Bringing intelligence to America

Great Debates
61

““I believe that what he proposes is that certain members of our society have no worth or value and should they come to that realization, they should be able to remove themselves from our society voluntarily.””

This is the only other way I can think to do it. Maybe you’ll have an idea of how my mind works. I can rattle off thousands of permutations of this without effort; for me, it is one simple idea.
I can’t figure out how to express it in one expression though.
Now remember; this would be the equivilent of ONE sentence I would write; maybe even a sentence fragment…

My conceptual map for it has all of these permutations and hundreds more. I can easily state that this set right here doesn’t quite begin to articulate this idea for me.

This is me fumbling with one micro-fraction of the conception of rationality. Maybe you can understand why I don’t take precision so seriously; it would require documants so vast that SDMB would ban me quite soon. Maybe you can help clear this up for me; what I’m doing wrong, or where I’m defective.

drumroll
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Variations of the expression of rationality as it relates to axiomic derivations of perception as visible in homo sapiens of average cognitive age. (Note to self)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Rationality can be proven as a group of behaviors and ideas which must be held in order to maintain the environment necessary to convey rationality.

Sanity has a defined threshold of behavior and belief.

Rationality requires conditions; these conditions can be articulated as the bare necessities in order to give rationality meaning.

One can isolate rationality, to such a degree; that to disagree with it, and act accordingly, one would not survive in a state of nature without a benifactor tending their every need.

Rationality can be observed in those who can do things; but demand that others do the work for them and for themselves.

An irrational person demands that one person do the work to sustain every aspect of at least two or more people. When they reveal that they can do the work, they claim that their words and actions are only an illusion; and that they actually aren’t doing or cannot do the required work.

Irrational people demand resource, while denying the rationality required to create, use or concieve it.

Irrational people defy the statistics of rationality required to exist the way they do. The odds that someone, who does not believe anything at all; somehow manages to accumulate and horde capital, is beyond statistical compare. It collapses all reason, and provides compelling proof that the only way to achieve is to break all the rules of rationality. It sets a precident for those just dying for a ‘reason’ to let down their restraints; and begin acting in ways they know will, and have known all along, will accumulate resource and capital.

Irrational people defy all concepts of logic necessary to create anything that can be consistantly applied to external verification.

Irrational people behave in a way that would make the creation of the objects they use impossible; were their reason for using the object, applied to that process of creation.

Irrational people reason methods to use an object that make the process of creating that object impossible.

Irrational people validate their reason for using an object, in a logic that would make it impossible for them to have ever created that object; had they set about to try.

Irrational people deny comprehension of that which is defined as requiring comprehension to convey.

Irrational people cannot account for their behavior in light of the evidence that such a thing as non-behavior exists; and that behavior is judged against the idea that someone does not have to do anything at all.

Irrational people avoid having their behavior compared to non-behavior; even though their speech and actions convey a consistant claim of non-behavior and non-belief on their part.

Irrational people avoid any intelligent analysis of their behavior, compared to non-behavior.

Irrational people deny the value of non-behavior; while acting in ways that negate their claimed perception of existence.

Irrational people act in ways that leaves one no conclusion; except that they must be dead. They proceed to dismiss any analysis of non-action and non-existence in relation to them by themselves or another body.

::::::::::::::
That is a very abridged version of how my mind would rattle these out if I really wanted someone to grasp all of the conceptual framework of an idea I’m expressing. That’s not even moving into how or why I would assert the truth of this idea!! That’s simple expressing it!!! Not an entire concept have you, but a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a concept.

I admittedly have OCD. I can’t fathom writing something unless it’s perfect; and if I sit to think about it too long, I’ll never succeed.
I know that if I write the sentence only one way; that unecessary questions will come up. Since I’m not trying to troll; I have to figure out how to remove the most possible questions. Most of the questions I’m answering come from the extreme abstract though; I’m not usually focused on the writing in general being comprehensible I suppose. I know if I write in little teenie sentences; it will take FOREVER for the abstracts to emerge, and then FOREVER to discuss them, in order to reach the area of conversation that I was hoping for substantive exchange on.
I’m used to floating a vast amount of variations in my head; and addressing the most damaging abstracts to the harmonization of all of them. I guess I just take it for granted that people hold all of these combinations in their heads at once when they read something or hear something. To me, they are implied… so the debate becomes, are there any new ones that aren’t implied. Is there a system that collapses the meaning of those implications?

No matter how you veiw it, I clearly need some sort of method for conveying ideas that in a more concise means. As you look at the notes I was rattling out for these fractions of fractions of fractions of one fraction of my conceptual framework for the word: rationality, you’ll notice that I still used some very big words (which is something I’m accused of). When I see replies along those lines, I become discouraged; because suddenly my conceptual framework becomes overhwelmed by the millions of words necessary to convey the message for the worst possible scenario implied from the question.

If I type a big thing, and the reply is:

“Dude, find some tin foil man .”

<name>
<clever sig>
“Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. Unfortunately, Justhink proved this false! Some people are too stupid to have opinions.”

And the next reply is:

Dude, I don’t usually reply to trolls, but what is this sanctimonious bullshit?! All you did was prove that you’re stupid, happy now?

<name>
<sig linking to their website>
All I can think is, “Damn, I failed.”

I know those perspectives are out there when I write; I just can’t seem to construct something to convey the meaning I’m trying to convey, to all the responses I know are waiting in sheer delight to express themselves, while equally conveying the same concept to those who seem to grasp my writing with ease by the nature of their questions. I appreciate all the replies, because they ALL elude to ERROR on my part. I need to discover the exact source of this error and correct it.

Long winding (probably incomprehensible post), maybe it’ll be a good idea for me to study sentence structure for a while before returning. s I do only have a 5th grade education =(

-Justhink

Irrational society dominates all society.
All the rational people are refused societal rewards in an irrational society.
In order to take control; all the rational people have to become irrational.
All the rational people conclude that
If that is the idea he expresses then I disagree, offering a service such as this would harm the most vulnerable members of this society. The thought of suicide is associated most often with people who suffer from depression, a mental illness.

Of course, he could be talking about something completely different… it is really hard to tell.

62

Well, quite, but where are these hordes of nihilists and solipsists? Is “I don’t believe in anything” the official motto of the United States?

They are represented by everybody who issues a statement incongruent with what we all aknowledge to be existentially positive. What we all agree is required to operate a life on this earth, in a society. You’re asking me to go further and point out how this transcribes into everyday speech and action!! I’ve spent the whole post saying that this can be done; everyone was confused as to what I was even saying can be done! Your question leads to step 2 (I bactracked significantly because of the inconprehensibility charges!! I went back to square one. I’m going to crawl in baby steps. You comprehended the first word of my post, so to speak! This is encouraging.)
I really had hopes that somewhere in the filigree of your posts there was a nugget of reason but every time you ignore questions (although admittedly you didn’t ignore mine this time),

I would appreciate, in all sincerity, the precise questions that feel I most should have answered but didn’t. I feel that you may be representative of how people percieve these posts, and where they feel I am waffling on everything.

“every time you respond to requests for clarity with more obscurity, that hope slips a little further away. I am inclined to concur with Bryan Ekers’ last comment”

I need an ‘objective’ veiw of the questions I’m avoiding to understand where my error is. Which ones stand out as the most grievous ommissions to you?? That you think… everyone who reads this is saying; “pfft… that guy just never answers that simple question, what an ass.”

I need to know these questions to communicate, aparently they aren’t obvious to me; the most flagrant ones…

-Justhink

63

I don’t see any reason why all of the thoughts we hold in our heads have to fit together exactly with no overlaps, no gaps and no unsightly forced junctions; perhaps the best example of this is something Lib touched on a while back:
Photons - sometimes it is helpful for us to consider them particles, other times it is helpful for us to consider them waves and yet at the same time as holding these apparently contrary views we are aware that neither is absolutely correct or more correct than the other.

I believe that sometimes the only way that progress can be made on a concept is to temporarily totally ignore the interfaces between that concept and many of the others; perhaps a good analogy (although maybe not) would be computing:
If I am writing a program in (say) Visual Basic, the correct function of the program is entirely dependent on a vast number of layers; the syntax and structure of my program and data; the correct function of the compiler, the correct function of the Operating system (which itself consists of quite a few layers), the processor and memory as a whole, the individual transistors inside the processor; the chemical and physical properties of the semiconductors, the nature of electrons.

Now in this particular case there is pretty much a hierarchy, but we could just as easily be talking about systems that cycle or iterate in a network pattern.

In practice I can comfortably ignore most of what is happening on the few layers below the one at which I’m working and certainly everything that is happening at very low levels; for me to be worrying about the nature of electrons while writing a database app in VB is nothing more than an unhelpful distraction; to try to think of everything at once is to become hopelessly bound.

That’s not to say that a concept can be permanently isolated from the wider domain, but most of the time (I find) it helps to work on it in isolation, then having resolved it internally (as far as possible), try to fit it back into context. If it doesn’t fit, is that because one of the adjacent concepts is flawed or maybe we need to examine the connections, maybe adjusting the connections will generate some new internal inconsistencies which we must examine and so on.

To imagine that you can hold and comprehend the totality of the universe in your mind all at once, right down to every smallest detail is (IMHO) simply to delude yourself.

64

Justhink: I apologise if my comments have appeared overly harsh.

I think it would be fair to say that what you try to express are views of (what you perceive to be) meta-systems; it is probably near impossible to tackle everything all at once in a single debate. Perhaps you are simply trying to cover too much ground with each stride.

65

Thank you Mangeout.

It is very hard to hold all of those replies that we all know are waiting on the other end “drooling for us” so to speak; and address all of them. Part of my obsessiveness is in trying to answer every reply that I know is possible from what I’m trying to type. It seems to come out as a big jumble! sigh

In terms of where we (you and I) just stood in relation to the OP.

I’m saying that we can discern counter-intelligence by using the mechanism of suicide implied in the social contract that we just discussed.

Even from my very first post (maybe it makes more sense now); I stated that we can derive these ideas MUCH further than simple:

“Nothing exists”

Everyone would still agree on all the added principles, to such a degree, that to dismiss even one of them; everyone aknowledges that you must by necessity revert back to:

“Nothing exists.”

Which we all concluded is not tenable to the social contract.
It’s not to deny that it is or can be true (that nothing is real); we just happen to aggree that those who hold this opinion revoke their citizenship within that contract we just established.

I lept through a few permutations very close to “difference” in the deconstructive sense.

Perception of difference is change, and whatever other one I threw in there at the time in relation to discernment. There are logical steps that we can all agree upon in the context of a social contract. The primary purpose of this OP, is to say:
1.)“Hey, we can do this.”
2.)“We can use this to locate logical corruption instantly (the type that nullifies the primay social contract)”
3.)“We’ll have proof of who all of our criminals are, by exactly what acts they are engaged in and what speech patterns hey use.”
4.)“We can prove that the power structure in America is primarily achieved through a metabolism of contradictions; through the cannibalism of their own existential value, by violating this primary social contract”

(granted, I took another short-cut to phrase number 4)

We can use the mechanism OF suicide to calculate where hypocrisy lies. All one is required to do, is match behavior against the knowledge that non-action was a possibility. You can calculate morality from the primary indentured system; by crawling up that wall, without ever once deviating. You can create a constitution of flawless moral logic; which effectively collapses opinion on the matter.

That’s what I’m bringing up here in so many words!

-Justhink

66

I think (I’m not sure) that you are talking about permanent absolute objective morality; I’m not sure that such a thing exists or would be discernable if it did.

67

If your message (whatever it is) makes sense, why do you need to use ‘subversive counter-intelligence’ (whatever that is) to convert us?

Are you then saying that if you do use ‘subversive counter-intelligence’, it demeans you so much that you’d rather kill yourself?

Something seems to matter a lot to you - do you know what it is?

It’s because you don’t use English correctly:

  • you use undefined terms
  • you use long words and phrases instead of simple clear ones
  • you throw out wild destinies and make claims without supporting evidence

Let me get this straight. The punishment for a crime is to put someone in solitary confinement, refuse to let even their jailors talk to them and starve them to death.

:eek:

And this appalling crime is rape, murder, paedophilia, genocide…?
No, according to you, it’s simply saying “I don’t believe anything at all.”

Are you sane?

Even assuming I go along with your astonishing over-reaction:
What if someone claims they said it as a joke, or they didn’t mean it?
What if they repent?

OK, I disagree totally with this premise.
But look what follows:

Well then I don’t accept ‘counter-intelligence’.
Gosh, it’s getting easier to cope with your meanderings!

Just for laughs…

since, according to you, ‘It is also the crux of counter-intelligence to BELIEVE this and actually STATE it’, which should lead to execution by starvation, are all counter-intelligence people automatically martyrs?

Ooooh, a worldwide base contract!
(Funny, I don’t remember signing it.)
If that was the base contract, what are the others?

I would have thought a more likely basis for all human interaction would be ‘the labourer is worthy of his hire’.

As previous posters have commented, there doesn’t seem to be a massive group marching and holding up placards saying ‘I don’t believe in anything’, then demanding the rest of us give them free food and lodging.

I need to go and communicate with some pupils now.

No, you didn’t.

68

Justhink; I think another part of the problem may be that you are assuming that some of the fundaments of your view/argument are self-evident (or at least already understood by your audience); they are not.

Perception of difference probably is universal; the passage of time cannot be percieved without some sort of change occurring (even if that change is limited to brain states in isolation).

Sure, ‘difference does not exist’ is an absurd statement at basic levels, but it can be quite valid at higher ones; difference exists between individual physical objects; one atom is distinct and different from another; one sugar or protein molecule is distinct and different from another; one green apple is different from another; difference exists but sometimes it is entirely irrelevant; as long as neither of them is poisoned or otherwise spoiled and they are the similar sizes etc… does it matter which green apple I eat? - difference exists but does not always matter.

69

“”“Gosh, it’s getting easier to cope with your meanderings!”"""

That’s because we are now speaking the same language. You are asking intelligent questions in relation to what I was attempting to convey. It can only be my fault, for whatever reason that it took this many posts to communicate this basic articulation and illuminate these questions. Now, it’s on to step 2; I assert the reasoning behind what seems like a loose strain of unrelated or unverifiable associations… “Over-reactions” as you stated. I begin addressing the questions that you have left open, and eventually, the implications of such a logical system being written.

One of the hazards is the potential loss of sentience for the person constructing this axiomic system of moral law; cannibalizing opinion in the process, by collapsing a resource.
Another one of the implications is how society would react to a proof of criminality bound to an unassailable definition of sanity; the punishment always being the same; because the crime is always the same.

You are quite right in articulating that I run this crime as parallel to rape, pedophelia, genocide etc… It becomes clear, that these are all derivatives of one basic crime; embedded in the structure of rationality itself. Derivative of the structure which holds the human abstraction of their own awareness securely in place; the indentured system.

Any logic built upon this syetm, without derivation, will by necessity define sanity. It’s more like an archeological dig; than a creation… a meticulous uncovering of the structure that allows the elasticity for sentience to flow.

We’re getting somewhere! My claims are still unsubstantiated!
This is good; we’re speaking the same language now.

-Justhink

70

Umm, no. My sentence above is sarcasm. I still have ** absolutely no idea** what you are talking about. I was seriously considering opening a new thread to start again.

We can do it in this thread if you like.
Here is your first sentence from your first post:

You need to define ‘counter-intelligent’, ‘data flooding’ and ‘leaving terms open ended for corruption’.

DO NOT GIVE A ‘DEFINITION’ LIKE THIS:

This explanation is completely opaque (it needs about 4 definitions itself). If possible, use the 800 words of basic English.

You are an optimist, aren’t you?!

71

Let’s just clear up what you’re asking here. You’re asking someone with a 5th grade education, who is paranoid about books, to define intelligence for the eyes of the intellectuals to veiw. To even move into what ‘counter’ intelligence is, one must first define intelligence (unless you want me to submit the the reasons why I see this as prudent or meaningful); clarify the definition as applying beyond all reason, and then define ‘counter’, and equally qualify those reasons; providing clear examples. I accept your challenge =)

First, I need to apologize in advanced for taking the SHORT-CUT, of not explaining in the same breath why a definition of intelligence is required before a definition, and practical application, of the term ‘counter’. Clearly, without the laborous analysis, you can state that the word ‘counter’ cannot logically apply to intelligence, since I haven’t shown the evidence of how that fusion is possible or meaningful. This is the type of problem that burdens me when posting here.

First!!! I’ll just stick to the definition of intelligence for this post.
I will imply elements of something else that can be related to intelligence, but not precisely define counter-intelligence in the way I hold it conceptually.

My second post will be a definition of ‘counter’ and the reasons why the word can be existentially associated with the concept of intelligence. Then, I’ll be required to comb through every one of those probabilities and make a convincing case that there is a rational association for the two existing as a conceptual union that is ‘worth’ talking about. Noramlly, I’d be compelled to prove why I take the time writing this post instead of committing suicide; but I imagine people aren’t interested in those details…maybe you want to see that proof too!

I’d be more than happy to define all of the reasons for all of my actions. In fact, I’d suggest a measure of confidence that I can do it in a way that would be inarguable, and utterly convincing beyond all reasonable doubt. Of course, first I have to define reason, and doubt; the conceptual link with the ability to reason.
Also describing the ability to reason doubt; again, proving why I am ‘required’ to type it… in order for any of it to make sense at all.

I have a very clear sense of what is required to post something, so that it is meaningful. Unfortunately, there is something called bandwidth. Does anyone really want to see a three word post decompiled with a 50 page proof attatched to it, as to why I didn’t commit suicide instead of posting the reply, and how that logic is validated from the very conception of our perception of awareness? I may as well write a novel for my sig! Except, every time I post, the novel will have to be re-written - the problem, is that I do add these into the post to some degree; and I’m imagining that’s part of why it comes out so jumbled.
I’m trying to convey my reason for living, for thinking the thoughts in the post, doing the actions required to post, and then describing the actual thoughts in the post and relating them to thoughts that are interpreting the post - all in a means that is existentially valid. If I make a mistake, to big of one… I have disproven my existential viability, and must come to the logical conclusion that my existence is no longer required. I feel a little bit of pressure when I post.

Please, in light of this; grant me a margin of lee-way on the issue of transparency.

First, one needs to define intelligence.
I would define it loosely as: “that which posesses consistency.”
The definition of intelligence doesn’t make any tangible human sense if it is not seen as being synonymous with:

Rationality; that which is comprehensible.

The duality: That which can be comprehended/That which is comprehended.

It’s to suggest that something HAS to be comprehesible (rational, consistent) in order to be comprehended (circular, I know… but hear it out). (I can already see the “No it doesn’t!” , but that comes back to why I’m continuously taking steps to back this up by drawing the line between what is absurd and what isn’t, from an existential veiw (i.e. we exist or we don’t exist).

What we say about intelligence (loosely), is that it acts according to comprehensibility even if it’s not observed to have abstracted that comprehension.

We say that we’re intelligent. We also say that mice are intelligent, yet we have very good evidence that mice don’t abstract their intelligence in a very specific way that we (think we)do.

So it follows that intelligence has nothing to do with the ability to abstract it; but rather the form of consistancy which allows for it’s existence. Intelligence is said to only bind to consistancies; without which, absolute chaos would create a state where intelligence cannot cohesively bond existentially. It’s to articulate intelligence as a parasitic life-form, that requires certain conditions in order to exist… yet in order for those conditions to exist; intelligence itself doesn’t need to exist. In a fundamental sense, I’d suggest that intelligence is contingent to existence; and that symbiosis is not an observed phenomenon of the relationship between intelligence and its host. The host, being ‘cohesion’ in an abstract sense. I’ll return to this idea.

Choas is a ‘no-mans’ land for the conditions necessary for intelligence to bond.
While the definition of what is or is not chaotic changes, as we gain more knowledge (or different knowledge), more observation of patterns and consistancies; the basic premise remains::::

Chaos is the area in which intelligence does not bond. In stasis, it is a matter of elasticity and rigidity. In chaos, it is a matter of substance and cohesiveness. Intelligent systems have a barrier, which we percieve through the vehicle of that intelligence. The definitions of the barriers, articulate the body of: rationality.

Intelligence (the abstraction of it, to be sure) hardens when all the laws governing it are realized by it. This is the static catatonia of intelligence, whereby it collapses into itself out of the cause and effect loop. You see; when you know all the effects of each cause; intelligence cannot abstract how it can cause anything.
This is the static (stasis) collapse; and this is one of the boundaries drawn for intelligence. It collapses into a state of absolute cohesiveness.

The other notable barrier that allows for the condition of intelligence is the phenomenal barrier; there must exist a ‘substance’ to which it can attach itself onto (outside of itself with consistancies); or else the abstraction is impossible.

This is charachterized by knowing the effect of every cause; whereby intelligence cannot frame the possibility of its own effect (its own body, or an external body).
Another state which collapses intelligence into itself.

A variation of solipsism holds:
I create everything. This is a statement of omni-potence. If the mind rationalizes this veiw with enough conviction and consistancy, the body required and used to act out this perception, will become completely dissociated from the logic necessary to reach the conclusion that it has acted on ‘another’ body. The entire concept of its own body; collapses in this sense.

Of the two types of schizophrenia witnessed; which lend themselves to catatonia, the omni-scient and omni-potent ones have been explained here.

What we know, is the TREND. If you mark the logic of a schizophrenic who invariably reaches catatonia, you will notice an increase in their internal consistancy to validate either omni-potence or omni-science. This observation is referred to as simulated omni-science (as in, "it has no basis in fact; it just proves itself in a closed system, which doesn’t charachterize our phenomenal reality.).

As the logic of the omni-scient version of schizophrenia progresses; they will offer more and more answers, to vaguer and vaguer questions, even ones they wouldn’t have had a clue about even a week ago. Somehow, their frame of reference is stuck on something we don’t associate with in our phenomenal world (which is why we call it irrational). They then use that frame of reference to codify all knowledge, before the brain slips into the catatonia where it cannot distinguish the reason to move the body in the sense of an ego. The ego dissolves into an absolute cause and effect system; by disproving the will or disproving the substance on which to activate the will.

What is observed in these extreme cases, where the collapse is slow enough to record; is that the biology can be traced by mapping the logical trend. From our vantage point; we call their ‘omni-science’ absurd. It’s a trick. It’s a simulation of omni-science; not the real thing. Their ability to know all things is not congruent with what we consider proof or knowledge; yet we can note that they increase their claim of knowledge with an exponential growth, as they progress towards collapsing into catatonia. This observation holds significant consistancy with the obervation that: “You cannot truly be objective.”.

It is one of the un-absurd agreements we aknowledge about existence. To be objective (in the neurotic sense), you have to literally be the object which you are ‘studying’. The obvious observation here, is that if there is any part of you left behind in which to transfer the data; YOU have not COMPLETELY become the object!

So… I’ve been rambling for a while here; simply trying to nail down the definition of intelligence before tackling counter-intelligence.

I believe the sharpest way we can define intelligence is to suggest that it is the: property of cohesion without stasis.

Intelligence is the property of cohesion without stasis.

I believe this to be so, because we define things as being intelligent which do not (from our ‘common’ veiw) abstract in this very precise way that we call ‘human’ intelligence. Intelligence is ascribed a broader territory than that which requires OUR existence to exist. It is the idea, that if all people were dead; mice would still be intelligent. If deconstructed towards its logical conclusion; even rocks would be seen as intelligent… though admittedly their time-scale and reproductive cycles are much subtler than our own. What we define as intelligence is basically: existence!!

**Intelligence is the property of cohesion without stasis.

If you look at that definition carefully; you’ll realize that anything outside this definition is oblivion, absolute stasis or absolute chaos. Theoretically, these states cannot exist AT ALL in an absolute sense in any corner of the universe (intelligently at least), without making all of our agreements absurd and impossible.

Now, that’s not to say that these states cannot exist as SIMULATIONS; like a psychiatrist would acknowledge of schizophrenic omni-scient catatonia. There is a clear line we draw as intelligent beings; that there are states which can be expressed - or ‘counter’-to-our intelligence, but cannot actually exist, or else rationality is proven as being impossible.

Look at the definition I came up with while banging this thing out…

Intelligence is the property of cohesion without stasis.

For one; you’ll notice that this is an extremely ‘human’-centric or egocentric definition of intelligence, even in the most broad use.
Is there a point where ‘us-centrism’ is rational?
It satisfies all of the criteria that we apply to intelligence, without stepping into areas we all mark as ‘absurd’. How we come to call some aspects ‘absurd’ and other aspects ‘intelligent’ is what the next post will be about. The next post will help qualify the relativistic conundrum of intelligence, by introducing the close observation of what is unillaterally discarded as being intelligent.

What do people agree is NOT intelligent?
Is there a valid reason that can be demonstrated, which compells one to accept that intelligence exists and that it must be defined within the realm of our perception to hold any value outside of ourselves?

Lastly, how does this stuff relate to the real world?

-Justhink

72

Actually, my second post will be this:

I banged this out, without really knowing what my definition would be; I didn’t have one canned. I still haven’t openned up a dictionary on the term, and am not particularly interested to.
I took MANY shortcuts, because each and every word needs to be defined in a binary sense; moving from the very base of that which is logically existential (exists logically), and that which collapses logic. It would take several hundred pages to qualify all the words I used and to qualify the significance for their existence in reality, and why other words couldn’t or shouldn’t have been used instead … why it has to be 600 words or 6000 words. I even took a few conceptual shortcuts, which I plan to highlight in the section on ‘counter’ intelligence. However; I think you’ll be hard pressed to find a more concise and efficient definition of intelligence than the one I came up with here. Adding anything to it, muddles it up a bit; it adds an ideology to intelligence, that is not present in the general sense that humans talk about it.

To that degree, I have a slight ‘contempt’ for dictionaries (not really, but the idea that they are absolute authority). Just because it’s in the dictionary, doesn’t mean THAT definition is at all relevant to how a term is cognisized by human beings.
Human beings can fundamentally discern these truths for themselves IMO. Maybe you’re interested in how this definition compares with the dictionary… look it up shrug. I’d guess that the dictionary uses a definition that is equal to or less concise than the one presented here. I do not think you will find a ‘better’ definition of intelligence in the dictionary. What I’m saying, is that there are ways we can discern truth more efficiently than research. This is part of the scope of what I’m planning on discussing in this thread.

Intelligence is the property of cohesion without stasis.

Start arguing with me on this definition, if you disagree. Some of those will be answered below; but I can garantee that some were simply skipped over by my inability to be concise. I believe I can argue this definition as being more concise and efficient than any other. There is a little left to unravel in this definition (why do humans believe this philosophically, in such a means as to define it this way)… but not even dictionaries concern themselves with those details.

I may write like an idiot, but I can come up with damned good definitions =)

-Justhink

73

Intelligence is the property of cohesion without stasis.

Well, we haven’t particularly abstracted this to measure it. If you can’t measure it - discern ‘more of / less of’ to some degree; then you are declaring the absurd:

“Everything is exactly the same.”

There was discussion of areas that render the isolation of intelligence as meaningless in the last post. These are the frames of reference from which it was extracted; to give intelligence a selective, existentially positive validation.

Chaos, stasis, nothing.

Without our perception of these states; our articulation of intelligence would seem so absurd, that we may as well stop eating food. If you believe everything is exactly the same; then what’s the point of talking about intelligence? There are two fundamentally different ways of veiwing this that must be articulated first:

*We use these ideas to distinguish intelligence from anything at all.
*These states exist, and as such, inherently distinguish intelligence for us to percieve.

Anyways…

How do we abstract intelligence for measurement; to ‘prove’ that this distinction is not what we are distinguishing it from, or something else altogether?

With intelligence, this abstraction is: efficiency. (moreso, the efficiency for consistancy)

What is more or less intelligent, is determined by measuring efficiency in an additionally abstracted reference frame.

First we have abstracted intelligence itself as ‘rational existence’; a congruency, a consistancy, a cohesion that is not static.

Then we abstract intelligence from another frame of reference: dependancy.

We have abstracted that intelligence is dependant upon NOT being:

Chaos, stasis, nothing.

Dependance gets abstracted to resource of sustainence, and next; to consumption. Consumption gets abstracted to scarcity.
(I’m not asserting that these abstractions are in perfect order, nor that there aren’t missing ones in between; they are cerainly in the ‘top 25’ so to speak =)

Putting words into the mouth of intelligence (anthropromorphism, or animism; whatever you prefer)
“If there is no chaos, stasis or nothing; then I cannot exist.”

There’s this sense at the very beginning of all of this conceptual mapping; that rationality defines the state of ‘existence’ (in our centric veiw) as well as the state of observing it; or::
being observable by being expressed. There’s a lot of circular logic here, however, at this stage in the process; it seems very clear what happens if there isn’t a ‘circulation’… rationality enters a linear pathway right into the states which annihilate it; at which point we can conclude our universal absurdity, and that intelligence is actually counter-intelligently concieved.

(notes to self)
While there are compelling insights about contradictions and the ‘metabolic process concept’; affirming these speculations opens a slippery slope in regards to the ability of intelligent beings to remain a cohesive structure; and as such, borders on the absurd. I would personally suggest that it must be absurd, as evidenced by the conceptions related to conservation from existential vaccuums noted in nature and social systems.

Anyhow, what is the relationship between intelligence and its percieved negation?
–wow, I don’t have the endurance or the processing speed to harmonize this right now; I need a break…

These are the notes so far…

-Justhink

74

“”"""You need to define ‘counter-intelligent’, ‘data flooding’ and ‘leaving terms open ended for corruption’.

DO NOT GIVE A ‘DEFINITION’ LIKE THIS:"""""""""

Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you.

“”“This explanation is completely opaque (it needs about 4 definitions itself). If possible, use the 800 words of basic English.”""

I want to impress upon you:
How many people in the world do you think can actually define intelligence?
Of those who do, how many words do you think their average BOOK contains?
Of those books, how many of those definitions have the clarity, precision and transparency that I just submitted here (assuming that definition is even meaningful, or meaningfully backed up).

This is great debates. You are aware that people will debate the existence of intelligence. But no! You want me to define 4 terms and the reasons for defining them as such in 800 words (if I can).

That factorization required for an 800 word definition is staggering; if its even possible given the divide of concptual frameworks between individuals.

If I totally failed at conveying this definition (and continue to fail - I have more to ADD just to define and validate counter-intelligence); then at least you can consider that I gave it my best shot, and that it just wasn’t good enough.

I’m not trying to play mind games here (unless you consider all of this mental masterbation; which we could equally humor a debate on). I’m actually sitting here and exerting effort, thinking about my replies. I don’t mind you completely disagreeing with me on every point…

Again, I want to impress upon you the sheer profundity of a clean response to the definition of intelligence. There is a slight chance that my contribution here on that topic alone (discounting the OP); may be the best written example that humans have to date on the conceptual framework for isolating and articulating intelligence.

-Justhink

75

Oh dear.

First, I didn’t ask you to define intelligence.

I have a dictionary for that:

Intelligence -

(a) the intellect; the understanding
(b) (of a person or animal) quickness of understanding; wisdom

(a) the collection of information, especially of military or political value
(b) people employed in this
© information so collected

And the definition of intellect -

(a) the faculty of reasoning, knowing and thinking (as distinct from feeling)
2. A clever or intellectual person

From this I can give examples of the use of the word intelligence:

Major Brown was renowned for his intelligence. He was careful about revealing classified information, so didn’t say he worked in Intelligence.

I won’t bother to define counter.

Secondly, my problem (and it’s shared by almost all SDMB posters), is that you lump two words together, without apparently knowing what either means. You don’t explain what the concept means either.

I’m sorry you’re paranoid about books. Personally I love them, which is why I have an extensive vocabulary and communicate clearly.

You need to look up a definition of short cut. :rolleyes:

You don’t need to show if a fusion of two words is possible or meaningful. Just tell us what you mean by ‘counter-intelligence’.

You seem to assume problems that haven’t arisen (and may never arise) must be dealt with. But if no-one understands what you mean, those problems are irrelevant.

F*ck me! (Sorry moderaters, but you try reading the above!)

Justhink,
I don’t want implications of other elements. I want a simple definition of your concept, exactly the way you understand it.
If you can’t do that, then maybe you don’t know what you mean.

Here’s a word for you to look up - psychobabble.

You don’t need to give reasons why two words can be associated.
You don’t need to comb through probablilities.
If you seriously think that writing to a message board equates to suicide, then you need to see a mental health professional.
I want a simple definition of your concept, exactly the way you understand it.

Blah blah blah.
I want a simple definition of your concept, exactly the way you understand it.

Absolutely untrue.
You don’t understand communication, and appear to have severe problems which require professional help.

In case I haven’t made myself clear:
I want a simple definition of your concept, exactly the way you understand it.

76

“”“First, I didn’t ask you to define intelligence.”""

I replied to you before you responded (or read my post):
“To even move into what ‘counter’ intelligence is, one must first define intelligence (unless you want me to submit the the reasons why I see this as prudent or meaningful);”

What I was getting to, in a sense of clarity and transparency is:

For the sake of brevity, I will assume that you do not require the quite laborious catalogue of reason that ‘proves’ (I haven’t done it yet, so we can’t estalish whether its actually a proof) you ARE soliciting a definition of intelligence.

I’m basically suggesting that it’s absurd that you’re NOT soliciting a definition of intelligence, by asking me for a definition of counter-intelligence. I consider it so absurd, that for the sake of brevity; I’m assuming you won’t require THIS debate. I added this, for the sake of transparency, to alert the reader that steps HAVE been skipped (why I consider this prudent, is another debate).

In order to save time, I then proceeded to define intelligence.

Aparently, you DO require the debate of why it is prudent and meaningful to define intelligence before defining counter-intelligence. You DO require the debate as to why you’re soliciting MY specific definition of intelligence, by asking me to define counter-intelligence, in the way that I concieve it. As much as you express your desire to save time; you don’t show any evidence that a single short-cut will satisfy your end of this process (also a debate).

I am MORE than willing to have each and every one of these debates with you (a debate). I am invested in conveying my conceptual framework to you (a debate). I am not being sarcastic where it appears I might be attempting to (also a debate). It also requires a lot of extra text to communicate why I believe a statement of judgement about you (i.e. “you’re demanding a definition of intelligence from me”), is prudent, and not a luxury of sarcasm or snobbery.

I can qualify, and am willing to qualify, why I am forcing necessary perceptions into your intent, like:

“You have to know that you are intending for me to define intelligence in order for you to accept my definition of counter-intelligence.” You clearly specified an interest in my definition, or at least a clarification of my concept here, so that we could communicate further about the OP (also a debate).

Your questions are revealing to me, that you are demanding thouroghness (I may be wrong, this is a debate). There have been posters, who in their questions to my posts; convey to me that they have resolved the implied debates which they didn’t seek clarification on. Of course, I actually have no way of knowing for sure whether they do understand it the way I’m picturing it (also a debate =)

I appreciate your questions. They demand thoroughness, and to me, they express the movement of intelligence, just as much as those who gloss over many of the implied debates.

I am stating, that I believe you are demanding thoroughness, of an extreme sort, which I am willing to convey. I see that thoroughness as prudent, even if it may seem absurd (to the extent that I would catagorize it as extreme). That is why we have debates =)

“”"""“Secondly, my problem (and it’s shared by almost all SDMB posters), is that you lump two words together, without apparently knowing what either means. You don’t explain what the concept means either.”"""""""

That’s why I asked you for the words and concepts that were most critical to you. You offerred three. I plan to share my conceptual framework for all three.

“”""“You seem to assume problems that haven’t arisen (and may never arise) must be dealt with. But if no-one understands what you mean, those problems are irrelevant.”""""

Everyone is not demanding the same degree of thoroughness on each and every word. I personally know that those problems exist. They are existential counters to my reason for posting, and as such, I feel compelled and qualified to mention them. It would be deceptive for me not to. Also, what’s the point of starting a conversation if you already know why people may have concluded the entire topic has been negated?

“”“You don’t need to give reasons why two words can be associated.
You don’t need to comb through probablilities.”"""

I believe I can make a very compelling debate showing that you are setting me up for failure; by demanding certain thoroughness and then critisizing the purpose of its expression.

“”“I want a simple definition of your concept, exactly the way you understand it.”""

This assumes that my understanding of a concept is simple, from anyones perspective. It requires me to define simplicity, which again, is a pretty heavy philosophical question. You’re asking me to define simplicity and intelligence. Those are very daunting questions! I’m willing to address them.

Again, you’re demanding thoroughness, and critisizing the expression of it.

“”“Justhink,
I don’t want implications of other elements. I want a simple definition of your concept, exactly the way you understand it.
If you can’t do that, then maybe you don’t know what you mean.”""

Wow. This is the very isolation of absurdity that I’ve been articulating. A person demands resource at the expense of the conception of discernment.

“”""“I have a dictionary for that:”"""""

I offered to debate any definition in the dictionary, against my own.

“”""“Absolutely untrue.
You don’t understand communication, and appear to have severe problems which require professional help.”"""""

Another debate: My mental health and my complete negation of existence by declaring something which is absolutely untrue.

I’m under the impression that for anyone to speak an absolute untruth; existince goes: poof. I am certainly willing to articulate why I understand this to be the case. I have eluded to it a few times in this post, already; and why it is absurd to say such things.

“”"“If you seriously think that writing to a message board equates to suicide, then you need to see a mental health professional.”""""

I’m suggesting here, that the mechanism of suicide (conceptually), can be translated materially to derive truth to such a degree as to collapse opinion. I am also suggesting that this mechanism is used by everybody (whether they abstract it or not; like the conception of difference, we all agree that it is absurd to deny it once you abstract it.).

I noticed 981 veiws of this thread. My sincere apologies for the 9/11 associations… this as meant to be an associative thread on the pervasiveness of counter-intelligence on western societies, something (in America) I veiw as significantly concentrated in the media and logical patterns of how we socialize over here. It looks like lots of definition talk will emerge (if anyone has a continued interest in learning the scope of what I am willing to post here (which in this topic is pretty unlimited)). Anyways, lots of definition talk before the comparisons are made. There will eventually emerge discussion of how to solicit intelligence from yourself; using counter-intelligence techniques (again, if anyone holds interest); and also practical analysis into how a person can retreive data without using more than a pen, yourself and a peice of paper. It may even move into how to write a moral law that cannot be destroyed without insanity, and some… if not all of the tenets of these laws. It will probably discuss how these laws can be used to discern moral corruption; through infinite layers of encryption (basically making encryption impossible - irrelevant).
Methods of how to collapse resources like mad, from the base indentured system; including opinion, and the implications of proceeding down this path.

Lots of interesting ‘dope’ IMO.

shrug

I am willing to convey all of this conceptual framework, and the methods of applications. (how to do it, and as such; prove it)

-Justhink

77

The world doesn’t need your definition of counter. We already have one:

Counter (noun) -

  1. A long flat-topped fitment in a shop, bank…

  2. A small disc used for keeping the score…

  3. An apparatus used for counting…

  4. A person who counts something

Counter (verb) -

  1. oppose, contradict…

  2. make a countermove…

  3. (boxing) give a return blow while parrying…

Counter (adverb) -

  1. in the opposite direction…

  2. contrary…

I don’t care if the words counter and intelligence are existential or not. I just want to know what you mean by them.

Please bear in mind that you are generally incomprehensible.
I have no interest in your reasons, when I don’t understand the first sentence you wrote.
Don’t have confidence in your ability to define anything.
So far you have typed thousands of words (and mentioned committing suicide several times).
At no time have you managed to explain the first phrase you used.

An ambitious claim. Cite?

You can (like the Mad Hatter) say that a word means what you want it to mean. However you will not be able to communicate anything meaningful.

According to you, ‘intelligence’ is “that which possesses consistency.”
Well, custard (if properly made) is certainly possesses consistency.
So you define custard as intelligent, huh? :rolleyes:

A brain-damaged man who endlessly repeats certain actions ‘possesses consistency’.
So he’s intelligent, according to you. :smack:

Well I have the faculty of reasoning.
Are you claiming you’re a bowl of custard?

Cite?

Sorry, I must have dozed off…

Don’t say ‘we’, please. The rest of us have a dictionary.
Since custard has cohesion without stasis, it looks like you are still confusing a food with thinking.

Ah, I understand :rolleyes: - custard exists, so it is definitely intelligent.
And rocks have a reproductive cycle?!
What a wide range of knowledge you have.

Your posts.

78

“”“I want a simple definition of your concept, exactly the way you understand it.”""

Are you female? I realized the instant I made my last post, that it is a statistical anomaly for males to speak like this. Females communicate this specific conceptual pattern frequently in my experience. Females don’t seem to have the conceptual framework to process the implied questions in statements, and map these consistantly in large quantities. As a result, they will speak them. It’s a total shot in the dark, and a bit irrelevant considering what can be accomplished!

However, you are the one who brought up my mental illness.

-Justhink

79

“”""“I don’t care if the words counter and intelligence are existential or not. I just want to know what you mean by them.”""""

I’m almost positive that you’re female! You can embarass me right now; the odds that a male makes this conceptual pattern twice in a row are STAGGERING!!!

-Justhink

80

This alarming sentence is why I questioned your sanity.

As for your ‘guess’, I’m a male (intelligent) teacher.
You come across as a male who thinks he’s intelligent* (and doesn’t understand women).

*but since I already showed you think custard is intelligent, this may not be a good thing.

I’m dealing with you as I would a pupil - who likes to show off, but doesn’t realise how little he’s achieving.

One last time (I don’t give up easily):
What do you mean by the phrase ‘counter intelligence’?