America was founded on the notion that all men are created equal.
I think thats bullshit.
Further more, capitalism and the other systems in place all rely on various degrees of ignorance to work, its simply the way it must be.
First, one needs to define intelligence.
I would define it loosely as: “that which posesses consistency.”
This was to set a frame of reference that I immediately set about to back up. I considered it efficient to start here shrug.
Ah, I understand - custard exists, so it is definitely intelligent.
Since custard has cohesion without stasis, it looks like you are still confusing a food with thinking.
Well, custard (if properly made) is certainly possesses consistency.
So you define custard as intelligent, huh?
“”"“Well I have the faculty of reasoning.
Are you claiming you’re a bowl of custard?”""""
The deepest part of the ocean is very dark. Not all things which are very dark are the deepest part of the ocean.
This articulates the abstraction where a possible property of an object is seperated from objects in general.
Intelligence is a possible property of custard. I’m of the mind that intelligence as a concept will expand to define custard as being intelligent. Intelligence is one of those ‘funny’ words; where the older one becomes, the larger the definition becomes.
Can a carrot be a 4x4x4 pastel rainbow cube? With genetic engineering; yeah!
Not all definitions are written in stone. What I’m doing here is drawing the conceptual line between what is absurd and what is not. (Is there anything which can be defined?) I believe this can be done in such a way; that someone 1000 years or even a million years from now, inspite of future technological and philosophical insight, will percieve a limitation to our current conception of truth.
How many people 2000 years ago would have thought you completely mad for asking whether a 4x4x4 pastel cube was a carrot or not? It really depends on the frequency those properties of association; if the basic properties are still there in a molecular sense, but disguised in a ‘deceptive’ (encrypted) sense, our mapping of carrot still relies (to a large degree) upon the frequency of our exposure to WHATEVER property is the vogue expression of a carrot.
I haven’t made that specific argument; I would however make the argument that custard must be defined as intelligent, in order that our perception of intelligence maintain consistancy. That’s not to say that all things intelligent must be custard. See the difference? It’s about the ‘molecular’ definition (the ideal form); not the properties which one can exchange to disguise a fundamental truth.
-Justhink
The argument I’ve put forth in regards to defining intelligence, really touches upon this point you brought up! See what questions (can) do (or statements!), they seek clarity.
I’m basically stating (in terms of your question):
In order for our concept of intelligence to be consistent, custard must be a property of our concept of intelligence, and not the other way around.
(I’d urge ‘God people’ not to jump up and down in total victory if this argument asserts itself as true. There are many other factors in relation to that specific question that are being ommitted here).
-Justhink
“”"""America was founded on the notion that all men are created equal.
I think thats bullshit.
Further more, capitalism and the other systems in place all rely on various degrees of ignorance to work, its simply the way it must be."""""
Does America need capitalism?
If we define life as requiring ignorance to work; it does not take very long to validate absurdity as the most reasonable response to all action. What you’ve basically done IMO, is collapsed the whole point and necessity of this OP. This OP is concerned with whether intelligence can be isolated or not; if not, then the OP already is absurd from the get-go; and I may as well have saved myself the time by ceasing to exist before typing it. I’d suggest that the same holds for everyone. In saying that, I’m impressing the idea of why we need to find a line to draw. I’m stating that I believe it exists, where it exists, why we should believe it exists, how to measure it and how to recover the missing fragments of it.
I’m arguing that there is a line of rationality, and that we can excavate it. To not do so, is to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that suicide is the only truth of rationality; and everything else is by nature irrational.
-Justhink
Justhink: Before I steel myself to wade through your latest batch of posts, I’d like to ask a question; chewing over the parts that I think I understand from your earlier words in this thread, I’m left with an impression:
(I think) You believe that in any given situation there is a single logically identifiable ‘best’ or ‘correct’ course of action(or inaction) and that to reject this single possible path in favour of any other is morally/logically wrong or in some way indicative of deeply-flawed thinking/‘counter intelligence’ or something similarly negative.
Could you just confirm (as concisely as possible) if the above is representative of or similar to anything you’ve been trying to say here?
Wow, it’s like watching a long slow boring train wreck.
I’m finding glee and Mangetout’s attempts at deconstruction and understanding quite entertaining. The trick is to only read Justhink’s posts one time (or less). He really makes very little sense. Re-reading does not make him any more understandable and slows the train down considerably.
Justhink could have a long and productive stay here if the happy guy and the hungry guy could follow him around and translate.
Yes!!! That is percisely what I am saying. I’m also saying, that the scientific method can be revamped in such a means as to prove whether something is true before one even ‘investigates’ it.
It strikes me as equivilent to the phenomenon of now being able to save incredible time in determining whether a number is or is not prime. A technology that was just excavated by us, digging up the site of ‘rationality’.
I’m saying that we can literally build a program to spew out truth, in such a means that is the definition of rationality to us.
We have the technology to collapse the commodity of opinion.
I mentioned our abstraction of intelligence which allows us to detect and measure it: the efficiency of consistency.
I’m saying in so many words, that I’m almost at the point where I can apply our method of discernment for intelligence to intelligence itself; in a way that is ‘infinitely’ efficient (from our perceptual barrier that defines rationality).
-Justhink
Good god, man, you’ve just predicted the destruction of the Straight Dope Message Board.
Okaaaay, and do you beleive that this principle applies at every level? (there’s really a logical and moral difference between my eating a red apple and a green one when I feel no particular preference? (or if I’m going to peel it anyway) - there’s a right and wrong choice?).
Mangetout:
This also leads to one of the articulations I intended to illuminate in the OP.
Remember when I said:
People don’t work to create more work, they work to create more cognitive space.
And that Capitalism requires that people work to create more work, in order to exist as a structure.
You may also remember me saying in other threads:
People who invent things and use that association of their name and the process of recovery to accumulate commodity, are crooks.
Rationality seeks to collapse resources (and still say sentient!).
People who do this and irrational; as the only invention worth anything is the invention of invention itself. The attribution of glory to an individual for a process that is self-explanitory; is counter-intelligent. All that person is; is one of 6 billion people on this planet excavating the archeological site of: rationality.
To celebrate their find and throw a bunch of resource at them, is counter-intelligent. It is misdirective of what rationality represents!
It is a waste of time.
-Justhink
“”""“Okaaaay, and do you beleive that this principle applies at every level? (there’s really a logical and moral difference between my eating a red apple and a green one when I feel no particular preference? (or if I’m going to peel it anyway) - there’s a right and wrong choice?).”"""""
Part of this aspect is understanding the goal of rationality.
Was someone wasting their time spending 4 years processing an enormous marsine prime, just to seek a formula to collapse it, by observing the process? Probably not.
Are you wasting your time eating food, to stay alive in order to excavate the site of Rationality?
ONLY!! If it can be proven through the efficiency formulas of rationality itself, that your eating of food is counter-productive to the resource being utilized to collapse a critical resource; so that humans as a whole can assure their survival against a potential threat.
It can be proven when an act is specifically detrimental to the entire concept of rationality. Quite frankly, there MAY actually be a situation where a a different colored apple may be considered detrimental to rationality. I’d certainly offer that we don’t know (haven’t excavated) what types of causes and effects that eating different colored apples has on logical systems.
I will state, that there will be a discernable difference!!
It’s just outside of our area of immediate focus; the act is at this point negligable, from our lack of focus. There is not much we can offer about that particular system of determinism.
What I’m saying, is that the program I’m concieving will instantly collapse moral opinion; that is without argue. Following this vein (as in a gold dig); will uncover even more efficient opinion collapsers. People can bitch, deny and complain all they want; but when someone starts telling them their birthday and the meal they had exactly 1 decade ago; they’ll take notice!!
Nobody believed in a nuclear bomb (except the researchers) until it blew up two entire cities. Then people who made fun of you, become very curious! In fact, they believe you now.
This is one of the problems of appeal to authority that I am confronting with this program. Authority can LIE, even though they weild the power, they can LIE about how they weild it.
I have every intention of collapsing this resource! I am tired of non-transparency and counter-intelligent behavior.
The hypocrite can stand in line with the rest of us, or they can take a hike… as of now; they are having everything both ways, in a means that rationality conserves itself from.
-Justhink
I’m interested to know why you would think that the invention of invention or the pursuit of rationality is worthwhile.
You have to understand, that I’m basically a hermit. I’m not involved with a professional group environment here. For all I know; I’m the only one who’s been uncovering and studying the dynamics of the indentured system (I’ve been doing it for a decade now). I’m offering a warning to people. This thing is coming, and if you are standing in one of the spots where it obliterates irrationality; YOU may be obliterated with it.
I’m telling people to prepare. I’m most concerned about those who operate their existence wholly counter-intelligently; such that their indentured system is hooked by counter-intelligent aquisition. These people need to swallow a ‘humble pill’, to some degree, to avoid annihilation. I live in America, I can observe from watching television and reading some materials that people are standing right in the center of the impact zone.
I’m hoping this transition will be smoothe; and not cost any life.
-Justhink
-Justhink
“”"“I’m interested to know why you would think that the invention of invention or the pursuit of rationality is worthwhile.”""
Rationality is the only thing that is worthwhile; it is absurd to suggest otherwise. By doing so, you collapse ALL logical meaning.
You prove that NOBODY can be RIGHT about ANYTHING. Think about that. Do you want that to be a law recognized by all human beings as the pinnicle of knowledge? If we are not puruising rationality, we can prove that we are pursuing nothing!
-Justhink
What exactly are the benefits of this system and who will enjoy them?
What is so bad about pursuing nothing? (or not specifically pursuing anything)
Ooops… On the invention of invention.
It allows a process of superconductive transport over the ‘surface’ where inventions are stored (this is all metaphorical, but not deceptive!). We use inventions to increase efficiency of excavating rationality. It is of the definition of rationality that this process of increased efficiency be undertaken, otherwise; we can be proven as doing nothing. Imagine that proof!
-Justhink
Justhink,
Let me sum up.
You claim:
-
custard is intelligent
-
rocks reproduce
-
books make you paranoid
-
it would take you too long to define one single phrase you invented (counter-intelligence) and there is a possibility that you would rather kill yourself
Okaaaay.
You know I said last time that I don’t give up easily?
Well, I’ve now had enough of your ramblings.
-
Goodbye
-
What do you mean by the phrase ‘counter intelligence’? :wally
-
Good luck Mangetout :rolleyes:
The proof that we are doing nothing!!!?? It collapses rationality into catatonia! It makes everyone an instant hypocrite, with no way out; it proves the principle of anarchy (which incidentally, I’m saying is not true!).
What you are doing, is drawing the line from rational and irrational. Intelligent and absurd. Anything that humans use of value, has been derived from the conception of intelligence. That a person does not apply the same principle required to create a language or a lightpost; with their use of that language or lightpost, is absurd.
There is an inherent irrationality to killing, that logistically makes it impossible for a person to pull the trigger to exact an effect which is percieved as intelligently executed. You are a hypocrite about your existential value as a person, BY NOT applying that principle to your actions.
You’re exactly like the person who says, “I don’t believe anything exists at all.” And then proceeds to aquire a status in an intelligent society. This person is a welfare case to the extreme.
Rational society cannot support these people, nature does not support these people, when you observe the laws of how nature treats them.
It’s the basic logical error that the uni-bomber made. He USED technology, yet he argued with every ounce of his being against it. All of the resource required to stop him (including our national focus); is the cost that society derives from these types of individuals.
His thoughts and his ability to even make his shelter are ALL technologies.
-Justhink