History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

WHEE and the ‘ultimate IQ test’

July 20th, 2014 · 1 Comment


These articles on IQ are misleading, to downright obscure. What does it mean to say someone has an IQ over 200? A hundred over mean. The nonlinear scale used for statistics doesn’t compute in the other direction: the equivalent in stupidity would be zero IQ. C’mon. Explain the math to me, I must be stupid.
Let’s consider another form of ‘intelligence testing’. I have long had an ‘intelligence test’ in my WHEE at history-and-evolution.com, the test is 1. to understand what was discovered, 2 to explain the discovery, perhaps after completing #1, if ever. I have long understood that it shows a problem too hard for even intelligent people to even understand, let alone solve. I am exempt from any claims to be ‘smart’ here as the discoverer of a pattern (see below):

This is about the titled ‘phenomenon’ of the ‘eonic’ or ‘macro’ effect, a complex, supercomplex puzzle whose existence is discovered in incomplete form. The category is history, but the problem solving requires finding ‘evolution’ in history, and that requires defining evolution which requires seeing through Darwinism as a false theory! The test is to understand what the ‘discovery’ is, and then to try and understand the right framework to understand it. If the category is ‘evolution’ then we must consider how we observe: answer, we don’t, except in this one case, apparently: we get a glimpse.
This problem is supercomplex because it demands first the creation of the right categories to be used for depiction, then explanation, thus to begin asks a solution to the question of what means are to be used? Science as known won’t work. We can generalize ‘science’ to ‘systems analysis’, to study the behavior of a system that may not be causal. But this is not enough, because ‘systems analyis’ must be balanced with ‘aesthetic analysis’, perhaps. Religious interpretation has long been used by religionists, but those have failed, despite stumbling on the enigma of the Axial Age. Einstein had this problem, but he was lucky: tensor math already existed, and he had Grossman to help him adapt it. After that he hired a math calculator, to do his math. He said he wasn’t very smart in math!
Well, if you say so.

The ‘aesthetic’ issue can’t be avoided: we must distinguish what dynamics produces good or bad art! We must adapt systems analysis to the emergence of values in a set of facts. This means that current science won’t work, and yet the problem discovered shows a clear variant of a causal system. But the problem shows a clear dynamics of ‘freedom’ inside a ‘causal, or semi-determinate’ system. The result like a boy with a yoyo requires computing physical dynamics and the input of an agent. In principle that one is quite soluble with a computer, say… But the equivalent is the field of creative endeavor in special periods of history: men create an input registered by the system as output of its own input.

I think I discovered a puzzle here, but not its full solution. It requires data over tens of millennia at the centuries/decade level. We have that for a very limited range.
I do not, btw, count in the intelligence test set before those presumed ‘smart’. People who discover something are often less smart than those who have to understand what was discovered. This may be due to opaque explanation, a head start in reading a thousand books plus about every sector of world history, etc… It may be due to inspiration of unknown source. Consider the autistic abilities known to exist in music, for example: these aren’t computable in standard IQ terms.
It is very hard to grasp what is being described in the puzzle of the macro effect. But it is not all that hard. It is just that preconceptions tend to make it seem implausible. A very smart person, Jaspers, discovered the Axial Age, but a lot of people smarter than he have written books trying to debunk the phenomenon, or confuse its case study: the pattern violates preconceived ideas.

In fact, we can see that ‘intelligence testing’ would be undefined here. The problem has so many facets it would be misleading to test for it, save that it is a valid contrast/critique of conventional IQ testing. But people with high IQ’s should be warned to adopt caution about their claims.

I am not sure, but I doubt the current range of tested IQ would indicate ability to understand this puzzle. How do I know that? Almost the entire shebang of high IQ people in science can’t solve the simple puzzle of where Darwinism goes wrong!
This shows how people can be smart, but not about foundational issues like ‘what is science’, ‘what is art’, what is….

The issues proceed from ‘what is science’, to ‘what about teleology and science’, and thence to such questions, large in number: is explanation to be ‘materialist’ or is it to be in the context of idealism, Kantian versus Hegelian, say. This is crucial because to observe ‘phenomenon’ may be a step to inferring noumenon.

This goes on and on. Check out the text of WHEE. You will at first see that you flunk the test. Again, I am not the example to follow, but you can, if you like, take up to ten years to finish the test: reading thousands of books, etc… You must form an image of sequences of ancient history, at least partially….

Clearly the idea of test doesn’t really apply here.

BTW, the ‘discovery’ was of a macro sequence, or a cyclical phenomenon of ‘punctuated equilibrium’, to suggest a system disturbed by an input element. That ‘reduction’ is problematical, but works if taken as a descriptive. There is a distinction of ‘theories of the evidence’ and ‘theories to explain the evidence’. The theory of the evidence is of a system that punctuates in cycles where the punctuations are called ‘transitions’.
This is a way to describe a discovery, not yet its explanation. But the resemblance to a developmental or ‘evolutionary’ category is highly suggestive of the route to explanation, in the form of science still unknown to us. A machine that can discriminate good and bad art is one prerequisite.
And that seems impossible and suggests a design argument. We cannot reject design arguments, but they offer no easy solution to our puzzle and would become part of the puzzle.

Again, comparison with the author or discoverer is not the point. The discovery is not so hard as the solution demanded. The tooth fairly could have guided someone to discovery, or else someone with, say, Asperger’s Syndrome simply intuits a problem that confounds you. You may be smarter than he, but still you are in trouble as to ‘smart explanation’.

Tags: General

1 response so far ↓

Leave a Comment