The human brain seems to be a universal learner. There are some concepts that no human can fully grasp, but those seems to be concepts that are too large to fit in the working memory of a human. And humans can overcome those working memory limitations with a pen and paper, a smartphone, a laptop or other technological aids. There doesn’t seem to be anything a sufficiently motivated and resourced intelligent human is incapable of grasping given enough time.
Is this true for a human with IQ 70?
Sorry, I actually wanted to ask whether this is true for a human with IQ 80.
Oops, let me try again… is this true for a human with IQ 90?
Okay, I am giving up. Could you please tell me the approximate IQ where this suddenly becomes true, and why exactly? (I mean, why 10 points less than that is not yet universal, but 10 points more cannot bring any advantage beyond saving some time.)
.
To explain: You seem to suggest that there is a black-and-white distinction between intelligences that are universal learners and intelligences that are not. I do not think that all humans are actually universal learners (in the sense of: given eternal youth and a laptop, would invent quantum physics). Do you think they are? Because if they are not, and the concept is black-and-white, then there must be a clear boundary between the humans who are universal learners and the humans who are not, so I am curious where exactly it is. The remaining alternatives are either to admit that no human is a universal learner, or that the concept is actually fuzzy. But if it’s fuzzy, then there might be a place for a hypothetical intelligence that is yet more of a universal learner than the smartest human.
Is this true for a human with IQ 70?
Sorry, I actually wanted to ask whether this is true for a human with IQ 80.
Oops, let me try again… is this true for a human with IQ 90?
Okay, I am giving up. Could you please tell me the approximate IQ where this suddenly becomes true, and why exactly? (I mean, why 10 points less than that is not yet universal, but 10 points more cannot bring any advantage beyond saving some time.)
.
To explain: You seem to suggest that there is a black-and-white distinction between intelligences that are universal learners and intelligences that are not. I do not think that all humans are actually universal learners (in the sense of: given eternal youth and a laptop, would invent quantum physics). Do you think they are? Because if they are not, and the concept is black-and-white, then there must be a clear boundary between the humans who are universal learners and the humans who are not, so I am curious where exactly it is. The remaining alternatives are either to admit that no human is a universal learner, or that the concept is actually fuzzy. But if it’s fuzzy, then there might be a place for a hypothetical intelligence that is yet more of a universal learner than the smartest human.