Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 11, 2023 11:03 amSelf-Consciousness at Which IQ Level?
Ignoring the temper-tantrums of IQlet One and IQlet Two, let's move on shall we?
At which IQ level does "Self-Consciousness" appear? This is my more pressing inquiry over the recent year. I may have some answers...
Above-average and higher intelligences are able to imagine physical objects in their mind and rotate them. This would be considered an 'Objective' function of intelligence. The brain/mind "takes the object" and moves it, as-if the subject-object were directly manipulated. This represents a change in Perspective of the Subject. This leads to careers and jobs such as Architecture, Drafting, and High Art / Culture. This is why the highest intellects, at genius levels, produce profound Art across the centuries, leaving the inferiors forgotten.
Since this abstract 'Objectivism' can be applied to Objects, it then can be applied to Subjects as well, which allows for enhanced forms of Empathy: the Science of Psychology and Pathology. Continued on...eventually such a mind can "Study Itself" in the abstract. Here is the foundation for Self-Consciousness.
Rephrased:
Step One: The Mind manipulates Objects.
Step Two: The Mind manipulates Subjects.
Step Three: The Mind manipulates Itself. (Self-Consciousness)
Most of humanity, is not Self-Conscious, because most do not have the IQ-level required for its function.
What people refer to as "Objectivity" is strongly correlated (necessarily and causal) to Self-Consciousness.
Because the mental manipulation of Objects (Imagination) is a prerequisite for Self-Consciousness.
Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jun 11, 2023 11:12 amI think it's more complicated than that. Most people seem to have the natural raw self-consciousness, but I'd say people below ~110 IQ mostly lack abstract thinking, as the default mode of cognition. So their natural raw self-consciousness doesn't take the form of the abstract "I" entity. It only takes the form of a concrete "I", which is mostly just an automatic "I".
I'd go further and claim that around 140 IQ, the abstract "I" can evolve further into a second (and third etc.) degree abstraction level.
I think what you're referring to is more "Self-Awareness" than Self-Consciousness.
Human babies become aware of their reflection in mirrors at different intellectual stages, some much earlier or later than others.
Self-awareness does not mean Self-consciousness. It's as you insinuate in your later point—Self-Consciousness has more to do with developed and sophisticated models of "I" or "Ego" or "Id".
Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jun 11, 2023 11:12 amI think it's more complicated than that. Most people seem to have the natural raw self-consciousness, but I'd say people below ~110 IQ mostly lack abstract thinking, as the default mode of cognition. So their natural raw self-consciousness doesn't take the form of the abstract "I" entity. It only takes the form of a concrete "I", which is mostly just an automatic "I".
I'd go further and claim that around 140 IQ, the abstract "I" can evolve further into a second (and third etc.) degree abstraction level.
I think what you're referring to is more "Self-Awareness" than Self-Consciousness.
Human babies become aware of their reflection in mirrors at different intellectual stages, some much earlier or later than others.
Self-awareness does not mean Self-consciousness. It's as you insinuate in your later point—Self-Consciousness has more to do with developed and sophisticated models of "I" or "Ego" or "Id".
Yes I was mainly talking about the manifestation of self-awareness. Okay then I'd rephrase it as: the form of "I" is the most important aspect of someone's self-consciousness.
Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jun 11, 2023 11:25 amYes I was mainly talking about the manifestation of self-awareness. Okay then I'd rephrase it as: the form of "I" is the most important aspect of someone's self-consciousness.
Possibly, I hadn't really thought about that. Self-Consciousness is definitely a very advanced abstraction though.
IQ is not a positive metric - it's a negative metric. There's an asymmetry in the predictive power in that a low IQ predicts much more than high IQ does.
Said differently - low IQ predicts negative outcomes, high IQ doesn't predict anything.
Beyond that it has terrible properties as a metric. There's up to 20% variance in simple test-retest correlation. Imagine you got on the weighing scale twice in a row and you got 20% different answers.
I'm not going to expand on it because there's no point plagiarising...
Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jun 11, 2023 11:25 amYes I was mainly talking about the manifestation of self-awareness. Okay then I'd rephrase it as: the form of "I" is the most important aspect of someone's self-consciousness.
Possibly, I hadn't really thought about that. Self-Consciousness is definitely a very advanced abstraction though.
What are you thinking, can you say more?
Above ~110-115 IQ, most people are autonomous. Below ~110-115 IQ, most people are automatons, and will usually be controlled/manipulated by whoever is in power. They just can't abstract away from what is happening.
It seems impossible to raise the average IQ of humanity by 20-30 points in the near future, in order to make humanity autonomous, which would allow it to change its course. So by my calculations, by 2050 humanity will probably destroy itself, unless a miracle happens. I've accepted this grim reality, and its implications for philosophy.
Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Jun 11, 2023 11:34 am
IQ is not a positive metric - it's a negative metric. There's an asymmetry in the predictive power in that a low IQ predicts much more than high IQ does.
Said differently - low IQ predicts negative outcomes, high IQ doesn't predict anything.
Beyond that it has terrible properties as a metric. There's up to 20% variance in simple test-retest correlation. Imagine you got on the weighing scale twice in a row and you got 20% different answers.
I'm not going to expand on it because there's no point plagiarising...
All IQ tests tell you is how good or bad someone is at IQ tests. Some people are really good at problem solving, but they come across as quite thick because they might not be very articulate. Humans are far too complex to have 'intelligence' put down to only one ability.
Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Jun 11, 2023 11:34 am
IQ is not a positive metric - it's a negative metric. There's an asymmetry in the predictive power in that a low IQ predicts much more than high IQ does.
Said differently - low IQ predicts negative outcomes, high IQ doesn't predict anything.
Beyond that it has terrible properties as a metric. There's up to 20% variance in simple test-retest correlation. Imagine you got on the weighing scale twice in a row and you got 20% different answers.
I'm not going to expand on it because there's no point plagiarising...
