Take the 2-minute tour ×
Cognitive Sciences Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for practitioners, researchers, and students in cognitive science, psychology, neuroscience, and psychiatry. It's 100% free, no registration required.

What is the origin of non-incremental, revolutionary intuition and intelligence?

For example, a human mind like Albert Einstein's can "come up" with revolutionary ideas and theories that correctly adhere to the law of physics.

On the other hand, another mind can't even understand this theory, let alone "create" or come up with one.

Where does this initial intelligence and intuition (accurately proven) come from ?

Or what are the means by which modern humans achieve "origins of" intelligent intuition that adhere to science or nature? (not talking about prophesy.)

share|improve this question
3  
General relativity was not a non-incremental idea; it built on a great deal of knowledge of other ideas. Can you a provide another example of a non-incremental idea, a definition of "non-incremental" that suits your purposes, or maybe an edit to the question that doesn't include this requirement? –  Nick Stauner Jan 6 at 5:00
1  
Pursuing some confusion on @caseyr547's answer, might you also clarify whether you're interested in the evolutionary origins of intuition, or the means by which modern humans achieve ("origins of") intuition? It seems this discussion will default to "both" somewhat haphazardly without clarification on your part. –  Nick Stauner Jan 6 at 8:21
    
Please read tag wikis, theory-of-the-mind is about how we come to believe hat others have minds and has nothing to do with this question. –  Artem Kaznatcheev Jan 9 at 22:55
add comment

2 Answers

up vote 3 down vote accepted
+25

A couple of other interrelated perspectives are presented below.

The first perspective comes from the article Artificial Intelligence, Logic of Discovery and Scientific Realism (Alai), where they state, using scientific discovery as an example (as per the example in the question), that

if the process of discovery is rational, mustn’t it therefore follow rational criteria and rules, hence a logic? On the other hand, it is well known that chance, luck, and insight often play an important role in discovery.

Effectively, almost like a case of someone 'tripping over' the final piece of their theorem. The author goes further, contending that if their were a rational set of steps, thus

if discovery were just a matter of rule following, why couldn’t anyone learn the necessary rules and become a great scientist? Or why couldn’t the scientists themselves just follow the logic of discovery and program in advance new discoveries, and rapidly achieve such results as a cure for cancer, or the cold fusion of atom, which while sorely needed still elude the efforts of researchers?

Meaning, according to this article's perspective, that luck, chance and insight play a major role.

The final factor, insight, is alluded to in the website Einstein's Pathway to Special Relativity (Norton), taking the example scientist from the question, Albert Einstein and how he developed, for example, the Theory of Special Relativity, which started when

he began to think about ether, electricity, magnetism and motion.

Essentially, he had insight by

pondering these developments that led Einstein to discover the special theory of relativity in 1905.

A key point made is that

The discovery was not momentary.

This is crucial, the ideas didn't just 'pop' into his head, the theory was the outcome of having learned and developed an insight in the background information, latest developments in relevant disciplines and of course,

in Einstein's own reckoning, seven and more years of work.

As an independent researcher, (and I am not comparing myself to Albert Einstein), the discoveries that I have found, have had successfully peer reviewed and have been published come from having some specific insight, through background reading, training, education etc, to topics and skills required relevant to the discovery, as well as a lot of work to bring these insights together with new observations to make a discovery.

share|improve this answer
    
The paper for which this is based on is an invalid source as it does not answer the origin of intelligence. it only provides a philosophical explanation with no human based provable experiments to validate. This is a very bad pseudopsychology answer validated by the community which is so sad that it is funny. –  caseyr547 Feb 1 at 20:25
add comment

Our work shows that the price of higher intelligence and more complex behaviours is more mental illness.

-Professor Seth Grant Professor of Molecular Neuroscience, University of Edinburgh

There is a direct link between intelligence and mental illness. Such was one of the first lessons I learned in Genetics. To that point science had only correlated the rise of intelligence with mental disorders. In 2012 papers were published which showed extensively that the genes which make us intelligent and give us logic (not sentience) are the same which are thought to cause various disorders. The Glutamate and Disk large pathway which effects behaviour and synapse signaling evolved over time. These genes when mutated properly were matched with changes in the volume and organization of the brain. As wikipedia page on the evolution of human intelligence points out there are questions as to how these mutations occurred and why they were selected. However we know that even today evolution is actively selecting larger brain masses in current population.

Around 200,000 years ago, Homo sapiens first appears in East Africa. It is unclear to what extent these early modern humans had developed language, music, religion etc. They spread throughout Africa over the following 50,000 years or so. -wikipedia

Society is working together to better itself in the release of more scientific and artistic information. Because of a lack of any psychological evidence from 200,000 years ago and only the most rudimentary anthropological evidence. It is only possible to speculate that in similar fashion the great feats of humanity like the arts and science originated. One person discovering something and teaching it to the group. We know one Einstein did not invent the many systems of music and art. Anthropologist can trace some sciences to 9,000 years ago. However we do not factually know what triggered the Great Leap Forward 50,000 years ago when the arts and other cultural universals first emerged.

share|improve this answer
2  
To what "point?" Psychologists have studied intelligence more broadly than its relationships with abnormalities for longer than we've been alive. The study of intelligence as an indicator of positive traits preceded its study as an index of retardation (see Wikipedia). Regardless, this isn't a question of the history of the science, which mostly concerns obsolete theories, nor is it really about disorders. Evolution may be relevant, but the OP may have queried the origins (process) of insight within a modern human's mind. –  Nick Stauner Jan 6 at 8:13
3  
I'm afraid you may have missed every single one of my points. I don't think it's constructive to suggest one should reread (or hasn't read in the first place), but I feel I should at least note that you're not really addressing my criticisms directly or completely. I'm having trouble seeing a way to be more constructive with them though; I'm mostly suggesting you remove certain misleading claims from your answer. –  Nick Stauner Jan 6 at 8:50
2  
@NickStauner perhaps instead of pestering me you should just answer the question as you see fit –  caseyr547 Jan 6 at 8:57
2  
Can't be bothered to be accurate? Think I should just answer despite my unaddressed comments on the question itself? Consider some meta-arguments: commenting encouraged to address incorrect info; problems should be addressed before expecting answers. –  Nick Stauner Jan 6 at 13:33
2  
Please don't link to university press releases as sources, but to the original papers. Especially for controversial claims since the press release people tend to misrepresent results. –  Artem Kaznatcheev Jan 9 at 22:58
show 10 more comments

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.