I agree that abstract thought is a good indicator of intellect. However, I don't think the idea of intellect can be characterized entirely by the ability for abstract thought.
In fact, I think that abstract thought and communication are simply products of an underlying functionality. Specifically a psychologist named Cattell identified two brain functions called crystallized and fluid intelligence. Generally speaking crystallized intelligence encompasses accumulated knowledge and learned behaviors while fluid intelligence encompasses executive functions and short term memory. In order to quantify intellect I think it's necessary to understand the foundation on which it is built. I think the issue is far more complex than just the ability for abstract communication. On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 10:46 PM, Ash <[email protected]> wrote: > I think in this instance abstract symbols are a good indicator of > intelligence, the idea of multiple intelligences (or aptitudes) seems like > the type of theory that would avoid the campy, 'gift from god' type > reasoning. With diverse symbols to communicate, we can reenact our tactic in > a hunt, tell stories about herd movements or plant/animal characteristics. > It is the next obvious evolutionary step, as only so much can be carried in > one mind or passed on verbally our knowledge of the world and the tools we > use to carry it on must progress. It seems that the more refined and diverse > an intelligence the more robust representations can be offered by the holder > of it, that could be an assumption or bias though. > > > On 5/10/2011 3:19 PM, Chuck Bowling wrote: > > What is intellect? > > On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 8:18 PM, the taoist shaman <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> is language a good or poor indicator of intellect ? >> >> > >
