Hacker News Reader

Comment by mach1ne | Hacker News Reader

This seems to study intelligence as in IQ adjacent items, rather than intelligence as in distilling the algorithm which makes us tick.

View on HN

There's no good definition of intelligence, and certainly not one that can be operationalized in one or two numbers. So instead, this study correlates the outcome of quite a few tests that are commonly assumed to correlate with intelligence, and correlates it with an (also not well-understood) measurement of the brain. "Whole-brain connectivity" is best at predicting the outcome of the tests, but I couldn't find how they define it.

If I read your comment well, I think I have the contrary impression.

I think what they're measuring here goes much further than an IQ score, and is an attempt at triangulating something more fundamental.

Could be. I glanced the neuroscientific theories of intelligence the paper referenced and they seemed to be mostly concerned with dividing general intelligence into abstract sections the purpose of which seems to be to define differences between humans within these abstract sections. Below an image I found depicting the core of Process Overlap Theory [1].

[1] https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S01602896220001...

Where's the line?

They're barely even related. It's like the difference between, on one hand:

a) studying the structure and functions within fruits, and similarities in structure and functions between different types of fruits, and on the other hand

b) ranking fruits by how tasty they are when made into pies, and closely inspecting them in order to find their intrinsic pie potential.

I think you mean "conscience".

Actually,

"conscience" relates to ethics and morals, whereas

"consciousness" relates to theory of mind and self-awareness;

the latter term pertains more directly to the theories of cognitive neuroscience under discussion here.

And I really hate that they're homophones.

They’re not homophones…

"Conscious" and "conscience" aren't homophones?

Sorry I didn't specify the root of both words are homophones, I figured that would be obvious from context.

This comment confused me so I looked up the definition of homophone[0].

Turns out it can mean two words sounding the same (definition 2) or merely sounding alike (definition 1). Personally I always thought homophones had to sound identical. But you are right, they are homophones in the broad sense.

I think they have the same root [1].

[0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homophone

[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/usage-of-consc...

Any difference quickly disappears once you take into account various accents and dialects. It's a lot like pin and pen. They're technically not by the strictest sense of the word homophones because there should be a slight difference in how you pronounce them, but in practice, there is no difference.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com