what is the origin of intelligence?
114772
degrees of faith in various sources of information
861488
There would be two schools of thought there;  The first being that maths is logic, there can be no invention by definition of logic.  The second being that mathematics is, if you will, only the language invented by humankind in order to utilise the discovery of intrinsic logic. E.g.; something is the opposite of nothing. Something as well as something are somethings. The real Question is; which came first? (We'll tolerate neither chicken nor egg jokes from the peanut gallery thnx)
406084
Piaget thought the key to understanding human intellectual development was not in what children get wrong, but how they get it wrong. It was clear to Piaget that childish reasoning is not merely less accurate than adult reasoning; it is qualitatively different (Wadsworth 1996). From this point forward, Piaget dedicated himself to answering the question "How does knowledge grow?"\n\nPiaget eventually came to believe that intelligence is a form of adaptation, wherein knowledge is constructed by each individual through the two complementary processes of assimilation and accommodation. He theorized that as children interact with their physical and social environments, they organize information into groups of interrelated ideas called "schemes". When children encounter something new, they must either assimilate it into an existing scheme or create an entirely new scheme to deal with it (Wadsworth 1996).\n\nPiaget also believed that intellectual development occurs in four distinct stages. The sensorimotor stage begins at birth, and lasts until the child is approximately two years old. At this stage, the child cannot form mental representations of objects that are outside his immediate view, so his intelligence develops through his motor interactions with his environment. The preoperational stage typically lasts until the child is 6 or 7. According to Piaget, this is the stage where true "thought" emerges. Preoperational children are able to make mental representations of unseen objects, but they cannot use deductive reasoning. The concrete operations stage follows, and lasts until the child is 11 or 12. Concrete operational children are able to use deductive reasoning, demonstrate conservation of number, and can differentiate their perspective from that of other people. Formal operations is the final stage. Its most salient feature is the ability to think abstractly.
737722
All life, by definition, experiences noxious stimuli . . .pain . . .and tries to move away from it.  We then learn from that response. Learning is required for intelligence. Therefore, true "organic", or growing, intelligence would require such programming, unless the variable of movement and that all living things move (such as moving away from noxious stimuli) is critically influential in the sequence of learning and intelligence, which is a variable not well understood in contemporary science, yet.  Then, if the artificial intelligence does not have the ability for movement, "organic" or growing intelligence would be alternative.
223780
I think intelligence is when we think logically about something. Like if we are taught that when metal gets hot, it turns red, and we see a stove we stay away, that's intelligence.\n\nWhen it's red, and you don't know any better, but veer away because it doesn't seem right or safe, that's instint. With instint, you don't have to learn. You just know it.
197085
The idea that the world didn't come about by chance and evolution, at least not the way we think about it: ID says it was designed intelligently. \n\nMost science doesn't like to explain why things happen, just how. ID is trying to make God the 'why'. It's one last chance to make sure our kids come out of school with no idea at all how the world works, ensuring America's place in the world.
983206
Information and enlightenment came about because of the early beliefs.  Thus, many people still adhere to basic ideas and origins of what is now the diverse ideas of life.  The root cause of all things is the ultimate truth.
1173302
The relationship you refer to works quite well BETWEEN species. However all humans belong to the same species, so it is totally invalid to attempt to apply it.\n\nWithin species there is no evidence that such a relationship applies. If it did then newborn infants would be far smarter than adults since their brains are over twice as large as ours relative to their body weight.\n\nWe can't even work out what intelligence IS, nor how to measure it. We certainly don't have a clue what determines intelligence.
432397
its really a intelligent question . how did U get it on this earth?
1167284
Logical proof of human creation.\n\nA solid fact is: men and women exist. No one can deny this. We do not consider birth, but the very start of people. It means, purely logically seen\nStatement 1: either an intelligence created us.\nStatement 2: either we created ourselves\nStatement 3: either we have existed always; there was no begin.\nStatement 4: either we evaluated from something primitive by chance.\nStatement 5: or we evolved from something primitive by selection\nThe five statements exclude each other. Other possibilities do not exist.\n\nStatement 3\nThere is not any proof or any clue, that shows, that we have had eternal life. Nobody believes in eternal life. So we can exclude this possibility.\n\nStatement 2\nIf we created ourselves then the only possibilities are\nStatement 6: we existed before we created ourselves;\nStatement 7: we did not yet exist before we created ourselves.\nStatements 6 and 7 exclude each other\n\nStatement 6: there is no need to create ourselves, because we existed already. And that implies eternal life, which we excluded. So number 6 is excluded.\nStatement 7: we did not yet exist before we created ourselves. Then we were not able to create ourselves so number 7 is excluded.\nSo number 2 is excluded.\n\nProvisional conclusion\nOnly\nStatement 1: either an intelligence created us.\nStatement 4: either we evolved from something primitive by chance.\nStatement 5: or we evolved from something primitive by selection\nare still to investigate.\n\nStatement 4\nNature tends to create chaos, never to order. Scientists who deal with statistics calculated expectation times – before people come out – much longer than the age of the universe calculated by astronomers. The earth seems much younger than the universe.\nThe greatest problem is how cyclic biological processes have to be started. If one of the parts of the chain is still missing, there is no chain at all. The chain has to exist immediately.\nHowever the possibility of this kind of evolution is not exactly zero, the chance on our existence is so extremely small, that we have to exclude this way.\n \nStatement 5\nWe should have been evolved from primitive ancestors by selection. The same arguments as with statement 5 occur. Primitive creatures themselves are not able to organise better life forms. The selection should have been determined by survival of the fittest. Nevertheless now the chance of evolution seem to be a little bit smaller than evolution with only change. The expectation times before people come out remain much longer than the age of the universe.\nAnd the: who or what makes the selection rules?\n\nEnd conclusion\nThe only possibility that remains, is the creation by a very clever creator. This has been proven by logical arguments. More scientific if is not possible.
321864
current thought approximate its origin to India circa 1500 B.C. by a well known mathematician named Aryabhata. \n\nthe invention of zero is an important development in human abstract thought because the counting system was initially created to "count" things and not "nothing".  \n\ni am pretty sure it was also concieved independently by other cultures as well but written and archeological evidence at present best support the India origin.\n\ncheck wikipedia for "zero".
709446
if it was created by a creator, what then created the creator?\n\nOur physics breaks down inside an Event Horizon so there's really no way of currently knowing as to how it formed.  All we know is we're here, and by random chance.  \n\nCreationism is not a plausible explanation nor is "intelligent design."
265371
I'm an individual learner under this method of categorization.\n\nBased on your question, you might be interested in reading about multiple intelligences theory if you haven't already done so.  It's quite interesting.  I've attached a couple of links in case you're interested.
508415
As the third child of the third child who placed first,second or third in his class,I grew up confident about my mental ability.Then at college intelligence was defined as all around general ability.Everyone knows who leads in science and technology,mathematics and certain related skills.Environment affects IQ; and it may bolster intelligence in a crisis.For example,I read a news story of a man who used the door of a fridge and a broom to scull to safety during the disaster in Loisiana.No matter what his IQ score says, I consider him ingenious and a genius to think of such an idea.I made the Dean's List(180/810)but I have not arrived;neither do I worry about IQ.I work at developing all around ability for crisis moments.
36663
The answer to this question depends on the definition of Artificial Intelligence (AI). Let's say that an entity is intelligent if it passes the Turing Test, meaning that you can't tell that it's not human just by chatting with it over the Internet. Note that this definition is strongly linked to the human experience and thus to the human body and human culture. This implies that we might not only need an artificial brain, but also an artificial body (sensors and actuators) to obtain AI.\n\nNow, if we just focus on the processing power of the brain (which is only part of the story), then Vadim Gerasimov (see source) gives us an idea: "The number of transistors in 500 Pentiums (4, 1.5 GHz) is roughly the same as the number of neurons in cerebral cortex. The firing frequency is 1,000,000 times higher in the Pentium. Transistors are less sophisticated than neurons. For example, transistors cannot move and change connections." Note that, to implement the flexibility of the neurons, the higher 'clock speed' might very well be required and might not even suffice.\n\nThe kind of processing power suggested by Gerasimov is well within our reach. The hard part is to write the software that allows the entity to evolve so that it becomes intelligent. We do not really know how to write this software, but of course quite a few scientists are investigating this. One of my favorite AI researchers is Rodney Brooks (see source). Do check out his work!
627308
maybe the origin of species has something
206623
Genetics determine the structural capacity of the brain, but the later development of neuroconnections depends on how stimulated the brain is.  stimulation comes from the interaction with environment and from biological factors such as diet and metabolism.  \nHowever, we are still wondering what is intelligence, so we should start there.