A THEORY OF INTELLIGENCE Part Two (Identity)

by David Turell @, Monday, July 09, 2018, 15:15 (158 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: We have had this discussion before. Try telling my daughter-in-law, mother of twins, that both babies had identical zero personalities from the moment they were born. (She laughed when I told her!) Do you think instincts are not part of a human’s personality? Of course the personality develops with time, but there are inbuilt characteristics right from the start, even if the baby can’t express them in words (because the circuits aren’t properly formed).


DAVID: You are looking at this in a different way than I do. You are correct that its development will be guided by pre-existing controls over what type of brain it is given. Thus a genius brain produces a genius if that person allows it. A person has choices in how his personality is shaped all during life from birth, but can only shape personalty when he has the ability to think and analyze. A role of psychiatry is to point out bad choices, some of which were developed without thought or analysis.

dhw: The degree to which a person can shape his/her own personality is the whole open question. Crick said no. You say yes. Nobody knows.

Bad example of expert. I'm quoting psychiatric theory. Crick is far from it. And was very wrong about what DNA really does in his initial pronouncements.

dhw: Experience may well change personality, but it can be argued that the way different people respond to their experiences (or are “changed” by them) is also preprogrammed by their materials!

Ah, no free will for you!

dhw: Tony’s machine leans towards Crick, with different wiring determining the type of personality, capabilities, response times, and with no exchanges, you get what you get, attributes that can’t be altered. But he says there is still room for a soul, so perhaps he could tell us what powers his version of the soul has.

I'm unconvinced you understand Tony's approach


dhw: What does "networks for thought" mean, if not that the networks are responsible for advanced thought (= materialism)? You still haven’t offered us any function in addition to information and expression..

DAVID: 'Expression' has two meanings: announcing the thought and also developing the thought. Newton and Leibniz both had to recognize the concept of calculus and then work out the details of its construct with their souls using their frontal lobe networks.

dhw: Since when did expression of thought mean developing thought? It may well be that giving material expression to the thought brings out possible flaws (especially when you discuss it with other people!;-) ), but the dualist’s frontal lobes will not say to the dualist’s soul: “Hey, you’ve missed something out, you're confused, you've just contradicted yourself.” So please tell us what the dualist’s soul uses the frontal lobe networks FOR, apart from providing information and enabling the soul to give material expression to its thought.

Do you think the development of a concept simply springs into existence as only a 'eureka' moment. Thinking through a puzzle requires contemplation over time. There may well be the thought I'm confused. Have you forgotten my self is my immaterial me using my material brain networks to think and produce immaterial thought.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum