Pastor AIO:

The point that I'm trying to make is that the various intelligences are just arbitrary constructs that Gardner has come up with and they are not distinct identifiable entities/functions in their own right (with perhaps an organ each).  If they were then Gardner would have to demonstrate which part of the brain (or organ) is in charge of which intelligence and demonstrate that that part of the brain is attenuated in the person that lacks that particular intelligence.

I'm surprised you would say the above since it's not far-fetched. Neuroscience has told us what part of the brain is responsible for different things - vision, language, logic, consciousness, etc. But I see the conversation's back to Mr Gardner. You believe a list from him would be fine.

Pastor AIO:
On the other hand I'm saying that Intelligence is simply the ability to receive and process information regardless of what the information is.  That some people excel in one area of endeavour while others excel in other areas is due, not to have different distinct types of intelligence but rather due to having different inclinations.  There are as many different inclinations, or combinations of inclinations, as there are, were, and will be human beings.  To catalogue them all Gardnerian style will leave us with an endless list of intelligences.  (I might yet regret I said this cos I do think there is a way of cataloguing, not only intelligence, but information and the entirety of phenomenal existence.  But that is another story.  That system as little to do with Gardner's in any case.)

It would have been interesting to see your system. While I am convinced by my own observations about multiple intelligences, a theory first made up by Gardner, his classification is not set in stone. It’s simply a useful classification that has helped many make sense of certain issues in human behavior. I find it excellent for explaining the concept of multiple intelligences. Like I have already said, you can break them further and you can regroup. When I am talking “multiple intelligences”, I am not automatically talking Gardner.

Pastor AIO:
You are right that Inclination is not static.  A six year old boy has no interest in girls.  He positively can't stand them.  7 years later something starts to stir and he starts to find them  . . . hmmm, yummy . . . .

The fluidity, at times, of inclinations is observable in situations other than boy to adult transition.

Pastor AIO:
I'm not quite sure what you mean by inclinations being stronger than desire.  Please expand on that.

I do accept that Intelligence can be applied to contrivance.  In fact when I was thinking about my previous post I also thought of the possibility of great musicians like Duke Ellington who said that the reason he decided to play piano was because he realised that whenever someone sat down to play a piano there was always a pretty girl at the end of the piano staring at the player with adoring eyes.
However I think that though the initial attraction to an activity may be due to ulterior motive eventually the person has to discover that there is in fact a natural inclination for the thing otherwise his efforts would not bare fruit. 

Contrivance leading to discovery of an INCLINATION (an in-born tendency) but not intelligence (an in-born ability)? Now, I don’t find an ounce of logic in that. But it helps clarify a thing or two about your position. Continuing, does this mean that if due to hardship or whatever a kid decides to go into 419 and he does it better than Ezego, we can conclude that he had a natural inclination for that which it took contrivance to bring to the fore?

Pastor AIO:
I do believe that contrivance can sharpen your intelligence for a certain activity however what it cannot do is bring it to a degree of Excellence. 

Thus you agree we can talk in terms of “intelligence for a certain activity”. An in-born ability to make a distinction in a certain activity. Our views are much closer than it appears.

Now, this has been a very interesting, I should say intelligent, conversation. 

Just in case you fellas don't know I'm reading, I am o. And that post by Pastor which MyJoe called A-grade is excellent. Did you contrive to write it? Lol. I agree patapata.

MyJoe. Interesting interests and hobbies you have. When Pastor said he found it improbable that there were organs responsible for multiple intelligences, I'd agree with him than not. The reason is because modern intelligence testing draw mainly on the abilities of the brain that are known to us like logic, memory etc. and not emotional, musical etc. But on the other hand, the brain remains on organ or network of organs that man has little knowledge about. What then is to say that there really aren't parts of the brain responsible for every kind of intelligence that can be imagined?

One thing I don't understand though is how one can have an ability or intelligence and be oblivious to it till by some accident one discovers it. I'd imagine this was highly improbable. A distinction should be made then between intelligence which births excellence as Pastor put it and ability plus contrivance which can lead to high skill. I remember hating Chemistry. Further maths is supposed to be harder than General maths but I did way better in Additional maths. Mainly this was because I was more interested in pure maths and ideas and absolutes and not really how we make use of this knowledge. Ability vs inclination.

MyJoe:

I'm surprised you would say the above since it's not far-fetched. Neuroscience has told us what part of the brain is responsible for different things - vision, language, logic, consciousness, etc. But I see the conversation's back to Mr Gardner. You believe a list from him would be fine.

I agree that different parts of the brain do different things like auditory, visual cortexes etc. But I do not believe that any part of the brain has been found that causes consciousness. Whether these different functions of the brain bring about different intelligences as Gardner would put it, well, I can kinda see how that would be so. However by our definition of Intelligence ( you and I both say that it is the ability to make distinctions, I add and to make generalisations.), I don't see how there can be different kinds of Intelligences. I can only see intelligence, the ability to make distinctions, being applied to different spheres of endeavour.

Can you by further developing our definition demonstrate how there can be different intelligences? How does one intelligence differ from another apart from the fact that it is applied in a different sphere. I don't think there is actually any difference in what you and I are saying it is only that I am more strict in sticking to the definition.

The fluidity, at times, of inclinations is observable in situations other than boy to adult transition.

That was just one single example. I didn't mean to say that it was the only case of a change of inclinations.

Contrivance leading to discovery of an INCLINATION (an in-born tendency) but not intelligence (an in-born ability)? Now, I don’t find an ounce of logic in that. But it helps clarify a thing or two about your position. Continuing, does this mean that if due to hardship or whatever a kid decides to go into 419 and he does it better than Ezego, we can conclude that he had a natural inclination for that which it took contrivance to bring to the fore?

Yes and No. That he does better than Ezego, who has the same or even more exposure to the tricks of the trade, is due to a natural talent for it. However note that 419 is not a skill in itself but it requires a combination of various skills. It could be that our kid is just better at reading people's emotions and this helps him to chose his mark more accurately, leading to a higher success rate. Or he could be better at any of the other skills that are required to do the 419.

Many people have decided to learn to play the piano because they noticed what Duke noticed but, try as they may have, they never got anywhere with it. How did Duke become a genius. It wasn't because he loved girls more than those other guys that failed at learning the piano. At one point of the other the love of music itself would have overtaken his love for women and instead of getting lots of women he would have found himself locked up for hours on end, everyday, practicing scales and arpeggios and going to endless until he became a great musician. The process would have meant that he would have had to miss many potential dates with many a nice lady.

It is interesting how destiny often unveils itself in the most fortuitous way while we think we are doing something else. How did John Lennon put it? "Life is what happens while you're busy making other plans".

Thus you agree we can talk in terms of “intelligence for a certain activity”. An in-born ability to make a distinction in a certain activity. Our views are much closer than it appears.

Certainly.

vescucci:


One thing I don't understand though is how one can have an ability or intelligence and be oblivious to it till by some accident one discovers it. I'd imagine this was highly improbable. A distinction should be made then between intelligence which births excellence as Pastor put it and ability plus contrivance which can lead to high skill. I remember hating Chemistry. Further maths is supposed to be harder than General maths but I did way better in Additional maths. Mainly this was because I was more interested in pure maths and ideas and absolutes and not really how we make use of this knowledge. Ability vs inclination.

I believe that this is because we are unconscious of most of the processes in our brains, in our lives, in our world. I believe there is just a thing as destiny or Logos that bears us onward and through the course of our lives. We don't have to be aware of it, but it is at work bringing about chance meetings, accidental coincidences, life changing occurrences that might seem irrelevant at the time. It can be as simple as the plumber accidentally leaving a book in your kitchen in which is a torn piece of paper which is an advert for a event which you have no interest in but a friend comes to dinner and sees it and remarks that he is interested and would you mind joining him to check it out, which you grudgingly agree too, and there you meet a girl who you couldn't stand at first sight but due to another string of unlikely coincidences ends up being your wife and the only woman who could make you as happy as you end up becoming for the rest of your life etc etc etc.
The apparent reason why we chose to do certain things may not be the real reason. For we might be being push from our unconscious in a certain direction.

Which brings us to the whole issue of Choice!!! How can we be responsible for our choices if the real motivation for our chosen actions are more often than not Unconscious?

Deep Sight:

My word! His wonderful play on words really went over ya head completely

True. It took me till now to see where his mind was going, not that I'm innocent but seriously, I missed the Hera and the clit in Heraclitus.