On 02-Mar-24 13:37, alan_m wrote:
> On 02/03/2024 11:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> All my university colleagues who have spawned, have above average
>> kids, but not markedly so.
>
> But is that inherited intelligence or just better parenting and the
> parents realising that early learning and stimulation for their children
> is important.
>
Research conducted in Lake Wobegon concluded that all the children were
above average.

--
Sam Plusnet

On 3/2/2024 9:42 AM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 13:46:53 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
> <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 02 Mar 2024 11:46:59 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> There are huge arguments over what constitutes intelligence anyway, and
>>> the whole thing is a touchy woke infested subject.
>>
>> Not sure about arguments, but there is certainly no acceptable definition
>> of intelligence with doesn't have some sort of a priori qualifications.
>>
>> And if you can't define something, it is a little unclear how you can
>> then define an "artificial" analogue of it.
>>
>> And that's before you consider in an infinite universe, there may well be
>> exemplars of intelligence that we could miss completely.
>>
>> See also: life.
>
> Well, it's commonly stated that there's no definition for
> intelligence. However, there *must* be one because we've all bumped
> into various people in the course of our lives who we simply *know*
> from a short interaction with them that they're exceptionally bright.
> Likewise, we've all also met dullards - and there are a *lot* more
> dullards than there are really bright individuals. So it must be
> possible to arrive at a definition even if (inevitably) not everyone
> will agree with it.
>

Here is a theory, as to where brain problems come from.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-patchwork-mind/

"But in the past couple of decades, scientists have learned that
Mendel’s understanding was incomplete.
"

"Sometimes it matters which parent you inherit a gene from — the genes
in these cases, called imprinted genes because they carry an extra
molecule like a stamp, add a whole new level of complexity to
Mendelian inheritance.
"

It is used to explain where some abnormal brain developments come
from, but it does not address the issue of "melon parents make
only melon kids".

We only use 10% of our brains. What controls that "ratio" ?

Paul

On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 15:57:21 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 02 Mar 2024 14:42:55 +0000, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 13:46:53 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
>> <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 02 Mar 2024 11:46:59 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>>> There are huge arguments over what constitutes intelligence anyway,
>>>> and the whole thing is a touchy woke infested subject.
>>>
>>>Not sure about arguments, but there is certainly no acceptable
>>>definition of intelligence with doesn't have some sort of a priori
>>>qualifications.
>>>
>>>And if you can't define something, it is a little unclear how you can
>>>then define an "artificial" analogue of it.
>>>
>>>And that's before you consider in an infinite universe, there may well
>>>be exemplars of intelligence that we could miss completely.
>>>
>>>See also: life.
>>
>> Well, it's commonly stated that there's no definition for intelligence.
>> However, there *must* be one because we've all bumped into various
>> people in the course of our lives who we simply *know* from a short
>> interaction with them that they're exceptionally bright.
>
>Define "bright". And that's where the problem starts.
>
>> Likewise, we've all also met dullards - and there are a *lot* more
>> dullards than there are really bright individuals. So it must be
>> possible to arrive at a definition even if (inevitably) not everyone
>> will agree with it.
>
>See above.
>
>I wasn't being casual when I mentioned life. The closest you will get to
>"intelligence" is something like a "quality in organisms* that enables
>them to engage with their environment to survive long enough to
>reproduce". But even then does that apply at an individual, or a group
>level ?
>
>A very quick way to get someone to fuck off with their definition of
>"intelligence" is to gain an admission that dogs (or cats) are
>"intelligent" to a degree. And then note that all the ones I have tested
>score 0 on an IQ test. So clearly no intelligence whatsoever. Either
>that, or IQ tests aren't actually measuring *intelligence*. And if that
>is the case, what is the point of them, and why would anyone pay for
>one ?
>
>*See what I mean ?

Yes, but cats would be easy. Just set them before a line of 10 dishes
where 9 of them are Whiskas and the other one's Tyne Brand. If they go
to Tyne Brand, you know they're developmentally disabled.

On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 14:16:16 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

>On 3/2/2024 9:42 AM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 13:46:53 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
>> <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 02 Mar 2024 11:46:59 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>>> There are huge arguments over what constitutes intelligence anyway, and
>>>> the whole thing is a touchy woke infested subject.
>>>
>>> Not sure about arguments, but there is certainly no acceptable definition
>>> of intelligence with doesn't have some sort of a priori qualifications.
>>>
>>> And if you can't define something, it is a little unclear how you can
>>> then define an "artificial" analogue of it.
>>>
>>> And that's before you consider in an infinite universe, there may well be
>>> exemplars of intelligence that we could miss completely.
>>>
>>> See also: life.
>>
>> Well, it's commonly stated that there's no definition for
>> intelligence. However, there *must* be one because we've all bumped
>> into various people in the course of our lives who we simply *know*
>> from a short interaction with them that they're exceptionally bright.
>> Likewise, we've all also met dullards - and there are a *lot* more
>> dullards than there are really bright individuals. So it must be
>> possible to arrive at a definition even if (inevitably) not everyone
>> will agree with it.
>>
>
>Here is a theory, as to where brain problems come from.
>
>https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-patchwork-mind/
>
> "But in the past couple of decades, scientists have learned that
> Mendel’s understanding was incomplete.
> "
>
> "Sometimes it matters which parent you inherit a gene from — the genes
> in these cases, called imprinted genes because they carry an extra
> molecule like a stamp, add a whole new level of complexity to
> Mendelian inheritance.
> "
>
>It is used to explain where some abnormal brain developments come
>from, but it does not address the issue of "melon parents make
>only melon kids".
>
>We only use 10% of our brains. What controls that "ratio" ?

That would be a *huge* and unjustifiable burden on a developing
species. It *must* be there for a reason, even if we don't understand
what that is.

On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 16:33:42 +0000, Ottavio Caruso
<ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Am 02/03/2024 um 14:36 schrieb R Souls:
>> On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 14:19:40 +0000, Ottavio Caruso
>> <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Am 02/03/2024 um 12:20 schrieb R Souls:
>>>> On Sat, 02 Mar 2024 10:29:36 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Gentlemen,
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyone know of any studies they can point me to online on this
>>>>> subject? Intelligence is a quality which most of us have always
>>>>> assumed was inherited, and my print sources back this up. I'm just
>>>>> interested in any departure from this in more recent studies. I'd also
>>>>> like to know what the modern sources have to say about whether the
>>>>> father's or the mother's intelligence dominates in their offspring,
>>>>> should genetics indeed play a part.
>>>>> TIA,
>>>>>
>>>>> CD
>>>>
>>>> What's all this about? Are you attempting to blame your lack of
>>>> intelligence on your parents?
>>>
>>> He grew up in a council estate and never met his dad.
>>
>> Grew up? Hardly!
>
>Well, I meant "got fatter".

This is actually rather painful for me. I was abandoned on a rubbish
dump in the Scotswood Hall area of Newcastle as a child and adopted by
two escaped chimpanzees from a local zoo who raised me and taught me
all I know. They did the best they could under impossible
circumstances, since they were constantly escaping and getting
re-captured, I had a very chaotic childhood. I suspect that accounts
for much of my Euroscepticism.

On 2 Mar 2024 at 14:36:11 GMT, "R Souls" <ron.souls@aol.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 14:19:40 +0000, Ottavio Caruso
> <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Am 02/03/2024 um 12:20 schrieb R Souls:
>>> On Sat, 02 Mar 2024 10:29:36 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>>> wrote:

>>>> Anyone know of any studies they can point me to online on this
>>>> subject? Intelligence is a quality which most of us have always
>>>> assumed was inherited, and my print sources back this up. I'm just
>>>> interested in any departure from this in more recent studies. I'd also
>>>> like to know what the modern sources have to say about whether the
>>>> father's or the mother's intelligence dominates in their offspring,
>>>> should genetics indeed play a part.
>>>
>>> What's all this about? Are you attempting to blame your lack of
>>> intelligence on your parents?
>>
>> He grew up in a council estate and never met his dad.
>
> Grew up? Hardly!

Perhaps ArseHoles and Enrico should get a room.

--
"I am enclosing two tickets to the first night of my new play; bring a friend.... if you have one." - GB Shaw to Churchill. "Cannot possibly attend first night, will attend second... if there is one." - Winston Churchill, in response.

On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 07:28:20 +1100, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:

> On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 14:16:16 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 3/2/2024 9:42 AM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 13:46:53 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
>>> <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 02 Mar 2024 11:46:59 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> There are huge arguments over what constitutes intelligence anyway,
>>>>> and
>>>>> the whole thing is a touchy woke infested subject.
>>>>
>>>> Not sure about arguments, but there is certainly no acceptable
>>>> definition
>>>> of intelligence with doesn't have some sort of a priori
>>>> qualifications.
>>>>
>>>> And if you can't define something, it is a little unclear how you can
>>>> then define an "artificial" analogue of it.
>>>>
>>>> And that's before you consider in an infinite universe, there may
>>>> well be
>>>> exemplars of intelligence that we could miss completely.
>>>>
>>>> See also: life.
>>>
>>> Well, it's commonly stated that there's no definition for
>>> intelligence. However, there *must* be one because we've all bumped
>>> into various people in the course of our lives who we simply *know*
>>> from a short interaction with them that they're exceptionally bright..
>>> Likewise, we've all also met dullards - and there are a *lot* more
>>> dullards than there are really bright individuals. So it must be
>>> possible to arrive at a definition even if (inevitably) not everyone
>>> will agree with it.
>>>
>>
>> Here is a theory, as to where brain problems come from.
>>
>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-patchwork-mind/
>>
>> "But in the past couple of decades, scientists have learned that
>> Mendel’s understanding was incomplete.
>> "
>>
>> "Sometimes it matters which parent you inherit a gene from — the genes
>> in these cases, called imprinted genes because they carry an extra
>> molecule like a stamp, add a whole new level of complexity to
>> Mendelian inheritance.
>> "
>>
>> It is used to explain where some abnormal brain developments come
>> from, but it does not address the issue of "melon parents make
>> only melon kids".

>> We only use 10% of our brains.

It is very far from clear that that is actually true.

It's actually just an urban myth.

Those with only 10% of their brain left due to trauma
are nothing even remotely like indistinguishable
from the rest of us even after years of adjustment.

> What controls that "ratio" ?

Like need if it was true.

> That would be a *huge* and unjustifiableburden on a developing species.

Not necessarily.

> It *must* be there for a reason, evenif we don't understand what that
> is.

May well be that it gave a survival advantage in the past.

On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 09:51:56 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>

--
Norman Wells addressing trolling senile Rodent:
"Ah, the voice of scum speaks."
MID: <g4t0jtFrknaU1@mid.individual.net>

On 3/2/2024 5:51 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 07:28:20 +1100, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 14:16:16 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/2/2024 9:42 AM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 13:46:53 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
>>>> <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 02 Mar 2024 11:46:59 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> There are huge arguments over what constitutes intelligence anyway, and
>>>>>> the whole thing is a touchy woke infested subject.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not sure about arguments, but there is certainly no acceptable definition
>>>>> of intelligence with doesn't have some sort of a priori qualifications.
>>>>>
>>>>> And if you can't define something, it is a little unclear how you can
>>>>> then define an "artificial" analogue of it.
>>>>>
>>>>> And that's before you consider in an infinite universe, there may well be
>>>>> exemplars of intelligence that we could miss completely.
>>>>>
>>>>> See also: life.
>>>>
>>>> Well, it's commonly stated that there's no definition for
>>>> intelligence. However, there *must* be one because we've all bumped
>>>> into various people in the course of our lives who we simply *know*
>>>> from a short interaction with them that they're exceptionally bright.
>>>> Likewise, we've all also met dullards - and there are a *lot* more
>>>> dullards than there are really bright individuals. So it must be
>>>> possible to arrive at a definition even if (inevitably) not everyone
>>>> will agree with it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Here is a theory, as to where brain problems come from.
>>>
>>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-patchwork-mind/
>>>
>>>  "But in the past couple of decades, scientists have learned that
>>>   Mendel’s understanding was incomplete.
>>>  "
>>>
>>>  "Sometimes it matters which parent you inherit a gene from — the genes
>>>   in these cases, called imprinted genes because they carry an extra
>>>   molecule like a stamp, add a whole new level of complexity to
>>>   Mendelian inheritance.
>>>  "
>>>
>>> It is used to explain where some abnormal brain developments come
>>> from, but it does not address the issue of "melon parents make
>>> only melon kids".
>
>>> We only use 10% of our brains.
>
> It is very far from clear that that is actually true.
>
> It's actually just an urban myth.
>
> Those with only 10% of their brain left due to trauma
> are nothing even remotely like indistinguishable
> from the rest of us even after years of adjustment.
>
>> What controls that "ratio" ?
>
> Like need if it was true.
>
>> That would be a *huge* and unjustifiableburden on a developing  species.
>
> Not necessarily.
>
>> It *must* be there for a reason, evenif we don't understand  what that is.
>
> May well be that it gave a survival advantage in the past.

You can't use the fMRI photos as an indicator, as they
measure blood flow and not brain activity. and a web page
I was reading a day ago, someone who might have claimed
to be able to "read what you were thinking with fMRI",
after having examined candidates three months after
an initial scan, no longer thinks this is true. The
correlation was poor, on uni students measured three months
apart.

I don't know what measures brain activity. You can certainly
fit an electrode cap (EEG), but I don't think that gives 3D info
necessarily.

You could do a CT:PET scan of the brain (two passes),
and FDG sugar, as the uptake of sugar might indicate
a portion of brain that is working. And that causes
a different color on the second pass scan. The scans
are basically subtracted, to improve contrast from
the contrast chemical (FDG). I had that done to
shoot a 10 second video of my heart (but it's possible
the same procedure would work on a brain). You're not
allowed any sugar the day before ("24 hour keto diet").

There's an article here on MEG, and you can see how
each technique is "rather stretched".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetoencephalography

So while we can bust the myth:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_percent_of_the_brain_myth

The problem remains that:

"The hosts used magnetoencephalography and fMRI to
scan the brain of someone attempting a complicated mental task,
and found that as much as 35% was used during their test.
"

With some error bars on the 35%.

*******

And these are the electrical signals you get off your forehead,
with a couple electrodes (Ag/AgCl plus electrode cream). About
1/10th the amplitude of your heart pulse, but at quite a different
frequency from your heart. Your pulse might be 1mV (can be
seen with a Tek 7000 with the diff module plugged in and a scope
probe in each hand), while the electrodes on your head are around 100uV
(not measured with the Tek). For brain waves, battery operated
equipment is best :-)

https://www.sleepfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/SF_BrainWaves_Graphic-1024x768.jpg

https://images.saymedia-content.com/.image/t_share/MTc2MjQ4MDk0NjE3MzE1MjA3/what-are-brain-waves-theta-delta-alpha-beta-brain-waves-what-is-brainwave-entrainment.jpg

At least the second link, the image looks like it might have
come from real equipment, and not just an artistic squiggle.
That's surprisingly hard to control, so if you were thinking
"could I play a tune on that?" the answer is no :-)

As you would expect, the squiggle never stops.

Paul

On 2 Mar 2024 22:08:56 GMT, Tim Streater <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:

>On 2 Mar 2024 at 14:36:11 GMT, "R Souls" <ron.souls@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 14:19:40 +0000, Ottavio Caruso
>> <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Am 02/03/2024 um 12:20 schrieb R Souls:
>>>> On Sat, 02 Mar 2024 10:29:36 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>
>>>>> Anyone know of any studies they can point me to online on this
>>>>> subject? Intelligence is a quality which most of us have always
>>>>> assumed was inherited, and my print sources back this up. I'm just
>>>>> interested in any departure from this in more recent studies. I'd also
>>>>> like to know what the modern sources have to say about whether the
>>>>> father's or the mother's intelligence dominates in their offspring,
>>>>> should genetics indeed play a part.
>>>>
>>>> What's all this about? Are you attempting to blame your lack of
>>>> intelligence on your parents?
>>>
>>> He grew up in a council estate and never met his dad.
>>
>> Grew up? Hardly!
>
>Perhaps ArseHoles and Enrico should get a room.

Nah. Ottavio isn't my type. But you on the other hand, handsome
dashing Tory Boi... If you play your cards right I might be tempted.
How about it sweetie?

On Sat, 02 Mar 2024 20:37:13 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:

>On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 16:33:42 +0000, Ottavio Caruso
><ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Am 02/03/2024 um 14:36 schrieb R Souls:
>>> On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 14:19:40 +0000, Ottavio Caruso
>>> <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Am 02/03/2024 um 12:20 schrieb R Souls:
>>>>> On Sat, 02 Mar 2024 10:29:36 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Gentlemen,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyone know of any studies they can point me to online on this
>>>>>> subject? Intelligence is a quality which most of us have always
>>>>>> assumed was inherited, and my print sources back this up. I'm just
>>>>>> interested in any departure from this in more recent studies. I'd also
>>>>>> like to know what the modern sources have to say about whether the
>>>>>> father's or the mother's intelligence dominates in their offspring,
>>>>>> should genetics indeed play a part.
>>>>>> TIA,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> CD
>>>>>
>>>>> What's all this about? Are you attempting to blame your lack of
>>>>> intelligence on your parents?
>>>>
>>>> He grew up in a council estate and never met his dad.
>>>
>>> Grew up? Hardly!
>>
>>Well, I meant "got fatter".
>
>This is actually rather painful for me. I was abandoned on a rubbish
>dump in the Scotswood Hall area of Newcastle as a child and adopted by
>two escaped chimpanzees from a local zoo who raised me and taught me
>all I know. They did the best they could under impossible
>circumstances, since they were constantly escaping and getting
>re-captured, I had a very chaotic childhood. I suspect that accounts
>for much of my Euroscepticism.

That, and your imbecility.

On 3 Mar 2024 at 12:03:26 GMT, "R Souls" <ron.souls@aol.com> wrote:

> On 2 Mar 2024 22:08:56 GMT, Tim Streater <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 2 Mar 2024 at 14:36:11 GMT, "R Souls" <ron.souls@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 14:19:40 +0000, Ottavio Caruso
>>> <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Am 02/03/2024 um 12:20 schrieb R Souls:
>>>>> On Sat, 02 Mar 2024 10:29:36 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Anyone know of any studies they can point me to online on this
>>>>>> subject? Intelligence is a quality which most of us have always
>>>>>> assumed was inherited, and my print sources back this up. I'm just
>>>>>> interested in any departure from this in more recent studies. I'd also
>>>>>> like to know what the modern sources have to say about whether the
>>>>>> father's or the mother's intelligence dominates in their offspring,
>>>>>> should genetics indeed play a part.
>>>>>
>>>>> What's all this about? Are you attempting to blame your lack of
>>>>> intelligence on your parents?
>>>>
>>>> He grew up in a council estate and never met his dad.
>>>
>>> Grew up? Hardly!
>>
>> Perhaps ArseHoles and Enrico should get a room.
>
> Nah. Ottavio isn't my type.

I see. Met him and looked into it, eh!

--
The truth of the matter is that we Scots have always been more divided amongst ourselves than pitted against the English. Scottish history before the Union of Parliaments is a gloomy, violent tale of murders, feuds, and tribal revenge. Only after the Act of Union did Highlanders and Lowlanders, Picts and Celts, begin to recognise one another as fellow citizens.

Tam Dalyell

On 02/03/2024 15:57, Jethro_uk wrote:
> Either
> that, or IQ tests aren't actually measuring*intelligence*. And if that
> is the case, what is the point of them, and why would anyone pay for
> one ?

Well whatever IQ tests *do* measure, was found by the military as being
an excellent indicators of 'officer material', by industry as excellent
indicators for board level management, and by universities as an
excellent indicator for suitability for high level academic education.

The people who say there is no such thing are those for whom that
statement is self evidently true, in my experience.

--
Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early
twenty-first century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a
globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and,
on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer
projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to
contemplate a rollback of the industrial age.

Richard Lindzen

On 02/03/2024 20:28, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> We only use 10% of our brains. What controls that "ratio" ?
> That would be a*huge* and unjustifiable burden on a developing
> species. It*must* be there for a reason, even if we don't understand
> what that is.

I attended a talk by a roboticist, SHE said 'we found out what the other
90% is used for when we tried to get our robot to *walk on two legs*'.

Apparently *not falling over* takes a huge amount more computational
power than deciding whether to go to McDonalds or Burger King

--
The higher up the mountainside
The greener grows the grass.
The higher up the monkey climbs
The more he shows his arse.

Traditional

On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 13:28:34 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On 02/03/2024 15:57, Jethro_uk wrote:
>> Either
>> that, or IQ tests aren't actually measuring*intelligence*. And if that
>> is the case, what is the point of them, and why would anyone pay for
>> one ?
>
>Well whatever IQ tests *do* measure, was found by the military as being
>an excellent indicators of 'officer material', by industry as excellent
>indicators for board level management, and by universities as an
>excellent indicator for suitability for high level academic education.
>
>The people who say there is no such thing are those for whom that
>statement is self evidently true, in my experience.

Or Lefties.

On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 12:05:20 +0000, R Souls <ron.souls@aol.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 02 Mar 2024 20:37:13 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 16:33:42 +0000, Ottavio Caruso
>><ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Am 02/03/2024 um 14:36 schrieb R Souls:
>>>> On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 14:19:40 +0000, Ottavio Caruso
>>>> <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Am 02/03/2024 um 12:20 schrieb R Souls:
>>>>>> On Sat, 02 Mar 2024 10:29:36 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gentlemen,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anyone know of any studies they can point me to online on this
>>>>>>> subject? Intelligence is a quality which most of us have always
>>>>>>> assumed was inherited, and my print sources back this up. I'm just
>>>>>>> interested in any departure from this in more recent studies. I'd also
>>>>>>> like to know what the modern sources have to say about whether the
>>>>>>> father's or the mother's intelligence dominates in their offspring,
>>>>>>> should genetics indeed play a part.
>>>>>>> TIA,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> CD
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What's all this about? Are you attempting to blame your lack of
>>>>>> intelligence on your parents?
>>>>>
>>>>> He grew up in a council estate and never met his dad.
>>>>
>>>> Grew up? Hardly!
>>>
>>>Well, I meant "got fatter".
>>
>>This is actually rather painful for me. I was abandoned on a rubbish
>>dump in the Scotswood Hall area of Newcastle as a child and adopted by
>>two escaped chimpanzees from a local zoo who raised me and taught me
>>all I know. They did the best they could under impossible
>>circumstances, since they were constantly escaping and getting
>>re-captured, I had a very chaotic childhood. I suspect that accounts
>>for much of my Euroscepticism.
>
>That, and your imbecility.

You're the ghost of Dave Plowman and ICTFP.

On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 13:31:33 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 02/03/2024 20:28, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>> We only use 10% of our brains. What controls that "ratio" ?
>> That would be a*huge* and unjustifiable burden on a developing
>> species. It*must* be there for a reason, even if we don't understand
>> what that is.
>
> I attended a talk by a roboticist, SHE said 'we found out what the other
> 90% is used for when we tried to get our robot to *walk on two legs*'.
>
> Apparently *not falling over* takes a huge amount more computational
> power than deciding whether to go to McDonalds or Burger King

Bipedal walking is essentially controlled falling.

It must confer some considerable advantage, given the sacrifices it
requires as a species.

On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 13:28:34 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 02/03/2024 15:57, Jethro_uk wrote:
>> Either
>> that, or IQ tests aren't actually measuring*intelligence*. And if that
>> is the case, what is the point of them, and why would anyone pay for
>> one ?
>
> Well whatever IQ tests *do* measure, was found by the military as being
> an excellent indicators of 'officer material', by industry as excellent
> indicators for board level management, and by universities as an
> excellent indicator for suitability for high level academic education.

So one conclusion is intelligence isn't needed for those activities ?
> The people who say there is no such thing are those for whom that
> statement is self evidently true, in my experience.

I didn't say there is no such thing as "intelligence". What I did say is
whatever it may be lacks definitive objective criteria.

On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 17:53:16 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 13:31:33 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> On 02/03/2024 20:28, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>> We only use 10% of our brains. What controls that "ratio" ?
>>> That would be a*huge* and unjustifiable burden on a developing
>>> species. It*must* be there for a reason, even if we don't understand
>>> what that is.
>>
>> I attended a talk by a roboticist, SHE said 'we found out what the other
>> 90% is used for when we tried to get our robot to *walk on two legs*'.
>>
>> Apparently *not falling over* takes a huge amount more computational
>> power than deciding whether to go to McDonalds or Burger King
>
>Bipedal walking is essentially controlled falling.
>
>It must confer some considerable advantage, given the sacrifices it
>requires as a species.

Yes, but what, though? I initially thought 'so you can reach fruit on
trees more easily' but on further reflection, that doesn't add up.

On 03/03/2024 17:42, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 13:28:34 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 02/03/2024 15:57, Jethro_uk wrote:
>>> Either
>>> that, or IQ tests aren't actually measuring*intelligence*. And if that
>>> is the case, what is the point of them, and why would anyone pay for
>>> one ?
>>
>> Well whatever IQ tests *do* measure, was found by the military as being
>> an excellent indicators of 'officer material', by industry as excellent
>> indicators for board level management, and by universities as an
>> excellent indicator for suitability for high level academic education.
>>
>> The people who say there is no such thing are those for whom that
>> statement is self evidently true, in my experience.
>
> Or Lefties.

Is there a difference?

--
“Progress is precisely that which rules and regulations did not foresee,”

– Ludwig von Mises

On 03/03/2024 18:39, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 17:53:16 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
> <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 13:31:33 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> On 02/03/2024 20:28, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>> We only use 10% of our brains. What controls that "ratio" ?
>>>> That would be a*huge* and unjustifiable burden on a developing
>>>> species. It*must* be there for a reason, even if we don't understand
>>>> what that is.
>>>
>>> I attended a talk by a roboticist, SHE said 'we found out what the other
>>> 90% is used for when we tried to get our robot to *walk on two legs*'.
>>>
>>> Apparently *not falling over* takes a huge amount more computational
>>> power than deciding whether to go to McDonalds or Burger King
>>
>> Bipedal walking is essentially controlled falling.
>>
>> It must confer some considerable advantage, given the sacrifices it
>> requires as a species.
>
> Yes, but what, though? I initially thought 'so you can reach fruit on
> trees more easily' but on further reflection, that doesn't add up.

What it does is allow locomotion to be separate from tool handling. And
allow good climbing skills

No other species can run AND throw a spear.

--
“Progress is precisely that which rules and regulations did not foresee,”

– Ludwig von Mises

On 03/03/2024 17:57, Jethro_uk wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Mar 2024 13:28:34 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> On 02/03/2024 15:57, Jethro_uk wrote:
>>> Either
>>> that, or IQ tests aren't actually measuring*intelligence*. And if that
>>> is the case, what is the point of them, and why would anyone pay for
>>> one ?
>>
>> Well whatever IQ tests *do* measure, was found by the military as being
>> an excellent indicators of 'officer material', by industry as excellent
>> indicators for board level management, and by universities as an
>> excellent indicator for suitability for high level academic education.
>
> So one conclusion is intelligence isn't needed for those activities ?
>
No, one conclusion is that whatever IQ measures which is normally called
high intelligence IS required for those positions

>> The people who say there is no such thing are those for whom that
>> statement is self evidently true, in my experience.
>
> I didn't say there is no such thing as "intelligence". What I did say is
> whatever it may be lacks definitive objective criteria.

The definition is 'scores well in IQ tests'. Note the Q. It means
'quotient'.

No one denies a labrador has intelligence. Just not a lot really, as
anyone who has trained one knows.

--
“Progress is precisely that which rules and regulations did not foresee,”

– Ludwig von Mises

Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote
>>> Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote
>>>> Cursitor Doom wrote
>>>>> Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote
>>>>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote

>>>>>>> There are huge arguments over what constitutes intelligence
>>>>>>> anyway, and
>>>>>>> the whole thing is a touchy woke infested subject.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not sure about arguments, but there is certainly no acceptable
>>>>>> definition
>>>>>> of intelligence with doesn't have some sort of a priori
>>>>>> qualifications.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And if you can't define something, it is a little unclear how you
>>>>>> can
>>>>>> then define an "artificial" analogue of it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And that's before you consider in an infinite universe, there may
>>>>>> well be
>>>>>> exemplars of intelligence that we could miss completely.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> See also: life.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, it's commonly stated that there's no definition for
>>>>> intelligence. However, there *must* be one because we've all bumped
>>>>> into various people in the course of our lives who we simply *know*
>>>>> from a short interaction with them that they're exceptionally bright.
>>>>> Likewise, we've all also met dullards - and there are a *lot* more
>>>>> dullards than there are really bright individuals. So it must be
>>>>> possible to arrive at a definition even if (inevitably) not everyone
>>>>> will agree with it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Here is a theory, as to where brain problems come from.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-patchwork-mind/
>>>>
>>>> "But in the past couple of decades, scientists have learned that
>>>> Mendel’s understanding was incomplete.
>>>> "
>>>>
>>>> "Sometimes it matters which parent you inherit a gene from — the
>>>> genes
>>>> in these cases, called imprinted genes because they carry an extra
>>>> molecule like a stamp, add a whole new level of complexity to
>>>> Mendelian inheritance.
>>>> "
>>>>
>>>> It is used to explain where some abnormal brain developments come
>>>> from, but it does not address the issue of "melon parents make
>>>> only melon kids".
>>
>>>> We only use 10% of our brains.
>>
>> It is very far from clear that that is actually true.
>>
>> It's actually just an urban myth.
>>
>> Those with only 10% of their brain left due to trauma
>> are nothing even remotely like indistinguishable
>> from the rest of us even after years of adjustment.
>>
>>> What controls that "ratio" ?
>>
>> Like need if it was true.
>>
>>> That would be a *huge* and unjustifiableburden on a developing
>>> species.
>>
>> Not necessarily.
>>
>>> It *must* be there for a reason, evenif we don't understand what that
>>> is.
>>
>> May well be that it gave a survival advantage in the past.
>
> You can't use the fMRI photos as an indicator, as they
> measure blood flow and not brain activity. and a web page
> I was reading a day ago, someone who might have claimed
> to be able to "read what you were thinking with fMRI",
> after having examined candidates three months after
> an initial scan, no longer thinks this is true. The
> correlation was poor, on uni students measured three months
> apart.

> I don't know what measures brain activity.

Nothing does on the question of what percentage
of the brain ever gets used over a lifetime.

> You can certainly fit an electrode cap (EEG),but I don't think that
> gives 3D info necessarily.

And even if it did, that doesnt tell you which parts
of the brain never get used over an entire lifetime.

> You could do a CT:PET scan of the brain (two passes),
> and FDG sugar, as the uptake of sugar might indicate
> a portion of brain that is working.

Not necessarily, and not over a lifetime either.

> And that causes a different color on the second pass scan.The scans are
> basically subtracted, to improve contrastfrom the contrast chemical
> (FDG). I had that done to
> shoot a 10 second video of my heart (but it's possible
> the same procedure would work on a brain). You're not
> allowed any sugar the day before ("24 hour keto diet").

No evidence that sugar use indicates brain actually used at all.

> There's an article here on MEG, and you cansee how each technique is
> "rather stretched".

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetoencephalography

> So while we can bust the myth:

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_percent_of_the_brain_myth

> The problem remains that:

> "The hosts used magnetoencephalography and fMRI to
> scan the brain of someone attempting a complicated mental task,
> and found that as much as 35% was used during their test.
> "

And that's just the one test, says nothing useful about
the entire lifetime.

> With some error bars on the 35%.

> *******

> And these are the electrical signals you get off your forehead,
> with a couple electrodes (Ag/AgCl plus electrode cream). About
> 1/10th the amplitude of your heart pulse, but at quite a different
> frequency from your heart. Your pulse might be 1mV (can be
> seen with a Tek 7000 with the diff module plugged in and a scope
> probe in each hand), while the electrodes on your head are around 100uV
> (not measured with the Tek). For brain waves, battery operated
> equipment is best :-)

> https://www.sleepfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/SF_BrainWaves_Graphic-1024x768.jpg

> https://images.saymedia-content.com/.image/t_share/MTc2MjQ4MDk0NjE3MzE1MjA3/what-are-brain-waves-theta-delta-alpha-beta-brain-waves-what-is-brainwave-entrainment.jpg

> At least the second link, the image looks like it might have
> come from real equipment, and not just an artistic squiggle.
> That's surprisingly hard to control, so if you were thinking
> "could I play a tune on that?" the answer is no :-)

> As you would expect, the squiggle never stops.

But its far from clear what the squiggle actually indicates.

On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 06:10:44 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>

--
FredXX to Rodent Speed:
"You are still an idiot and an embarrassment to your country. No wonder
we shipped the likes of you out of the British Isles. Perhaps stupidity
and criminality is inherited after all?"
Message-ID: <plbf76$gfl$1@dont-email.me>

On 02/03/2024 10:29 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:

> Gentlemen,

> Anyone know of any studies they can point me to online on this
> subject? Intelligence is a quality which most of us have always
> assumed was inherited, and my print sources back this up. I'm just
> interested in any departure from this in more recent studies. I'd also
> like to know what the modern sources have to say about whether the
> father's or the mother's intelligence dominates in their offspring,
> should genetics indeed play a part.
> TIA,
>
> Well... there are these (both turned up by MS CoPilot):

<https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-intelligence-hereditary/>

QUOTE:
Scientists have investigated this question for more than a century, and
the answer is clear: the differences between people on intelligence
tests are substantially the result of genetic differences.
ENDQUOTE

<https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/thinking-positively-the-genetics-of-high-intelligence>

QUOTE:
We found that high intelligence is familial, heritable, and caused by
the same genetic and environmental factors responsible for the normal
distribution of intelligence. High intelligence is a good candidate for
"positive genetics" - going beyond the negative effects of DNA sequence
variation on disease and disorders to consider the positive end of the
distribution of genetic effects.
ENDQUOTE