself it shouldn't be used to segregate people, test scores will do that during education and real world performance later during employment. It's not perfect and like any tool requires a skilled operator.

Beyond educational uses IQ is the only reliable psychometric measure. I understand the scepticism that has to be applied to anything coming out of psychology but the field when free of ideological bias seems to be making slow progress.

The other reason IQ is important is that in complex societies low IQ people are unable to navigate the pitfalls. People a hundred years ago with an IQ of 85 may have gotten along fairly well but that is not the case today. Read Charles Murray's "Coming Apart" book.

As to your theory of brain function as a first approximation it seems reasonable. Your theory of how society should deal with IQ differences I don't agree with. 20 or so percent of the U.S. population as a sophisticated culture are for emotional or intellectual reasons unable to care for themselves in a way that doesn't negatively effect the rest of the population. Certainly democracy is out of the question. As I said the problem will only get worse. A total revamp of the educational system is called for with a increased focus on civics and emotional competence. Dealing with job placement is a tricky problem. Obviously intelligence shouldn't be the only consideration. Personality shouldn't be the only consideration. It seems likely an economy even more focused on services is the path of least resistance. Income inequality is going to remain a huge issue. The question is if people would accept a meritocracy if it is possible.

@wolfhnd Honestly, I think we just got it all wrong right at the core. We should be structuring society based on ourselves. So we should be building something up taking into account all of our sides as human beings. Any society that is unbalanced will eventually faild. We need that social homeostasis. This society is two thirds mind, one third body and no soul. That's my humble diagnostic.

I think low IQ people could do fine if they had a place in society, where they could be cheering for being themselves. Right now, you are a loser if you even think you may be non-super-genius esporadically, get sent to the psychiatric and medicated. Couldn't we accept retards in our communities? They are still part of it. And we are still gonna have to deal with them. Couldn't we respect them? Maybe call them poets, or singers, instead offocusing on their intellectual ability. Maybe let them become soul-workers to help out those drug addicts and workaholics who are starving for non-sexual human contact. That would heal lots of people instead of having them take more and more Prozac. Soul workers could be a huge industry. But you know what's more pathetic than a hooker? Somebody who tries to charge for the service of hugging you. Or listening to you. You know, some have the ability to truly care for you, not just put up with your shit for certain amount of time. Ask any depressed person, that's valuable. Very valuable. Most suicidal people would have given anything to have that.

But we look down at them. What for? Intellect?

Look at the country. Look at the smart people. Are they helping at all? They are not. So, what good is it?

We are so wrong, but we won't accept it.

Because we are oh so smart.

That to me, is stupider than stupid.

@A1fredo

As I said increases in service jobs seem to be the path of lowest resistance. If that includes soul workers or not depends on demand. Keep in mind that demand is malleable, as proven by pet rocks

@wolfhnd Yeah, but pet rocks are just not as unpopular than emotional people nowadays. People won't just change their perspective just because they need jobs. They would need to really learn to appreciate them. But with the dehumanization given the boom in technology, I don't see it happening. Not without really talented emotional leadership.

Like what?

@A1fredo How about the Pythagorean theorem. Or random sampling in polls. Or having checks left does not mean you still have money in your account. Or Guam won't capsize because you put more Marines on it. (That last one is real)

@Augur2748 And what could possibly prevent somebody from understanding it if that person took the time to try? I am of the position that given enough time and true effort/willingness/openness, anybody could. I don't see a real barrier.

@A1fredo There are people who can't learn to tie their shoes. You can try to teach them their entire lifetime and it doesn't happen. I studied mathematics as an undergrad and for one degree program in grad school. There are concepts some people, no matter how fast they think, simply won't ever understand, no matter how hard they try. It's the same in many other fields; physics, chemistry, engineering, philosophy, and so on. And every day life has these numbskulls too.They can be witty; they can be quick, but they just can't jump over the candlestick.

@Augur2748 The people who can't tie their shoes, are their brains without any physical deficiency? Other than that: maybe you're not patient enough, maybe you haven't incentivized the student enough, maybe they aren't interested enough. Not everybody cares about hard sciences, they just don't. that may be all the problem. Maybe they are part of the majority and they are comfortable enough because society is built around them, so they subconsciously see no need to do such an energy-consumption thing. Given all that, it just seems so, so much more possible that is an ego problem on the side of intellectuals than a cognitive problem on the other side. Ever noticed that problem is way too overspread there? And they can't even tell.

@A1fredo This is what we call "moving the goal posts".

@Augur2748 Oh, I did?... I apologize, I'm working on my series while I respond. I may have lost the thread. Sorry.

All men are created equal in the eyes of god. But not in any society

I agree, and I hate that being the case. Geez...

I think the original idea of all men being created equal is in what it doesn't say as much as what it does. Even if we are created equal, we don't stay that way for long. However, in the eyes of God or before the Law, we can aspire to equal opportunity for grace or justice, as appropriate. It's the failure of Law to deliver just treatment that gets my ire. And imposing equal outcomes on people with unequal talents is itself an injustice.

@B1967 - Then let us forward a society that is modelled on the ideal and be measured against it.

@RobBlair Don't think so

@Stinkybob I lost you ?

Was my English awful when writing this post, or why the whole translating thing?

@A1fredo Overly smart being I, to humor creating!

@A1fredo (I'm a smart-ass )

@Augur2748 ha ha That was my first guess, but I didn't want to assume.