Hmm, I see from OP’s response that he is thinking that EACH human will have a doubling of IQ per decade once we can all read. I certainly can’t see where he’d get that from. It seems most likely that high literacy high wealth countries would be near the limits of individual IQ achievable from good nutrition, education, and pervasive literacy.
I thought, incorrectly apparently, he was referring to a collective intelligence of humanity.
It seems clear enough to me that humanity functions as a Searlian “Chinese room” style intelligence at least. In that sense, the infrastructure, the technology available to that room to integrate the individuals in the room, as well as the total number of individuals available to be installed in the room, limits the effective intelligence of that room.
If you don’t like the metaphor of the Searlian “Chinese room,” think of a multiprocessor where each core is a human, and the communications and shared memory and other linkages are internet, written documents, and so on.
Then turning the last 1⁄6 of humanity literate (world literacy rate currently about 5⁄6) might give a 16ish % boost in total intelligence, plus a bit more since excess capacity over what is available for pure survival is what we get to contribute to the total, and presumably illiterate people are working at close to breakeven (just effectively smart enough to stay alive).
But the idea that individual intelligence will change because literary rate goes from 84% to 99+%, I don’t get that at all.
Hmm, I see from OP’s response that he is thinking that EACH human will have a doubling of IQ per decade once we can all read. I certainly can’t see where he’d get that from. It seems most likely that high literacy high wealth countries would be near the limits of individual IQ achievable from good nutrition, education, and pervasive literacy.
I thought, incorrectly apparently, he was referring to a collective intelligence of humanity.
It seems clear enough to me that humanity functions as a Searlian “Chinese room” style intelligence at least. In that sense, the infrastructure, the technology available to that room to integrate the individuals in the room, as well as the total number of individuals available to be installed in the room, limits the effective intelligence of that room.
If you don’t like the metaphor of the Searlian “Chinese room,” think of a multiprocessor where each core is a human, and the communications and shared memory and other linkages are internet, written documents, and so on.
Then turning the last 1⁄6 of humanity literate (world literacy rate currently about 5⁄6) might give a 16ish % boost in total intelligence, plus a bit more since excess capacity over what is available for pure survival is what we get to contribute to the total, and presumably illiterate people are working at close to breakeven (just effectively smart enough to stay alive).
But the idea that individual intelligence will change because literary rate goes from 84% to 99+%, I don’t get that at all.