Imagination is more important than knowledge; Einstein

To Intro 2

I found an interesting definition of Kaplan & Sadock, 1991. Typical and circular.

"The ability to learn new things, recall information, think rationally, apply knowledge and solve problems."

Being 'rational' is in this way part of being intelligent. What about being white, black, religious, colorblind, poor and so on? And finding and applying 'rational' knowledge only needs 'googling' and following the fantasized 'rational' rules (making knowledge = dreaming = being 'spiritual').
I wouldn't at all be surprised if problems have to be defined with 'rational' fantasy.
A carpenter is not a 'blind follower of 'rational' rules for hammering nails', but is anybody who succesfully applies traditional experience about sticking together different materials.

The classical behavioral/biologists definition of intelligence: "Intelligence is the ability to adapt to new conditions and to successfully cope with life situations."

And scientists in Psychology define 'rationally':
- a general term encompassing various mental abilities, including the ability to remember and use what one has learned, in order to solve problems, adapt to new situations, and understand and manipulate one's reality.

Yeah it's right that flies are intelligent too. But using rational term together with the rational notion understanding is circular reasoning.

Then a kind of intelligence is distinguished: Emotional Intelligence or Social Intelligence:
Personal characteristics responsible for the ways we behave, how we feel, how we relate to others, how well we do at our jobs, and how healthy we are.

I must say, all quite interesting but also rather empty or misleading information.
Warning: 'rational' people tend to see 'reason' as more than 'puzzling', and 'abstract as different from 'fantasy'.

We can't predict totally where flies will go (but we nevertheless succeed in catching a large percentage), but generally have no clue at all where humans will go (catching wanted humans is much more difficult). So humans must be more intelligent than flies, according to my own definition. Playing with flies is boring, but playing with pigs can be fun. Elephants and gorillas have a great personal sense of humor. They can have me flabbergasted, and then wet my pants from laughing. Dolphins evoke warm emotions and invite playing, octopusses seem also to be playful.

When distinguishing types of humans, I find that generally wanted scientists are relatively easy to catch. No harm meant, but might the reason be their generally lower social intelligence?
Politicians in general don't seem highly intelligent, because most of them are extremely predictive.

Intelligence Quotes of The Joker - Intelligence helps a being obtaining common sense wisdom that has value in many cultures. - Intelligence is showing creativity and flexibility. - Intelligence is random playing. - Intelligence is being effective - If you relate intelligence to Immanuel Kant then you missed my point

The question "what makes a person intelligent" is answered by: An 'intelligent person is creative, playful and communicative.
In Chinese language the English word 'intelligence' is translated with 'zhi neng' = the ability to apply wisdom

Thinking about ways to measure 'intelligence' I realized:
- intelligence is not homogeneous
- it consists of many different intelligence's

The best thing seems to measure different talents (multiple intelligence), i.e. to make tests like:
- Albert Schweitzer test (placebo talent)
- Albert Einstein test (measuring logical reasoning, not only rational logic)
- Buddha test (measuring relative reasoning)
- Elvis test (musical talent)
- Bloodhound test (smell talent)
- Hercules test (physical strengths)
- Stanley Kubrick test (combining picture and sound)
etcetera

These tests also give a good idea of what artificial intelligence SHOULD be able to do.
It is not much use looking it what it CAN do.

A remark: measuring learning through behavior works fine to measure having grasped traditional methods, but gives a poor measure for creativity.

A perfect example of linear thinking (within paradigms exist only continuous and 'smooth' predictable paths) was "Journey to the Center of the Earth" by Jules Vernes. Innovative but not really surprising. What he did was just extending the concept of digging into the extreme. Personally I find using the concept 'upforce' out of flying as its opposite 'downforce' in racecars much brighter, though this example is linear too.
Mixing the concepts wheel and engine in automobiles SEEMS bright, but wheels have many disadvantages. These all eat 'energy', and automobiles slurped billions of dollars research funding. If air cushion technology had received billions too, then the world would now be without millions of asphalted transport strokes. Using wheels on the planet Mars is madness.
This kind of ever extending solutions can be expected from the artificial intelligence of linear computers. Super high sky scrapers, extremely long bridges, deep diving submarines; in short Extreme Engineering. Jules Vernes was good in having extremely predictive thoughts.
Of all people taking Jules Vernes as example of someone with great fantasy was EXTREMELY narrow minded and destructive. Lots of engineers from then on thought that they should attract attention with thinking big. I would instead have taken Leonardo da Vinci. Small but creative is beautiful.

What was chosen in the Western World was a poor man's surrogate for creativity. Confusing is that this limited dimension of creativity attracted the minds of most wealthy Western people, and that poor people are often quite inventive. But most of them are used by unimaginative wealthy people as miners to come closer tho the center of the earth. And unfortunately but logical for lots of 'poor people' becoming wealthy in hard cash just like for 'rich' people became an inviting goal.

I imagine thousands of cheep ant-like (that means also with space saving ant 'intelligence') mini robots dismantling a huge millions of dollars worth quasi intelligent tank, that shouldn't be awfully difficult. Not as agression, but as defense. Forget about power being linear and only big, and think creative. And forget about artificial viruses and poison gasses (power thinking disguised). Humans couldn't yet beat fire ants...., but these ants get hungry when sensing electronics. And they penetrate virtually everything, from traffic lights to power distribution centers. You don't need to be smart to destroy computers that only can think big.

In the meantime humans trained this associative trait a lot. And for me intelligence is something like an octopus(sy) fast like a gecko and 'addictive' like a number 1 video clip. I.e. playing piano 'mad' like Beethoven, shaking its ass like Madonna, being an excellent cook, an lover like Casanova and having loads of humor. That's quite different from the present robots, takes intelligence but not necessarily a high IQ.

Making math compulsory for certain studies is close to discrimination. It only means that in this field people who were stimulated to culture a mathematical view are temporarily dominant. What is meant is a logical view, but that can also be seen by good results in something like Logic or Philosophy. Studying for music director takes talent in making music, but nobody would make playing piano compulsory.

Roughly the process of learning can be divided in 2 methods: .

Learning 1. By training common sense behavior (outside Western World). 99% Imitation, awfully effective and as fast as a running gecko 2. Modelling reality (creationism, Western World). Like Architecting, very powerful but as slow as 'praying' gecko's (in difficult words called cognitive learning). Has an enormous bycoming risk of drowning in own architected world.

Locally combining both methods is SUPER SUPERFASSST

Imitation is 'cut and paste' learning. It's how people learn to use their cellphone, without understanding its working. And it's how chicken can do complicate things very fast without model. Because 'understanding' is only a 'rational' model that gets material through language. But 'rational' words are interpreted in hundreds of ways. You don't practice sex with a book in your hand, and if you do it's awfully slow and far from satisfying.

I program by imitating without 'thinkin'. I.e. I use the effect of Javascript without 'understanding'. Only when things DON'T work then locally I 'dive' into the matter. Proceeding that way is very fast, lots of fun and doesn't take a high IQ. It's how technicians with 'medium level' education often master things far better than their bosses with university degree. You don't fix cars with rational university 'understanding'. Low-tech often often more creativity than high-tech.

Imitation
Doing something similar to others is the kid way of learning, training behavior. And it proved VERY successfull. To forbid imitating with the wishful fantasy copyright, like in the Western World, is completely weird.
The speed of learning slows down when getting adult. That is because then in education for some reason the preferred teaching method became 'architecting'. Placing a 'model' between reality and common sense (virtual reality). But if imitation was continued also in education the progress would be bigger, faster and MUCH more reliable. Better not learn using your bike in architecting way. Then afterwards you have all the papers to start a bicycle shop, BUT still can't drive.

Architecting
If your profession is designing bicycle, THEN locally it is useful to have architect knowledge. You learn much faster to DRIVE your own design by imitating, but changing the design takes expert knowledge. Because your profession is only a tiny part of life, for all the rest you rely on imitation.

Distance learning
Internet is ideal for the 'cut and paste' method of imitation. Instead of spending most of your day in a boring school with boring teachers you can study in your own time. If you like even at night.
As guides teachers will remain quite usefull, but you only need e-mail for that.

To grasp tough miscommunications in society, the usage of the concept 'paradigm' as introduced by the 20th century philosopher Thomas Kuhn to me proved extremely useful. I struggled for a long time with explaining the difference between knowledge obtained in modern science and the ancient notion 'wisdom'. Being scientist is no guarantee for being wise, also well paid members of Western or Christian Science generally think otherwise.

I took Einstein as example of a genial scientist. I know that being a well educated engineer I can vaguely grasp his ideas. He associates knowledge that I don't seem to have available. Like hearing a muffled voice coming from the cellar of my brain. As typical wise person I took Gandhi. What strikes immediately is that his knowledge doesn't go into depths, but on the contrary is wide and social.

Einstein was an introvert person, and the lawyer Gandhi extravert social. It seems that Einstein excelled more in what I would call individual knowledge and Gandhi more in knowledge applicable in his collective.

Seen that way present society struggles with joining individualism and collectivism . I represent the extremes of the growth directions of a personal paradigm as in the picture.

You can't be like Gandhi and also be like Einstein

In rationalism the 'Einstein type' of knowledge is valued much higher. Like a paradigm that only got brilliant in depth. That caused Einstein not being seen as brilliant socially or politically.

Don't misunderstand me, nothing wrong with being introvert. It seems to accompany thinking individualistic. Either one seeks knowledge in depth, or one chooses for social wisdom. Persons can't have both, but society without any doubt needs both.

Present societies overrate abstract fantasies called 'scientific knowledge', and neglect 'common sense'. I.e. politicians like Harry Potter's prefer abstract fantasies or fairy tales about reality (called 'scientific'), and undervalue the through intuition straight from reality derived 'feelings'.

No references found. Anyway I hate articles with miles of references. In case you have a question just send me an e-mail

Zarah II,