I find that IQ is not a reliable predictor for whether someone is capable of having an intelligent discussion.That's more of a learnt thing.IQ tests may measure learning capacity, but that means fuckall for someone who rarely puts it in use.One issue I've seen a lot is that people with high IQ rely too much on their intuition.This usually results in standardizing a cognitive pipeline that relies on as little information as possible.
ITT things that did not happen
>>16889918intuitive theory super seeds midwit "show me a study with non funded source (this is the max their brain goes to btw once they find some shit)" because once you understand theory theres intuitive correlative ideas that make it work through thought processes instead of a blanket tested hypothesis its fucking stupid how you made this post you poojeet nigger
>>16891331>super seeds
>>16889918>One issue I've seen a lot is that people with high IQ rely too much on their intuition.>This usually results in standardizing a cognitive pipeline that relies on as little information as possibleI've noticed this problem in myself. Constantly building mental maps that fall apart because of exceptions to rules
>>16889918>having an intelligent discussion with midwitssomething that never occurs>having an intelligent discussion with high IQmay or may not happenlooks like a reliable predictor to me
>>16889918That's due to having a high quality dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, but a bargain bin anterior cingulate cortex. A Stroop test out to aid in discriminating the more "foolproof" manifestations of high IQ.
>>16889918I find that IQ is a reliable predictor for whether someone is capable of having an intelligent discussion.That's more of an inborn thing.Psychological tests may measure intellectual ambitions, but that means fuckall for someone who rarely has the mental capacity to attaint hem.One issue I've seen a lot is that people with low IQ rely too much on their experts.This usually results in standardizing a cognitive pipeline that relies on as little thinking as possible.
>>16889918>people with high IQ rely too much on their intuitionstopped reading therecan you display every single file on your PC on your screen at the same time? if you could, would you able to see all the files in total clarity and detail?no. your consciousness is the screen of your brain's data processing.intuition is the product of the brain's data processing based on the entire set of data, not just the limited segment the consciousness has access to, and not just the limited segment of that total sum that the consciousness has access to at any given time.relying on intuition is not a weakness in reasoning. the weakness in reasoning is not knowing how to rely on information fed by intuition in a reliable and valid manner.
>>16892505>retarded computer analogies>intuition is """data processing""">consciousness has no access to intuitionIntuition tells me this poster pays for his ShatGPT subscription.
>>16892512>consciousness has no access to intuitionYes, that is correct. Your ventromedial prefrontal cortex puts no fucking effort into explaining what gets chucked at it by the basal ganglia and limbic system.
>>16892512>retarded computer analogiesYour brain is a fucking computer retard. >intuition is """data processing"""What else would it be?>consciousness has no access to intuitionI never said this. I said consciousness does not have access to the entirety of information gathered in one's lifetime. Consciousness is also limited in bandwidth and can only contain a limited amount of information at any given time. Intuition is the product of intrinsic brain processing, in many cases at the sensory level (for instance the processing of faces and emotional stimuli). Of course consciousness has access to intuition, how else would any individual experience it?>Intuition tells me this poster pays for his ShatGPT subscription.I don't use language models.
>Your brain is a fucking computer retard. What causes this delusion?
>>16892529It's caused by rigorous empirical observation which serves as basis for models of brain functionality with consistently higher predictive power than non-computational models of how brains work.
>>16892529If you look at how certain areas of the brain process data, for instance the visual area, limits of how many cells can be packed together as well as processing efficiency have already been achieved. Vision itself is fundamentally bit processing (on or off). Cells in the visual area are sensitive to orientations displayed on the retinae (colour coded in pic related). They only activate in response to one possible stimulus. These cells are packed in hexagonal lattices. Higher order cells that receive inputs from these simple on/off cells respond only to combinations of those cells firing. Even more complex cells respond only to combinations of those higher order cells.Complex cells in the visual area learn how to recognize objects irrespective of orientation by becoming more sensitive to combinations that occur frequently, which makes them fire more often and more easily (weighted inputs). This is just cellular computing. The very very earliest forms of AIs in the late 50s were based on these discoveries (google perceptrons).
>>16892531>>16892536>This is just cellular computing. The very very earliest forms of AIs in the late 50s were based on these discoveries (google perceptrons).The perceptron story is actually a very good example of your delusional mental illness backfiring hilariously.
>>16892536Basically, the way your brain processes objects is similar to pixels on old CRT screens. But instead of variations in combinations between Red/Green/Blue being used to display certain images, variations in combinations between certain angles cause patterns of activation in cells, which are used to make sense of the outside world.
>>16892538>empirical rigor leading to a model being tested, falsified and superseded by a superior model is a bad thing because reasons
>the way your brain processes objects is similar to pixels on old CRT screensWhy do mentally ill retards think that if they frame their extremely basic understanding of visual processing in computer terms, it magically proves the brain is a computer?
>>16892542>empirical rigor is when (((a certain retard))) with zero understanding of neurology comes up with a faux digital analogue of a "brain" that can't even compute a xorThat (((cancer))) ended up setting back the field of AI by 50 years.
>>16892547>setting backExcept it was superseded by backpropagation which is based on multilayer perceptrons, the literal direct ancestor of the transformer. Oh, and the CNN is directly inspired by the visual cortex.
>>16892550Ok, retard. Good job getting completely filtered by >>16892547, simple as it was.
>>16892544Does vision depend on the eyes?
>vision depends on your eyes therefore the brain is a computerMentally ill retards just can't stop.
>>16892580Can you answer the question? Does vision depend on the eyes?
>>16892584Sure. Before you shit out your preprogrammed bazigna, be sure to consult >>16892544. Can you answer my question?
>>16892585I guess he can't answer my question after all. I wonder if this mouth-breathing retard even understands how old CRTs work (let alone brains) and realizes they are analog and have no pixels.
>>16892585No. Vision does not depend on the eyes. Vision is entirely the product of the brain. Information from the retinae only modulates this product, it does not cause it. This is one of the most fundamental concepts of visual neuroscience research and if you are not familiar with it, you don't seem qualified to judge whether someone's understanding of visual processing is basic or not. If you were, you would at least recognize the question I asked.
>Vision does not depend on the eyes.Good thing the delusional computer worshipers no longer make any effort to hide their actual insanity.
Anything is the analog "computer" of its own dynamics. Calling something a "computer" is trivial to the point of meaninglessness, unless you can abstract the computational logic from the specific physical means of computation. This is impossible to do for a brain beyond the level of crude models. Brain processes and the physical integrity of the brain as such are inherently interleaved. If what the brain does is a computation, that computation encompasses EVERYTHING the brain does. It would, in fact, take infinite computation to replicate it on a Turing machine.
>>16892628Might as well add: it's obvious that the brain is a highly organized structure with mathematical rhyme and reason to it. There is mathematics behind any structure in nature. That doesn't make the brain into a computer any more than it makes a cloud, or a crystal or a skin cell a computer.
>>16892547"Deep learning" only happened because ML engineers dropped the "biologically inspired" nonsense of the oldschool AI dogmatists. They started treating ANNs as mere functions and the problem of optimizing their parameters as one of statistical inference. That lead to finding simple and pragmatic solutions to problems "biologically inspired" retards did nothing about for 40 years.All it took to solve the vanishing gradient problem was ditching logistic activations (used everywhere with no justification besides "muh neurons work that way") in favor of ReLUs (i.e. ifs and elses) and then adding skip connections to propagate information more directly to the deeper layers. Braindamaged "brains-are-computers" revisionists will probably scramble their chatbots to hallucinate biological analogies for these solutions, but if you read the original papers presenting them, you will find no appeals to biology or Rosenblattian pilpul, only empirical observations, mathematical analysis and ML engineering.
As for the retard talking about intuition like it's some abstract "data processing" outside of consciousness, you have to be outright non-sentient to think this. If I stare at some complicated example of Raven matrices and suddenly recognize the pattern, where the fuck do you think the visual relationships making up that pattern are manifesting if not inside my visual field? Did you decide to just embrace the reductio ad absurdum of your own position and act like perception is an irrelevant side-effect of "computations" in the brain?
>>16892686
>>16892689You're the following retard, aren't you?>>16892597>Vision does not depend on the eyes>Information from the retinae only modulatesA poorly trained bio-chatbot that doesn't understand what it's parroting.
>>16892696I don't know what else to tell you. So far I've given you a bunch of data that you haven't substantively engaged with in any way. All you do is say "I don't understand" and that "I'm using a chatbot" without a single word about the nature of neural organization in visual processing areas, the relationship between retinal data, the retinotopic map, the visual field and vision, or, anything substantive.The visual area of the brain is "only concerned with itself" when it comes to neural signalling. It's a system with a high degree of regulation of neural signalling to maintain coherence and stability. Signals from from the retinae are regulated in ways that are primarily congruent with patterns of signalling in the visual area, not congruent with signals sent from the retinae themselves. The experience of "vision" is entirely a product of this homogenous pattern of signalling in the visual area. Nothing else. "Eyesight" is retinal signals creating heterogenous disturbances in neural fields. "Vision" can exist in the absence of eyesight. "Eyesight" can not exist in the absence of vision. Here is a very, very comprehensive review on neural coherence in visual processing areas, and how the maintenance of this coherence is the foundation of visual area signalling (rather than retinal signalling): https://www.math.utah.edu/~bresslof/publications/11-7.pdf
>>16889918Sometimes people that are too intelligent become arrogant and they don't listen to others so those are not very good to have good productive discussions. I agree with you in that it is more a learnt thing. For example when you go to university you learn to listen to others, to raise your hand and then answer that person, to not make the discussion personal and to be able to finish it when you don't agree. You learn how to debate in a civilized way. The people that go to university usually know how to debate better and people that don't go to university or didn't study too much use to be arrogant too because they feel attacked when someone that has more studies than them tries to explain them something.
>>16892704This is a lot of meaningless pseudobabble but you've already made it absolutely clear you regurgitate things, more or less verbatim, that you have zero understanding of, and the moment you try to add your own thoughts you end up with stuff like "vision is independent from the eyes".
>>16889918Recently I've been studying a naturally forming quantum energy in fields and tested it with people with high IQ. And the results were higher IQ people were outside of the field (In red) and using the forces against it (where the majority of the group was)
>>16892704Putting aside your absurd statement that if X modulates Y, the result is independent from X, what is even your point here? The grand insight you keep hammering seems to be that the content of conscious experience is synthesized by the brain. This is so obvious to anyone with modern knowledge that I'm not even sure what the alternative is. It in no way contradicts anything I'm saying and in no way addresses this:>>16892686>If I stare at some complicated example of Raven matrices and suddenly recognize the pattern, where the fuck do you think the visual relationships making up that pattern are manifesting if not inside my visual field?The process that gives rise to any semantic intuitions about the content of your internal world is the same process synthesizing it in the first place. And it's the same one that enables you to know you're experiencing something and having an intuition about it. The fact that you don't have to explicitly keep track of all the details that figure into it or reason about it, doesn't imply there's some """data-processing""" computer algorithm that injects "intuitions" into your consciousness. There is no data and no software. Only process. The brain is not a computer. If the substance of the intuition wasn't already integral to your consciousness, your own intuition would be as meaningless to you as that of another.Also that poorly-reasoned screenshot you posted pretty much refutes itself: it mentions dreams and hallucinations, but clearly, these aren't anywhere near as under-constrained as your primitive "sense data modulating brain waves in the visual system" model would imply. Even hallucinations have higher-level structure visually, derived from real-life experience. You'd have to be out of your mind on LSD to produce anything like what the paragraph implies, which is like temporarily having a different brain structure.
>>16889918the concept of IQ, a single number that measures intelligence by a glorified and subjective spot the difference, is ridiculousretards latch onto IQ because the idea strokes their ego since online tests proudly always hand out 120 to rubes
>>16889918The most important factor to be able to have an intelligent discussion is a willingness to have an intelligent discussion. You won't find much of that here because 4chan self-selects for disingenuous kooks, schizos, and narcissists who can't meet the basic standard of good faith.
>>16892529>>16892544>>16892580>>16892604>Greentext>Brainlet reaction image>Dismissive quipMan this isn't just the extent of what you've posted here, I've seen you do it in other threads. Are you capable of intelligent discussion? Signs point to no.
>>16892887See:>>16892628>>16892635>>16892676>>16892876Feel free to provide a worthless reply to any one of these and demonstrate why I just flex my brainlet collection instead of arguing with your likes these days. Reasoning with the unintelligent is ultimately unrewarding.
>>16892505If you cant prove your claims are they even real?
>>16892505
>>16892870Zero substantive engagement with the subject matter. Zero mention of cellular architecture and how it relates to conscious experience, zero mention of cellular architecture and how it relates to neurocomputation, zero mention of anything about cellular organization of the retinae in relation to cellular organization of visual areas. Why don't you break down my arguments with your own knowledge of neural signalling? Why would I be wrong, can you explain in what manner I seem to be misinterpreting the signalling patterns of neurons in V1? Can you explain what I am exactly wrong about in terms of algorithms neurons in visual areas use to calculate retinal input, and in terms of how action potentials are regulated in those neurons? Can you please elaborate on how those signals are regulated locally in the visual area, but can you also elaborate on how signalling in the visual area is constrained by top-down control from other cortical areas? Which specific mechanisms do I seem to be misinterpreting, where do I go wrong exactly?>>16892876>Even hallucinations have higher-level structure visually, derived from real-life experience. You'd have to be out of your mind on LSD to produce anything like what the paragraph implies, which is like temporarily having a different brain structure.It's incredibly ironic that you mention this, because it is exactly the hallucinations produced by LSD and other psychedelics that have contributed to our knowledge of the structure of V1 specifically. Remember the hexagonal "grid" of orientation-sensitive cells I mentioned where retinal signals are projected and interpreted? What we experience as vision is the end product of combinations of these cells pooling input to more complex layers of cells, who then pool their input to even more complex layers, and so on and so forth until actual object recognition. What you perceive is the "final layer" of this processing.1/2
>>16892876>>16892900However, it's not only the cells in the most complex layers that are sending signals. Every cell is sending signals, from the first layer of V1 all the way to complex object representations. Both from within the visual area and from other brain areas there is a high degree of top-down control to constrain that signalling. Serotonergic psychedelics reduce those constraints, which allows signals from various layers of visual processing to "bleed into consciousness". In essence, the geometric patterns that appear during these visual hallucinations are a product of cells in visual processing areas firing without any constraints.In terms of non-geometric hallucinations, it seems that intrinsic brain activity is routed through visual areas. These areas process this data just like they would with retinal data. If you remember, the foundation of neural processing in visual areas is homogenization, the experience of vision is heterogeneic disturbances in signalling. Normally these disturbances are induced by patterns provided by retinal signals. But the responses in the visual area are not retinal-specific, it can give shape to any disturbances that disrupt the homogeneity of the neural fields. We are just extremely fortunate that the architecture of neural organization in our visual areas is laid out in such a way, that the type of signals the retinae send, result in specific patterns of disturbances that allow us to experience a reliable reproduction of patterns of light that occur in the outside world.
>>16892900>>16892902Ok, this is clearly a spambot.
>>16892890>flex my brainlet collectionLmaoA sure sign of a diseased mind.>Reasoning with the unintelligent is ultimately unrewarding.So what are you getting out of this? Why are you here, responding to everyone?
>>16892934Notice how I correctly predicted your inability to respond to any of my posts except the shitposts and thanks for demonstrating what I said you would.
>>16892951>predicted your inability to respondHe says, as he is unable to respond to a simple question but continues to engage in very predictable behaviour. Curiously absent, also, is the actual prediction on your part, but why bother when you can just pretend afterwards? What made you think I'm at all interested in the topic of your conversation, when I only commented on the form? It's your abnormal psychology that piqued my interest, not your inane ramblings. And the fact is, you're not "flexing" anything; you're revealing yourself to be pathetic. Your extensive "brainlet collection" tells us precisely three things:1. You have a massively inflated sense of superiority 2. You feel a need to express this3. You are unable to do so the conventional way, i.e. contributing anything of substance. You're a pathological shitstirrer and habitual projector with delusions of grandeur and a thirst for attention. Or, in medical parlance: a textbook case of NPD. Note: your interlocutor could've been a Flat Earther for all I care, and this would all still be the case.
>>16889918everyone loves to talk about high iq retards when that concept doesnt existus high iq people love learning and insulting retards on the internet with crystallized logic it works all the time shut the fuck up please
