Is faith in induction negatively correlated with Intelligence?

[Kriminal99]

Consider this:

 

A friend of mine washes his car remote and it breaks. He then washes his key chain USB stick and assumes that it is also broken because he inferred that electronics break when exposed to water from his first experience.

 

I was my car remote and it breaks. I wash my USB stick, but wonder if this situation is different from the car remote situation. I test the stick and it works, and I figure out that only complete circuits that can be shorted by water are vulnerable to water. The Usb stick has no internal power source so as long as it has time to dry before use it is fine.

 

My question is, is it true the more I doubt what I know the faster I extract information from my surroundings?

[Buffy]

So you're inferring that "doubt" is equivalent to "intelligence?"

 

It is not really difficult to construct a series of inferences, each dependent upon its predecessor and each simple in itself. If, after doing so, one simply knocks out all the central inferences and presents one's audience with the starting-point and the conclusion, one may produce a startling, though perhaps a meretricious, effect, :)

Buffy

[ughaibu]

I figure out that only complete circuits that can be shorted by water are vulnerable to water

You've drawn a conclusion the validity of which depends on the reliability of induction.

[Kriminal99]

So you're inferring that "doubt" is equivalent to "intelligence?"

 

It is not really difficult to construct a series of inferences, each dependent upon its predecessor and each simple in itself. If, after doing so, one simply knocks out all the central inferences and presents one's audience with the starting-point and the conclusion, one may produce a startling, though perhaps a meretricious, effect, :)

Buffy

 

equivalent and correlated are not the same

 

You've drawn a conclusion the validity of which depends on the reliability of induction.

 

The end result of recognizing the limits of induction isn't that we throw away all knowledge. It is that we look for and be open to anything that might disprove what we believe. Thus, at the time I came to the conclusion that it was the lack of power source that saved the usb stick, I would consider anything that could disprove the claim and find nothing.

 

The thing that caused me to doubt the USB stick was broken in the first place was that it was not the same as the remote.

[DougF]

Kriminal99

 

Consider this:

 

A friend of mine washes his car remote and it breaks. He then washes his key chain USB stick and assumes that it is also broken because he inferred that electronics break when exposed to water from his first experience.

 

I was my car remote and it breaks. I wash my USB stick' date=' but wonder if this situation is different from the car remote situation. I test the stick and it works, and I figure out that only complete circuits that can be shorted by water are vulnerable to water. The Usb stick has no internal power source so as long as it has time to dry before use it is fine.

 

My question is, is it true the more I doubt what I know the faster I extract information from my surroundings? [/quote']

If your friend jumped of a 10 story building and died, I would suggest you don't start doubting his fate, It is good to question things,

but time is to short to linger on them for very long.

[Buffy]

equivalent and correlated are not the same.

I realize that, and echoing ughaibu, validation based on "correlation" is induction!

 

We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful what we pretend to be, :)

Buffy

[Thunderbird]

 

My question is, is it true the more I doubt what I know the faster I extract information from my surroundings?

 

 

 

 

It seems to me this would depend on how well complex information is processed between presumptive memory centers or attractors, and new data at hand. The memory acts as an attractor, in that it process information based upon its internal structure, it sees only what it is familiar with. We have many of these memory structures and they pass information from one to another in a hierarchal pattern until they settle into a stable cycle between memory and what we are observing as potentially new information.

 

So the more complex attractor patterns or paradigms you have the better and faster you can learn something new.

 

The really remarkable thing is that, in psychological systems, there seems to be a global order to these autopoietic attractors. The central claim of the psynet model is that, in order to form a functional mind, these structures must spontaneously self-organize into larger autopoietic superstructures. And perhaps the most important such superstructure is a sort of "monster attractor" called the dual network.

The dual network, as its name suggests, is a network of pattern/processes that is simultaneously structured in two ways. The first kind of structure is hierarchical. Simple structures build up to form more complex structures, which build up to form yet more complex structures, and so forth; and the more complex structures explicitly or implicitly govern the formation of their component structures. The second kind of structure is heterarchical: different structures connect to those other structures which are related to them by a sufficient number of pattern/processes.

 

ON THE ALGEBRAIC STRUCTURE OF CONSCIOUSNESS

Ben Goertzel

Psychology Department

University of Western Australia

 

 

http://www.goertzel.org/dynapsyc/1996/consalg.html

 

 

 

All creation or destruction of forms, or morphogenesis, can be described by the disappearance of the attractors representing the initial forms, and their replacement (by capture) by the attractors representing the final forms. Rene Thom

[HydrogenBond]

One often learns more from mistakes than successes. With a success there is no need to question or change. But with a mistake one has to question and adapt.

 

One can see this dynamics with parents and children. The parents learn from their mistakes and try to share their wisdom with their children. But many children go out and repeat the mistakes because they can learn more. Just being told what to do may be an easier path to the final best end, but it doesn't challenge the mind and allow the person to develop the greatest sense of self reliance.