Sí, en parte es lo que decís.

Supongo que se trata de definir la inteligencia como la conjunción de la
capacidad de almacenar datos, relacionarlos e inferir posibilidades futuras.

El tema de la distinta inteligencia entre los seres (animales y entre los
humanos) consistiría en la capacidad fisiológica (por ejemplo) de llevar
acabo esa memoria y esa tarea de análisis y conclusiones, así como la
cantidad y tipos de experiencias y datos almacenados...

La verdad, no sé cómo juega la parte artística en la inteligencia. Para mí
el arte no es inteligente de por sí, sino netamente emocional.

En cuanto a la heredabilidad en esta nueva teoría, no lo plantea. El autor
va más para el lado de construir una computadora capaz de recabar y analizar
datos en forma inteligente...es decir, en base a los datos recabados dar
predicciones.

:)

Slds a todos

Anabel
Argentina

----- Original Message -----
From: "versee2" <versee2@...>
To: <tgecv@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, December 31, 2004 4:23 PM
Subject: RE: [tgecv] Un nuevo libro sobre inteligencia Fw: [mPositive] New
book: A new take on human intelligence



Hola,
En relación con el libro que comentas, me parece por encima que se trata
de escribir una definición más de inteligencia y poco más.
Con el lenguaje se puede jugar todo lo que se quiera y en el momento que
se introduce la idea de predecir el futuro, se habla del tiempo y por
relación del pasado y de la vida misma, es decir, de todo...Así, es
difícil equivocarse :-)
Pero si somos un poco más estrictos, por poner un ejemplo, la poesía o
la imaginación en ocasiones no tienen gran relación con "predecir" y sin
embargo para mí son capacidades relacionadas con la inteligencia, es
decir, con funciones cerebrales elementales comunes.
Ya me gustaría saber si dice algo el libro de la heredabilidad de esa
"capacidad de predecir" porque ese no es un tema muy comercial que se
diga :-)
Con todo, no es una mala aproximación al concepto, capacidad de predecir
implica la existencia de conceptos o ideas y un tipo de expresión futura
mediante la "utilización de funciones de relación"
FELIZ AÑO y buenas predicciones
Jose

-----Original Message-----
From: anabel@... [mailto:anabel@...] On Behalf Of
Anabel Pérez
Sent: viernes, 31 de diciembre de 2004 19:34
To: Mensa Argentina
Cc: M-Spanish@yahoogroups.com; tgecv@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [tgecv] Un nuevo libro sobre inteligencia Fw: [mPositive] New
book: A new take on human intelligence

Hola a todos.

Disculpen que no traduzca todo el artículo, pero es muy largo.

Básicamente se trata de una teoría expuesta por un especialista en
computadoras en donde plantea que la inteligencia es "la capacidad de
predecir".

No es en realidad una teoría "científica" ya que no está contruída sobre
el
método científico de experimentación, etc. Es más, a mi juicio, una
teoría
filosófica en espera de cientifizarse :P

Pero me pareció bastante interesante.

Les mando a todos un abrazo

Y que tengan un Muy Feliz Año Nuevo!

Anabel
Argentina


----- Original Message -----
From: Fred Carlin
To: mPositive@yahoogroups.com
Cc: Mensa Canada - MSN ; Mensa Israel / Talpiot_
Sent: Friday, December 31, 2004 8:12 AM
Subject: [mPositive] New book: A new take on human intelligence


I have mixed feelings as to whether there is any actual substance in the
following ABCNews.com article about intelligence, or whether the article
is
just an end-of-year space filler based on a new book. I actually
strongly
disagree with the essence of the book's view; to me, Barry Bonds'
ability to
hit home-runs is based on memory, knowledge, steroids [that he's
acknowledged having used, but says he didn't know they were steroids]
and an
extraordinary athletic ability. Certainly intelligence is also relevant
to
Barry Bonds' skills; his brain synapses obviously work much faster at
analayzing a ball's trajectory than do other ball players' brain
connections. My take on this is that Bonds' intelligence relates to
trajectory analysis; his ability to hit home runs comes from that plus
training, outstanding athletic skills and, admittedly, enhancement. It's
very different than, say, the brain synapses of Leonardo da Vinci, which
could make fast connections from among a multitude of disparate fields.
Plus
Leonardo didn't take steroids! <g>

Fred





ABCNews.com
Science and Technology News
Thursday, December 30, 2004

----------


A New Take on Human Intelligence
Updated 8:23 PM ET, December 30, 2004
What does slugger Barry Bonds have in common with renowned theoretical
physicist Stephen Hawking?
Their brains work in much the same way.
At least that's consistent with a fascinating new theory about the
nature of
intelligence.
For many centuries humans have wondered about what it is inside their
noggins that makes them so much smarter than other animals. Some of the
brightest intellects have struggled, and failed, to define intelligence.
Is it some abstract gift that simply makes us smart? Is there a mind,
separate from the brain, that allows us to add two and two, and reflect
upon
the cosmos, and compose operas? Are we unique on the planet, or do other
mammals also have intelligence, though less sharply tuned?
Our lack of understanding of what it is that allows us to understand is
underscored by the inane definitions of intelligence found in almost any
reference book. My computer's built-in encyclopedia defines it as the
"capacity to learn or to understand." The massive dictionary that sits
beside my desk defines it as "mental ability."
Gee, thanks.
Historically, the study of intelligence belongs in the domain of
psychologists, and more recently, neuroscientists. So it may be a little
unsettling to learn that one of the freshest attempts to get a handle on
intelligence comes from outside both those fields.
Going Out on a Limb
Jeff Hawkins is a computer wizard who is best known as the founder of
both
Palm Computing and Handspring, but in recent years he has become
obsessed
with the human brain. He doesn't cut it open, and he doesn't peer inside
with any of the nifty new gadgets that have allowed scientists to
pinpoint
which areas of the brain "light up" when stimulated. Instead, he just
thinks
about it.
All that thinking has resulted in a book, "On Intelligence," which
Hawkins
has co-authored with Sandra Blakeslee, who writes about science for The
New
York Times, and in the interest of full disclosure, is an old friend of
mine.
Hawkins is a little out on a limb, because there isn't a lot of evidence
to
back up his theory, and he could turn out to be dead wrong, but at least
he
has provided what he describes as a "new framework" for understanding
intelligence.
Briefly put, Hawkins thinks intelligence is nothing more than memory,
and
the ability to predict.
Hawkins, who longs for the day when he and his colleagues will be able
to
produce an artificial "brain" that can think better than humans and not
be
encumbered with all the baggage, like emotions, that can distort our
reasoning. He doesn't think these futuristic computers will ever look
like
us, or feel like us, or be the chummy robots shown in sci-fi flicks.
But they might be able to run our air traffic control systems, or
explore
other planets and do so with extraordinary intelligence.
But first, he says, computer scientists have to throw out much of what
they
have believed and adopt his theory. The human brain doesn't work like a
computer. So scientists are on the wrong track if they think they're
going
to build a super fast computer that can think like Stephen Hawkings. Or
even
Barry Bonds.
Of Memories and Predictions
It all came to him in April 1986 when he was sitting in his Northern
California office, just thinking, of course.
"I was contemplating what it means to 'understand' something," he
writes.
As he glanced around his office he saw things he was familiar with,
furniture, books, that kind of stuff. And suddenly, he says, he had an
"aha
moment."
He "understood" his office. That's because his eyes fell upon a blue
coffee
mug that he knew, from personal memory, wasn't supposed to be there. And
therein lies the essence of Hawkins' theory.
The human brain is filled with memories from previous experiences. That
memory bank provides the basis for what we expect to encounter in the
world
around us. So if you look around the room in which you are sitting, you
will
see objects that your brain has already predicted will be there, based
on
its memories.
Intelligence really gets down to work when the prediction turns out to
be
wrong -- as in the case of a blue coffee mug that we suddenly realize
shouldn't be there. Our eyes send messages to the brain, telling it that
something is amiss, and the brain amends its memory bank and sends a
message
back down the chain of command, telling the observer what to do. Or
perhaps
more accurately, predicting what will happen if the observer takes a
particular action.
That may not seem important if the invading object is just a coffee mug,
but
it could make a lot of difference if it's a lion on the loose.
Why We All Can't Bat 1,000
That is, of course, a horribly truncated version of Hawkins' theory,
because
it's pretty hard to reduce an entire book to a few paragraphs. But he
lays
out his case convincingly, and it does help explain a lot.
As in the case of Bonds, the famed slugger really shouldn't be able to
hit
the ball so often and so hard that most pitchers prefer to make him walk
instead of letting him hit. How could anyone know exactly where a
baseball,
traveling at more than 100 mph, will be at the precise moment for the
bat to
meet the ball?
Many have argued that it's just not possible to do that, at least very
often.
Hawkins' theory suggests that all those years of swinging a bat have
produced an enormous memory bank that is so complete that Bonds can
predict
where the ball will be even before it leaves the pitcher's hand. That's
one
manifestation of what we call "intelligence."
So, one might ask, why can't we all do it?
Because we don't all have the same experiences, or the same body, or
even
the same interests.
But, Hawkins argues, we all do essentially the same thing. We all
predict
what we are going to find in the world around us, based on past
experiences
and a warehouse full of memories. And that, he says, is intelligence.
Lee Dye's column appears weekly on ABCNEWS.com. A former science writer
for
the Los Angeles Times, he now lives in Juneau, Alaska.
###


_________________________________________________



[Se han eliminado los trozos de este mensaje que no contenían texto]



Las páginas Web relacionadas con esta lista son
http://www.molwick.com/tgecv.es/
http://www.molwick.com/memint.es/


Para cancelar su suscripción a este grupo, envíe un mensaje de correo-e a:
tgecv-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com


Enlaces a Yahoo! Grupos


tgecv-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

http://es.docs.yahoo.com/info/utos.html






---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.804 / Virus Database: 546 - Release Date: 30/11/2004