Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcvax!ukc!edcastle!edai!cam
From: cam@edai.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm    cam@uk.ac.ed.edai   031 667 1011 x2550)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: IQ is not static, genetic differences inconsequential.
Message-ID: <519@edai.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 20 Aug 89 15:04:04 GMT
References: <3549@csd4.milw.wisc.edu> <4431@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> <3558@csd4.milw.wisc.edu> <504@dcdwest.UUCP> <3612@csd4.milw.wisc.edu> <485@edai.ed.ac.uk> <3799@csd4.milw.wisc.edu>
Reply-To: cam@edai (Chris Malcolm)
Organization: University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh
Lines: 46

In article <3799@csd4.milw.wisc.edu> markh@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes:

[The question is whether there are limitations on the powers of the
human mind, the examples discussed being limits on recursion and
abstraction, allegedly shown by the fact that we can't understand
sentences of arbitrary complexity.]

>And here a very simple experiment would make total mincemeat of the supposed
>conclusions that such linguistic studies would draw.  And the resulting
>conclusion to be drawn here is that there is, indeed, no inborn limitation on
>the size of requisite human stack memory needed to process such a sentence.
>
>    The experiment is simply to practice processing and producing such
>sentences, but progressively longer and longer.  I find that with a little
>practice one can easily handle sentences like this 2 or 3 times longer.
>So here:
>
>the worm the fish the boy the girl the teacher the government the pilgrims
>the European monarchy expelled founded established flunked kissed caught
>ate died.
>
>off the top of my head.  (This is actually the short version of an entire
>story).
>
>   Other supposed limitations that other studies refer to can be disposed of
>in a similar fashion.

Ok. I can currently lift about 100lbs with one arm. Studies show that
with proper training I can double or treble this. Hence, by your
argument, there is no theoretical limit on my strength at all - with
proper training I could lift 1,000 tons. Do you agree?

>   But as far as adressing the abstraction issue, I think you hit a foul
>ball.  What I was referring to was the ability to "intelligently apply
>thought to the thought process" (as one person who responded to me in E-Mail
>said), in such a way as to learn how to learn, learn how to learn how to learn,
>etc.  Each level of abstraction literally places you on whole new level of
>intelligence.

Am I correct in guessing that you think you know how to train people to
reach levels of intelligence which would make today's (accidentally
produced) geniuses look like mental defectives?
-- 
Chris Malcolm    cam@uk.ac.ed.edai   031 667 1011 x2550
Department of Artificial Intelligence, Edinburgh University
5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK