Researchers arrived at the theory of intelligence in the nervous system, by reviewing brain imaging studies
Diagram showing brain areas that are important for intelligence.
The place: University of Irvine-California. The date: September eleventh, 2007. The question that has troubled thinkers, philosophers and scientists for thousands of years has been resolved. Where in the brain does intelligence lie?
In a comprehensive review of 37 brain imaging studies related to intelligence, Richard Heyer of the University of California-Irvine and Rex Young of the University of New Mexico found a distinct link between intelligence and neurobiology. Their P-FIT theory - Parieto-Frontal Integration Theory - identifies a neural connectivity system related to intelligence. This system particularly involves areas of the frontal and parietal lobes.
Their report, which includes peer comments from 19 researchers, appears online in Bethune Behavioral and Neuroscience.
"New research in neuroscience suggests that intelligence is related to the way information travels throughout the brain," says Heyer, a professor of psychology at the School of Medicine, and a long-time researcher of human intelligence. Once we know where the stations are, we can investigate how they relate to intelligence."
The information suggests that some of the areas of the brain associated with intelligence are the same areas associated with attention and memory, as well as more complex functions such as languages. Hayer and Yang say that this possible unification of cognitive functions indicates the possibility that the level of intelligence is based on the efficiency of the information processing process in the neural networks in the frontal - parietal lobes.
Studies that deal with intelligence through brain imaging are relatively new, and Iyer himself performed some of the initial studies only 20 years ago. There is still controversy over how intelligence should be defined and measured, but Hayer and Yang found surprising consistency in the studies they covered - despite the fact that the studies presented a variety of different approaches.
Psychologist Earl Hunt from the University of Washington wrote, in the opinion on the article that, "The P-FIT model of Hayer and Young shows how much we have progressed towards understanding the biological basis of intelligence. Twenty-five years ago, researchers in the field engaged in tireless debates about the relationship between the size of the skull and the results of intelligence tests. Yang and Hayer have taken advantage of the huge advances in brain measurement that have occurred in the past 25 years, and are now able to present the more sophisticated approach. According to Young and Hayer, the differences in intelligence between different people depend, among other things, on the individual differences in specific areas of the brain and the connections between them."
Hayer and Yang arrived at some of the original findings through intelligence studies. In a 2004 study, they found that areas associated with general intelligence are located all over the brain, and that a single 'intelligence center' such as the frontal lobe is unlikely. In a 2005 study, Heyer and Young discovered that while there are no differences in general intelligence between men and women, women have more white matter and men have more gray matter in the brain. From this, the researchers concluded that different types of brain patterns and designs can produce equivalent intelligent performance, and that there is no single neuroanatomical structure that determines the level of general intelligence.
"Genetic research has shown that high (or low) intelligence is heritable, and since genes work through biology, there must be a biological basis for intelligence," Heyer said. "We still have a long way to go before we understand the details, but our P-FIT model provides a framework for testing new hypotheses in future experiments."
Link to the original article
12 תגובות
Noah -
My previous comment presented an argument without supporting evidence, because the argument was not mine and I do not believe it. I brought it to demonstrate to you an argument that cannot really be refuted.
The problem with the supernatural in general is that it is constantly changing. He has no fixed theory that science can disprove. Even if we succeed in implanting thoughts in the brain, or reading minds, this still will not disprove the concept of 'soul'. I can already imagine devout believers saying that "Science may influence the mind, but the mind stands by and looks on gloomily, and cannot do anything about it. But when you die, then it will be time for the soul to reckon."
or similar nonsense.
The point is you have no scientific way to disprove the supernatural. Science cannot disprove theories that change all the time.
Perhaps, as you say, the day will come when the children of the believers today will switch to a sweeping belief in science. I find it hard to believe, but maybe.
Good Day,
Roy.
Roi-
There is only one truth in the world. Scientific proof can sometimes be wrong, but you will agree with me that if we succeed in implanting thoughts in the brain by deciphering their operation pattern, the research results will not be ambiguous.
Of course, there will be people who will not believe that thoughts are material, but believe me their children's children will believe, because it is a matter of time to change the entire prevailing human perception regarding the creation of anti-intelligence.
Sorry if I sounded blunt, I didn't mean to offend you. I just can't stand someone making an argument without any supporting evidence, and your previous response was exactly that.
Noah -
Your exaggeration is out of place. Please read my response again. I agree with you about the mind, but I quoted the words of some believers in the concept of the soul, to make it clear to you that it will not be easy (and maybe even impossible) to disprove the supernatural. There is a difference between what you and I think is logical or convincing, and what other people think.
If you want the original article, leave your email here and I'll send it to you. I went through it while writing this article.
Best regards,
Roy Cezana.
Roi-
Sharpen your knowledge of neuroscience and philosophy and see that everything has a material explanation. Although theoretical since it is not yet possible to prove that thoughts are material, it is certainly much more convincing than inventing that a supernatural soul resides in our body and expresses itself with the help of what the mind allows it to do.
Does that make any sense to you?
Have you ever thought of trying to prove it, or maybe try to disprove it by bringing up alternatives?
Open your mind man...
Noah -
Those who believe in the soul are more sophisticated than you give them credit for.
For example, it has been known for a hundred years that people who survive after certain brain accidents (such as an iron rod passing through the brain), change their personality from end to end.
Apparently, such a testimony was supposed to cancel the existence of the soul, but most people manage to ignore it very well. An alternative explanation provided to me by a nice nice religious guy was that the mind exists, but it only works through what the body allows it to.
That is, the mind can be stupid or smart, generous or stingy, but if the mind does not allow excessive wisdom, then you will be stupid even if your mind is smart, simply because the mind has to pass through your mind.
So, unfortunately, I find it hard to believe that this research will collapse religions and belief in the supernatural.
You are not normal!
No one here understands the potential of this research?
If you prove that the basis of intelligence is in the brain, it violates all the hypotheses about supernatural beings supposedly in our bodies, which are used to explain the wonder of human intelligence.
Such research will lead to the conclusion that everything in this world is material, and there is nothing that is supernatural, and this will eliminate all religions in the world (assuming that uneducated people will be able to understand the results of the research, it will take several generations), and will lead to a series of experiments that will prove the molecular structure of thought !
This is amazing news. I hope they have good evidence. I couldn't get access to the original article (costs money); Anyone here subscribe to Cambridge?
To Roy Cezana:
If it is relative, i.e. fully ordered, then it can also be quantified by determining the average as the median and setting it to 100, for example, and determining an arbitrary standard deviation, for example, 10% of the average, then adjusting to a normal distribution of the results.
I wonder if these research editors have this nervous system after all - research loses its responses very quickly and falls into some remote drawer of a university that employs sages with a very limited guarantee, if it is not really valuable. So to strive for another insignificant research?
Intelligence is not quantifiable, but it is relative
You can say that Einstein was more intelligent than the average retard, right?!
I assume that the intelligence tests are mainly based on long-term memory and the ability to process data efficiently.
I thought I would find at least 10 comments here!!
I wonder what the purpose of these studies is? When it is known in advance that intelligence cannot be quantified just like love, everyone does it in their own way..thinks differently about the same problem and only the actual results in the case of sales or meeting certain or logical conditions in the case of science will determine if the direction is right at that time!!
But the experiment is interesting and its refutation by other researchers will not be late in coming!!