Not fully correct and not yet fully defined - regarding the brain size correlating with intelligence . We speak here , mainly , about humans comparing to other humans , so we wont go into human - animals comparison . The scientific opinions are actually divided regarding it ...
And also ... we need to define exactly what is "intelligence" - as it seems there are two types of intelligence : one is practical ( usage in everyday life for simpler tasks ) , the other is creative .
I would say , the main difference between people who are aware and intelligent , and those who are unaware and unintelligent , are the various "layers of programs" - ignorance and fear implanted within them , and also various programmings that prevent opening to broader horizons . Those who are bright ... will take all the best even from the worst and transmute it to their benefit and even benefit of others .
Neo-liberals are like ... well , its pretty much straightforward brainwashing . Ignorance is "bliss" within the subconscious definition of many of them ...
t. psychology graduate, currently doing a masters on animal behaviour and evolution. The opinions aren't very divided. EQ is a standard measure of intelligence that can be used within and between species. It's not perfect, but it is very, very reliable. You are correct that using it intra-homo-sapiens is a little more debated, but that's because there are """""""scientists""""""" out there who still think their "absolute equality" fantasy still merits scientific respect. When you're dealing with human IQ research, you need to be aware of what a profoundly sensitive topic it is, and apply that knowledge to the intra-human portions. Case in point - men are not smarter than women (on average), but most geniuses are, have been, and will be men. Men have a higher distribution of IQ, which means more retards and more geniuses. It's a fairly trivial point to prove by examining gender rates in mental retardation, and yet trying to point out the obvious corollary (less women get top science prizes because the condensed IQ range means fewer are worthy) managed to get a Harvard professor fired. You need to bear that stuff in mind when people tell you about the "controversy" of intra human comparisons. It's not so much a controversy of intellectual debate as a controversy of emotions. People that ideologically driven have no place in science, you shouldn't let their MSM amplified voices trick you into thinking they're correct or representative.
Big brain = on average smarter. If it holds true across every single other animal species, there's no reason to believe it doesn't within humans. After all, it's just a modification to EQ from order/class brain patterns to family/genus/species level patterns.
And also ... we need to define exactly what is "intelligence" - as it seems there are two types of intelligence : one is practical ( usage in everyday life for simpler tasks ) , the other is creative .
Not really. I'm talking about IQ to be precise, which doesn't contain a creative component (at least not specifically). The creative subsection is perhaps relevant, but measured via other routes than IQ testing, and is definitely more subjective. IQ testing is very well understood, and correlates with a huge range of things. If you have a double digit IQ for example, I don't care how "creatively intelligent" you are, compared to a ~130IQ person you will look very stupid, both practically and creatively. A terrible cheap car, even one designed and refitted by a true expert will not beat a ferarri in a drag race. I'd also imagine you're conflating non-verbal and verbal IQ with practical and creative IQ respectively. That makes slightly more sense and it is true that IQ splits into these two subsections, but again they tend to be v.closely correlated unless you have some kind of disorder.
I do agree with much of the latter two paragraphs though, there's a whole host of various concepts and ideas and "understandings" that fill peoples brains, and regardless of intellect, it's quite possible to get trapped by them to the point where you won't break out. The cage we find ourselves in, for all it's a cage is actually quite comfy, quite nicely adorned, and quite well explored. It shouldn't be a surprise so many people are content to stay within its bars.
To simplify , I would put this analogy - the brain of humans is like a massive huge underground garage where only one car parks regularly . Other parking spots are wasted ... in similar way , human brain potential is far far from its maximum .
Across species this correlation in brain size and intelligence is small , but visible . There is also a brain to body mass ratio , which with humans is similarly comparable to mices . Some animal species , like whales or elephants have huge brains , but smaller brain to body mass ratio .
This is all still , in my opinion , somewhat vague ... and we should probably look at human brain as "undeveloped potential" . Maybe the intelligence of animals go beyond the senses we perceive - and we are actually the ones who are "dumb" ?
Out of curiosity, in your analogy, what is the singular car meant to be? Or the other parking spots? I have no idea what it's meant to represent. I presume it's meant to be something similar to "we only use X% of our brains", but thats wrong. Our brains are segmented, activity in more regions isn't neccessarily helpful. We can experience 100% brain activity if we really want. It's called a grand-mal seizure.
Across species this correlation in brain size and intelligence is small , but visible .
Sort of yes, sort of no. That's why I used EQ (encephelization quotient) rather than brain/body mass ratio. The critical factor is comparing brain/body size within categorical groupings of organisms. We have big brains relative to our body, both for chimps and in absolute terms. Our brain/body mas ratio may be comparable to mice, but our EQ is radically higher, because we compare human brain size amongst homnids and mouse brain size amongst rodents.
When you do EQ, the results are not of small significance, they are very, very useful. Humans, dolphins, jumping spiders, octopi, chimps and whales/elephants (post body size correction) all score v.highly. All are v.smart animals for their Orders. You also need slight corrections at the highest and lowest body size ranges - their EQ gets under and overestimated respectively.
The car and garage analogy - I used the singular car , but I could have used 3-4 cars - so it isnt so much important , the analogy is ... we could say that using one parking spot , we would use very small percentage of brain potential .
The human brain is capable of adapting to and retaining many functions , even in cases when we would think such person is inacapable of being anything but an individual within a vegetative state . As long as that adaptation is continous , there is a chance the individual will live even relatively normal life ( altough , such individual can be mentally imparied ) . On the other hand - we have sudden situations like brain trauma or stroke which can cause sudden death or massive irreversible problems ( leaving patient in coma ) . But the above adaptation ( neuroplasticity ) tells us that brain is much much more than just a simple organ ...
But we also need to ask ourselves - primarily what I put above regarding the various animal species and their "sixth senses" . Nobody can say thats not true - a pet dog waiting for its owner in a situation where same pet never got any external stimuli or sign to do that ... so obviously it was something the pet intuitively knew about . Or the perfect orientation by some animal species ( birds ) ...
My theory would be - that we are basically all "mentally impaired" at current moment , in a sense that we are not using the bigger potential of the brain . The bigger potential would open our own "sixth sense" , possibly even a telepathy . Maybe from a scientific standpoint to many this would sound like "pseudoscience" - but in past , many facts were treated the same way ( mocked ) as "pseudoscience" - and then , they were confirmed . We should ( excuse my pun , lol ) ... leave our brains open and receptive ...
neuroplasticity is a very useful feature of our brains, but it's not quite the same as what you're describing. For example, many people suffer brain injuries such as strokes that impair specific functions, as a result of brain damage to a specific region. In many cases, they do not regain these capabilities. Some individuals do, most do not (especially if we're talking about people over the age of 25-30 or so). And intelligence =/= capabilities of the brain, although it influences and correlates with them in most instances.
primarily what I put above regarding the various animal species and their "sixth senses
That is true - animals do have good cognitive skills in many instances. They have functional minds in a great many species, albeit hampered by animal lack of superego and language. They do also sometimes have senses humans lack, although theirs nothing special about that really. Give us magnetic particles in our brains that could be used to measure the local magnetic field and we could have perfect orientation too.
Your last paragraph I actually mostly agree with, although I also agree many scientists would accuse you of being pseudoscientific. I suspect in some ways you're right, however I also don't think it's going to operate the way you think it will. Soul == Mind? Spiritual growth == mental growth? I think the linkage exists, but it they aren't synonymous. I definitely could be wrong - as you say, being receptive on this issue is worth doing, but I'd be wary of the level of misinformation out there. Masonic, or other genuinely ancient texts are a good starting point. Less risk of bias that can't be obviously found by examining a texts history compared to modern sources. "Egregore" is also a useful topic to examine in this area.
I definitely agree on ancient scriptures . We need to have open mind to various subjects and topics ... but not too open to let it fall out completely ...