Intelligence, Memory and Consciousness

Submitted by augustin on Mon, 2009-07-06 21:32

I am trying to figure out how related are intelligence, memory, and consciousness. How much is one a function of the others?

Of course, I understand the generally accepted definition of each of those terms... or maybe not. Try this: if asked, how would you define memory? Easy? Ok, then: how would you define intelligence? consciousness? I am a coward: I am not going to try to define them myself! In fact, after a cursory research, I found that not everybody agrees on their definition. It's not surprising.

What I am mostly interested in, is how related they are. Is one a function of the other? Does intelligence increase with consciousness? Do we remember more things with more consciousness? I can observe my own memories, so I have a feel for what memories are... but is walking down memory lane a form of altered consciousness, a projection of one's consciousness to the past? If so, can we project our consciousness to the future?

I also have an idea of what consciousness is. I can observe in myself moments when I operate from a slightly higher level of consciousness. Actually, I equate consciousness to awareness. Maybe I am wrong to do so.

The one that puzzles me the most is intelligence. Somehow, I am not able to directly observe intelligence within myself! Don't laugh ;) ! Seriously: in the rare occasions my wife tells me how intelligent I am, I do not recognize the thing she is pointing at as intelligence but as something more crude, often something like self-interest.

Anyway, those are some starting thoughts on topics that regularly preoccupy what passes for my mind...

If I get some definite answers to the scores of questions above, I'll let you know ;)

Cross posted at my personal blog: Intelligence, Memory and Consciousness.

Community topics: 
Intelligence
Memory
Consciousness

Comments

Submitted by Discordia on Mon, 2009-07-06 22:06.

I won't attempt to define all three, but I learned something very enlightening for me about memory the other day. As a child, I didn't celebrate any holidays or birthdays, because I was a Jehovah's Witness. It was pointed out to me the other day via YouTube video posted by another exJW-turned-psychologist that the lack of these annual "memory hooks" leads to the inability to remember the past. It is so true. I thought for a long time that maybe I had blocked out a lot (incidentally, my brother says this, too) but I think it has more to do with this "hook" idea. In my mind, the memories that stand out really jumble together, and it's very difficult for me to remember at what age a particular event took place. I'm better able to associate events to where I was living at the time, because we moved around a lot, but still, it's fuzzy.

So, I would not necessarily relate memory to intelligence. Mostly I score pretty high on aptitude-type tests, although my memory is not so clear.

I probably would also not relate intelligence to consciousness, if consciousness to be defined as "awareness." Again, I relate this to my childhood upbringing. I score pretty high on reading proficiency tests, which I think relates to the fact that I was forced to read a lot of adult-level material at a very young age, and to try and make sense of it. I was given the skills to act with intelligence, as was everyone else around me. I have a lot of negative things to say about JWs, but one thing is for sure, they are very literate people. If literacy is in anyway linked to intelligence - which I believe it is - then intelligence is not related to consciousness, because people in highly controlled groups such as the JWs and other such religious/political groups are not generally aware or conscious of what is going on around them, in their own environment.

I hope that makes sense. :)

Submitted by hotspring on Tue, 2009-07-07 09:32.

There's a fabulous book called "The Spell of the Sensuous" that talks about the shifts and changes that took place as we went from an oral culture to a written culture, and how that affected our consciousness. Essentially, it disconnected us from the sensual world of the environment that much more so, and all the information contained therein. We no longer had to "read" the landscape for our survival as much as we previously had. We stopped using our memory to retrieve share and carry information and history via oral tradition, and started to use memory retention aides external to us (paper, pen). The abandonment of oral culture probably made us rely less on our memories and more on these synthetic memory aides.

I would propose that people who are conscious of their environment (ie, people who rely on direct sensory data as their primary source of information) are much more intelligent than those who rely on secondary or outdated bits of data that have been recorded. Recording data in written form has led to specialization, abstraction, and fragmentation. The amount of data we store externally to us may be an indication of our lack of intelligence. We stop relying on instincts and rely more on "experts." That said, some writing is more than mere recording. Some writing is actually chanelling. I myself love reading and writing, even thougth I think that a shift to it destroyed a certain way of life that was much more intelligent.

We don't know what consciousness is, at least I sure as hell don't, but I'm willing to make a go at it. I don't think its the same as memory or intelligence, I think that it is bigger than both of these. It's something like witnessing awareness, and it only exists in the moment. I would say that the ability to look back on the past and recall memories and have thoughts about them isn't really pure consciousness, it's memory. The ability to "reframe" memories is intelligence. But consciousness is bigger than these two, i think. Maybe what I'm saying is that you need consciousness to have memory and intelligence, but you don't need memory and intelligence to have consciousness.

Submitted by Discordia on Tue, 2009-07-07 11:05.

I used the example of highly controlled groups, because that is what I have experience with. I've been a member of two. (Apparently I had to learn something from the second one that I didn't pick up the first time around). Within these groups, I've met many well-read, intellectually intelligent people, people who could put many of us to shame with their knowledge of history and politics. While some of the younger folks mostly just recited (from memory) a bunch of words that held little actual meaning to them, there were certainly others more seasoned clearly possessing the ability to critically and creatively analyze information and keep up very lively debates.

Personally, I stayed out of many of these debates, because I knew I still had much to learn. This is my way. Also, even though I did not have the same intellectual intelligence as some of these individuals, I did have the experiential or intuitive intelligence enough to recognize that they were also possessing the characteristics of a group under the subtle influences of mind control (which, I learned after the fact is very common among radical left-wing political groups). Certainly, the term "consciousness" has many varied definitions, but I'm certain that if you participated in either of the groups that I had, you too would sense a particular lack of it (consciousness, that is), even if it were not quite definable.

The subject of oral traditions certainly is fascinating, and this also occurred to me in discussing memory. I am sure that the human memory is capable of much more than we use it for today. I've always been especially intrigued by the fact that the ancient Incas managed to build a great empire without the use of a writing system. Could you imagine running the United States empire today without a writing system? Especially with all the information necessary to run our many mega corporations? It is nearly unfathomable.

Still, I do not necessarily see how the leap is made to suggest that "the amount of data we store externally... may be an indication of our lack of intelligence." I do not suggest the transition from oral tradition to written tradition has not had its drawbacks, but it has had its benefits as well. In fact, I think you at least as much as anyone else here often use books as a reference for discussions and arguments, even for this particular discussion about the possibility that recorded data may decrease our intelligence.

I believe that there is an inherent danger in total dependence on recorded "outdated bits of data," but isn't that more a sign of personal laziness than simply a sign of the times? Do you think there weren't lazy people in the days of oral traditions who didn't make the effort to use their memory retention abilities to the fullest extent possible? Who maybe only memorized half the story, and spent the rest of their time chasing women, or napping away the afternoon? Why is one bad and the other good?

In my opinion, the ideal is always balance, the balance that would come from using both the abilities to record data and to engage our memories, to rely both on "direct sensory data" and on secondary forms (which is most likely simply the "direct sensory data" of those who've come before us) in an effort to understand our world from many directions.

Submitted by Discordia on Tue, 2009-07-07 12:23.

Just a little more food for thought:

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/07/stephen-hawking-the-planet-...

Marnia's picture

Submitted by Marnia on Tue, 2009-07-07 16:21.

Interesting.

Submitted by augustin on Wed, 2009-07-08 00:38.

First a precision: I never said nor wanted to imply that memory, intelligence and consciousness are the same. Obviously they are different beasts. The questions are: what are they and how much the lack, abundance and qualitative nature of one affects the others?

From the interesting Stephen Hawking article Discordia linked to:

In the 18th century, there was said to be a man who had read every book written. But nowadays, if you read one book a day, it would take you about 15,000 years to read through the books in a national Library. By which time, many more books would have been written."

It was once calculated that it was impossible for an individual to read all the comments posted in one single popular blogging web site like http://dailykos.com/ even if that individual dedicated 24h a day to this task! So forget about reading the internet! ;) It often leads me to ponder on the amount of comments, blog entries (especially in personal blogs like my own), etc. that are never read by anybody but their authors Thinking about all of this, as a webmaster, when building new web sites, I shy more and more away from traditional forums to more specific tools for a more efficient exchange of information.. Compare this fact with what is said in the Metaphors of Memory article (link below).

Coming back to both Hotspring and Discordia's exchange on the value and use of the written memory: I used to like reading, and could spend a whole night reading, going to sleep only after having finished the book. Increasingly, however, I find it more and more difficult to read books. When I am able to get immersed into a book and finish it quickly, I notice that in the process, I have completely lost my consciousness/awareness. In other words, I would read the book as an escape mechanism, very much like people would watch TV or go to the movies. On the other hand, when I try to get to the substantifique moëlle of a book (lit. the "substance-full marrow", i.e. "the very substance" of the book), I find it hard to read more than half a page so much I am trying (without really succeeding) to get beyond a mere intellectual understanding of what is being written.

That's why I enjoy your comments: you help me to ponder further the role and value of literacy, intellectual knowledge, the difference between the written word and the book of nature...

Hotspring:

We don't know what consciousness is, at least I sure as hell don't, but I'm willing to make a go at it. I don't think its the same as memory or intelligence, I think that it is bigger than both of these. It's something like witnessing awareness, and it only exists in the moment. I would say that the ability to look back on the past and recall memories and have thoughts about them isn't really pure consciousness, it's memory. The ability to "reframe" memories is intelligence. But consciousness is bigger than these two, i think. Maybe what I'm saying is that you need consciousness to have memory and intelligence, but you don't need memory and intelligence to have consciousness.

Nice try at answering my original question. Thanks. You are probably on to something.

I don't know any more than you do what consciousness as an absolute is. But again, I am trying to start from what I can directly experience in my life. That's why I defined consciousness are simple awareness. At least, it gives me something that I can directly observe, and thus, I have a good feel for what consciousness is at my level. I could fantasize and imagine what consciousness is at higher levels... but it's more practical to think about my current peak peak, otherwise known as a molehill. consciousness, understand what I do to get there, and do it more often so that my current peak becomes my future plateau.

As to intelligence, the only way that I can relate to what it is, is thinking about synaptic connections within our brain. I think I would tentatively define intelligence as the ability to connect different ideas.

Submitted by augustin on Mon, 2009-07-06 22:26.

that by posting here, I would get some interesting feedback. Thanks Discordia.

Yes, you do make sense. :) I do relate what you are saying with similar observations and musings. You seem to negate a direct relationship between the three, and I agree with your reasoning, but I can find other examples that would point at a connectivity.

Most importantly, it would also all depend on the definition we give to each term. I equate 'consciousness' to 'awareness', and maybe I am wrong to do so. Similarly, can we say that 'memory' is related to the ability to date certain memories? Is literacy really a measure of one's intelligence? And is consciousness a guarantee for goodness (in other words, can't "evil" beings be conscious, too)?

More questions ;)

I am interested in these topics not as a form of intellectual masturbation (on topic for this site?) but mostly on a practical level: observing the three within myself and understand ways to increase one or the other...

Precisely because I am really interested AND because I don't have any clear cut answer, I am very eager to read all of your comments. I'll read and re-read them, take them home at night and ponder what your shared for a while, tempting to see how it all fits. So, thanks again.

Submitted by hotspring on Tue, 2009-07-07 09:08.

I'd love to think about all this with you, but have only a moment on the computer. There is a FABULOUS book called "Metaphors of Memory" by Douwe Draaisma, Cambridge University Press, that explores a lot of this. http://www.douwedraaisma.nl/english/index_en.html

Submitted by hotspring on Tue, 2009-07-07 09:10.

Actuall, it looks like that link above is reviewing someone else's book on Memory! Here's a briefer description:

Metaphors of Memory
A History of Ideas About the Mind

What is memory? It is at the same time ephemeral, unreliable and essential to everything we do. Without memory we lose our sense of identity, reasoning, even our ability to perform simple physical tasks. Yet it is also elusive and difficult to define, and throughout the ages philosophers and psychologists have used metaphors as a way of understanding it. This book takes the reader on a guided tour of these metaphors of memory from ancient times to the present day. Crossing continents and disciplines, it provides a compelling history of ideas about the mind by exploring the way these metaphors have been used - metaphors often derived from the techniques and instruments developed over the years to store information, ranging from wax tablets and books to photography, computers and even the hologram.

Submitted by augustin on Tue, 2009-07-07 23:55.

It seems the book you are referring to is fully introduced here:
http://www.douwedraaisma.nl/english/translations/metaphors_of_memory.html

I am fascinated by the comparison made between Thomas Aquinas and Albert Einstein. Both of them have been or would have been qualified as 'intelligent' by their contemporaries, yet according to the above article, Aquinas' genius resided in his prodigious memory, and Einstein's in his imagination. Thus, 13th century intelligence and 20th century intelligence are not the same.

Thanks for the reference.