0 Members and 168 Guests are viewing this topic.
The final assessment thus depends on the formula or algorithm used to combine those parameters into a single value useful to compare intelligence, at least in relative scale.
A legitimate exception means that we acknowledge a higher priority moral rule than the one we are going to break
I think we can all agree that a good moral rule is a useful one. But follow up question naturally comes up: useful according to who?
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 16/02/2020 01:10:57The final assessment thus depends on the formula or algorithm used to combine those parameters into a single value useful to compare intelligence, at least in relative scale.In other words, the measure of consciousness is whatever Hamdani Yusuf says it is, unless it's measured by someone else, since there is no universal arbiter of the formula. Not sure how that advances our discussion .
An intelligence quotient (IQ) is a total score derived from a set of standardized tests designed to assess human intelligence.[1] The abbreviation "IQ" was coined by the psychologist William Stern for the German term Intelligenzquotient, his term for a scoring method for intelligence tests at University of Breslau he advocated in a 1912 book.[2]
The concept of IQ has been around for more than a century without my involvement.
The concept has, but its only definition is "something to do with quizzes, with a normal distribution and a mean score of 100". The results you get for any particular test vary according to the language and culture within which you apply it!And anyway, we aren't talking about intelligence, but asking for your definition of consciousness. A decent computer can probably score 200+ on the best IQ tests. Would that signify consciousness, or even intelligence?
Historically, IQ was a score obtained by dividing a person's mental age score, obtained by administering an intelligence test, by the person's chronological age, both expressed in terms of years and months. The resulting fraction (quotient) is multiplied by 100 to obtain the IQ score.[3] For modern IQ tests, the median raw score of the norming sample is defined as IQ 100 and scores each standard deviation (SD) up or down are defined as 15 IQ points greater or less.[4] By this definition, approximately two-thirds of the population scores are between IQ 85 and IQ 115. About 2.5 percent of the population scores above 130, and 2.5 percent below 70.[5][6]Scores from intelligence tests are estimates of intelligence. Unlike, for example, distance and mass, a concrete measure of intelligence cannot be achieved given the abstract nature of the concept of "intelligence".[7] IQ scores have been shown to be associated with such factors as morbidity and mortality,[8][9] parental social status,[10] and, to a substantial degree, biological parental IQ. While the heritability of IQ has been investigated for nearly a century, there is still debate about the significance of heritability estimates[11][12] and the mechanisms of inheritance.[13]IQ scores are used for educational placement, assessment of intellectual disability, and evaluating job applicants. Even when students improve their scores on standardized tests, they do not always improve their cognitive abilities, such as memory, attention and speed.[14] In research contexts, they have been studied as predictors of job performance[15] and income.[16] They are also used to study distributions of psychometric intelligence in populations and the correlations between it and other variables. Raw scores on IQ tests for many populations have been rising at an average rate that scales to three IQ points per decade since the early 20th century, a phenomenon called the Flynn effect. Investigation of different patterns of increases in subtest scores can also inform current research on human intelligence.
In other words, the measure of consciousness is whatever Hamdani Yusuf says it is, unless it's measured by someone else, since there is no universal arbiter of the formula. Not sure how that advances our discussion .
Job performanceAccording to Schmidt and Hunter, "for hiring employees without previous experience in the job the most valid predictor of future performance is general mental ability."[15] The validity of IQ as a predictor of job performance is above zero for all work studied to date, but varies with the type of job and across different studies, ranging from 0.2 to 0.6.[122] The correlations were higher when the unreliability of measurement methods was controlled for.[10] While IQ is more strongly correlated with reasoning and less so with motor function,[123] IQ-test scores predict performance ratings in all occupations.[15] That said, for highly qualified activities (research, management) low IQ scores are more likely to be a barrier to adequate performance, whereas for minimally-skilled activities, athletic strength (manual strength, speed, stamina, and coordination) are more likely to influence performance.[15] The prevailing view among academics is that it is largely through the quicker acquisition of job-relevant knowledge that higher IQ mediates job performance. This view has been challenged by Byington & Felps (2010), who argued that "the current applications of IQ-reflective tests allow individuals with high IQ scores to receive greater access to developmental resources, enabling them to acquire additional capabilities over time, and ultimately perform their jobs better."[124]In establishing a causal direction to the link between IQ and work performance, longitudinal studies by Watkins and others suggest that IQ exerts a causal influence on future academic achievement, whereas academic achievement does not substantially influence future IQ scores.[125] Treena Eileen Rohde and Lee Anne Thompson write that general cognitive ability, but not specific ability scores, predict academic achievement, with the exception that processing speed and spatial ability predict performance on the SAT math beyond the effect of general cognitive ability.[126]The US military has minimum enlistment standards at about the IQ 85 level. There have been two experiments with lowering this to 80 but in both cases these men could not master soldiering well enough to justify their costs.
All the quotes seem to suggest is that if you select people with a relevant test, they will perform better than average or those that fail the test. But the key is relevance. A blind man with an IQ of 130 probably won't make a good pilot. Bench pressing 100 kilos is quite a feat, but a footballer needs quite different feet. So you assert that we should select lawmakers on the grounds of consciousness, but the only definition you have given seems to be "IQ plus selfawareness". Every animal I have encountered is self-aware. The extreme seems to be narcissism, which is obviously undesirable.
Empirical studiesWithin the field of psychology, there are two main branches of research into narcissism: (1) clinical and (2) social psychology.These two approaches differ in their view of narcissism, with the former treating it as a disorder, thus as discrete, and the latter treating it as a personality trait, thus as a continuum. These two strands of research tend loosely to stand in a divergent relation to one another, although they converge in places.Campbell and Foster (2007)[23] review the literature on narcissism. They argue that narcissists possess the following "basic ingredients":Positive: Narcissists think they are better than others.[26]Inflated: Narcissists' views tend to be contrary to reality. In measures that compare self-report to objective measures, narcissists' self-views tend to be greatly exaggerated.[27]Agentic: Narcissists' views tend to be most exaggerated in the agentic domain, relative to the communion domain.[clarification needed][26][27]Special: Narcissists perceive themselves to be unique and special people.[28]Selfish: Research upon narcissists' behaviour in resource dilemmas supports the case for narcissists as being selfish.[29]Oriented toward success: Narcissists are oriented towards success by being, for example, approach oriented.[clarification needed][30]
In the case of narcissism, the agent has inaccurate model of reality, which significantly reduces its measure of general consciousness.
[Positive: Narcissists think they are better than others
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 16/02/2020 02:33:18I think we can all agree that a good moral rule is a useful one. But follow up question naturally comes up: useful according to who?Depends on context. The planet, Society, British society, Yorkshiremen, family and friends, family only, or oneself? Or how about some Good Samaritan altruism? As long as you don't invoke any deities, the answer is usually fairly straightforward since the consequences of any action tend to diminish with distance from the source.
Radical skepticism or radical scepticism is the philosophical position that knowledge is most likely impossible.[1] Radical skeptics hold that doubt exists as to the veracity of every belief and that certainty is therefore never justified. To determine the extent to which it is possible to respond to radical skeptical challenges is the task of epistemology or "the theory of knowledge".[2]Several Ancient Greek philosophers, including Plato, Cratylus, Carneades, Arcesilaus, Aenesidemus, Pyrrho, and Sextus Empiricus have been viewed as having expounded theories of radical skepticism.In modern philosophy, two representatives of radical skepticism are Michel de Montaigne (most famously known for his skeptical remark, Que sçay-je ?, 'What do I know?' in Middle French; modern French Que sais-je ?) and David Hume (particularly as set out in A Treatise of Human Nature, Book 1: "Of the Understanding").As radical skepticism can be used as an objection for most or all beliefs, many philosophers have attempted to refute it. For example, Bertrand Russell wrote “Skepticism, while logically impeccable, is psychologically impossible, and there is an element of frivolous insincerity in any philosophy which pretends to accept it.”
When you wrote the planet, can I assume that you meant collective conscious agents living on it? As far as I know, planets are not conscious agents. They don't have internal model of objective reality representing themselves in their environments. They don't have preference either. We can't say if the earth prefer current condition over Hadean period. Jupiter didn't seem to mind to be hit by Shoemaker-Levy 9 comets.
When you wrote the planet, can I assume that you meant collective conscious agents living on it?
Otherwise, we need other ways to make an agent behave in good manners.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 21/02/2020 02:52:55When you wrote the planet, can I assume that you meant collective conscious agents living on it?Of course not! Since we haven't come up with a useful definition of consciousness, I couldn't possibly mean that! The planet is the physical context in which we act. The "two common dangers" are actually one - philosophy. Like alcohol, it can be amusing in small doses but utterly destructive if you let it rule your life. Religion/relativism, whisky/beer, just different flavors, same poison.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 21/02/2020 11:50:56Otherwise, we need other ways to make an agent behave in good manners.The characteristic of many animals, especially humans, is their realisation that you can usually achieve more by collaboration than by competition. Thus we appreciate a sort of long-term integrated reward and most of us value that above immediate selfgratification. We use punishment and reward to bring into line those who don't.
Religious fundamentalism commits false positive error type; it accepts a hypothesis that turn out to be false. Whereas moral relativism commits false negative error type; it rejects any hypotheses, including the correct one.
(English:) Accordingly, seeing that our senses sometimes deceive us, I was willing to suppose that there existed nothing really such as they presented to us; And because some men err in reasoning, and fall into Paralogisms, even on the simplest matters of Geometry, I, convinced that I was as open to error as any other, rejected as false all the reasonings I had hitherto taken for Demonstrations; And finally, when I considered that the very same thoughts (presentations) which we experience when awake may also be experienced when we are asleep, while there is at that time not one of them true, I supposed that all the objects (presentations) that had ever entered into my mind when awake, had in them no more truth than the illusions of my dreams. But immediately upon this I observed that, whilst I thus wished to think that all was false, it was absolutely necessary that I, who thus thought, should be something; And as I observed that this truth, I think, therefore I am,[e] was so certain and of such evidence that no ground of doubt, however extravagant, could be alleged by the Sceptics capable of shaking it, I concluded that I might, without scruple, accept it as the first principle of the philosophy of which I was in search.[h]
This proposition became a fundamental element of Western philosophy, as it purported to form a secure foundation for knowledge in the face of radical doubt. While other knowledge could be a figment of imagination, deception, or mistake, Descartes asserted that the very act of doubting one's own existence served—at minimum—as proof of the reality of one's own mind; there must be a thinking entity—in this case the self—for there to be a thought.
While we thus reject all of which we can entertain the smallest doubt, and even imagine that it is false, we easily indeed suppose that there is neither God, nor sky, nor bodies, and that we ourselves even have neither hands nor feet, nor, finally, a body; but we cannot in the same way suppose that we are not while we doubt of the truth of these things; for there is a repugnance in conceiving that what thinks does not exist at the very time when it thinks. Accordingly, the knowledge,[m] I think, therefore I am,[e] is the first and most certain that occurs to one who philosophizes orderly.
That we cannot doubt of our existence while we doubt, and that this is the first knowledge we acquire when we philosophize in order.
The Search for TruthDescartes, in a lesser-known posthumously published work dated as written ca. 1647[13] and titled La Recherche de la Vérité par La Lumiere Naturale (The Search for Truth by Natural Light),[14] wrote:(Latin:) … Sentio, oportere, ut quid dubitatio, quid cogitatio, quid exsistentia sit antè sciamus, qu m de veritate hujus ratiocinii : dubito, ergo sum, vel, quod idem est, cogito, ergo sum[e] : plane simus persuasi.(English:) … [I feel that] it is necessary to know what doubt is, and what thought is, [what existence is], before we can be fully persuaded of this reasoning — I doubt, therefore I am — or what is the same — I think, therefore I am.[p]
existence/ɪɡˈzɪst(ə)ns,ɛɡˈzɪst(ə)ns/nounthe fact or state of living or having objective reality.
think/θɪŋk/verb1.have a particular belief or idea.
verbverb: doubt; 3rd person present: doubts; past tense: doubted; past participle: doubted; gerund or present participle: doubting1.feel uncertain about."I doubt my ability to do the job"question the truth or fact of (something)."who can doubt the value and necessity of these services?"Sinonim: think something unlikely, have (one's) doubts about, question, query, be dubious, lack conviction, have reservations aboutdisbelieve or lack faith in (someone)."I have no reason to doubt him"Sinonim: disbelieve, distrust, mistrust, suspect, lack confidence in, have doubts about, be suspicious of, have suspicions about, have misgivings about, feel uneasy about, feel apprehensive about, call into question, query, question, challenge, dispute, have reservations aboutfeel uncertain, especially about one's religious beliefs.Sinonim: be undecided, have doubts, be irresolute, be hesitant
Finally we get to the last question: how. There are some basic strategies to preserve information which I borrow from IT business:Choosing robust media. Creating multilayer protection. Creating backups. Create diversity to avoid common mode failures.