How do you define intelligence? Is it a normative trait and any attempt to isolate a definition was ill advised to begin with or does the concept refer to something that has a tangible phenomenological basis that we might be able to measure some day?
If you don't feel like you can define it, who/what would you turn to to define it for you? What is the bleeding edge of intelligence research? Will studying AI get us a solid definition or do we need to study humans? Aliens? Animals in general? How do you create a path that could accurately define intelligence?
What is (or isn't) intelligence?
>>7996166
Intelligence isnt one thing. Its depth and speed of recall, 30 different kinds of reasoning, creativity, eloquence and a bunch of other shit
>>7996174
This, I would add that there are ontological issues in assuming these are true. However, if we're examining the mind in these frameworks to begin with, which begot the question, think of intelligence like an atom that expands with more nuanced and relevant material to construct its growth; as capacity: if you have one or more of said traits, how well you execute them amounts to its a-typicality. You need to look at the general population and standardize capacity, then you examine your traits and see how well you're exceeding it. Read up on logic, and nuanced the execution is in reasoning or sequential logic. The entire circle of the 'chart' get bigger as your capacities exceed the standard.
I will say that this evaluation is meant to be holistic, and that judging mistakes is not the way to do it. Especially mistakes done on occasion. It's about how well you can do the things you're good at. Look at yourself across the spectrum of time. Too many people get too self-critical of mistakes.
>>7996179
I would just say "intelligence" is a simplified way to talk about numerous more or less related abilities/characteristics, and that you can be better or worse in each one
>>7996185
Hm. So g factor? I don't believe there's such a thing as g factor. Who says that intelligence is general ability? It's known that when you have a lot of focus on a few things, you're generally better at it. I think g factor is more about the ability to reason generally inside the mind following a clear line of reasoning, not necessarily how well you can execute abilities, since demonstrative ability is dependent on extending circumstances.
>>7996166
>How do you define intelligence?
it is what remains, once you no longer love pleasures nor hate pains.
>>7996186
The hell is g factor?
>>7996192
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_%28psychometrics%29
>>7996193
But that is the exact opposite of what I said. There is no "general intelligence" there are numerous different abilities which may or may not be related, and you can be differently skilled in all of them
>>7996166
it's not complicated...
making sense of the world is intelligence
how well you make sense of it is how intelligent your are
>>7996204
The world = ???
In which ways can someone make sense of """"""the world"""""?
>>7996209
What we perceive, dont be an autist
>>7996179
This reads like word salad. I can read it but it's not really all that real sounding.
>>7996188
Too poetic for my tastes, I guess.
>>7996192
"General" intelligence.
>>7996201
That's the approach I've been favoring lately. I used to special in generality but now I'm pretty sure all that did was temporarily stunt my development.
>>7996204
I guess that makes sense. Thanks.
>>7996212
>dont be an autist
This. I came to /sci/ to escape the subjectivity that plagues /x/.
>>7996221
>This. I came to /sci/ to escape the subjectivity that plagues /x/.
Maybe this is the cutoff. Smart people discuss objective realities while plebs stick to discussions about subjective topics.
>>7996258
Objective realities come from a ton of assumptions. Smart is the ability to reason in some form, meaning that smart people question these assumptions and break down the problem to its fundamentals, and then build conclusions up from there.
>>7996258
>Smart people discuss objective realities
More we dont bother with philosophical judgements of "objectivity". The world as we perceive it is our axiom, we work from there
Intelligence is subjective
>>7996268
Objective realities come from a ton of definitions. It is still unclear whether the atomic dictionary is circular or not, but this doesn't enumerate a set of assumptions, but rather observations.
>>7996166
>intelligence?
By coupling it to another trait or capability.
Intelligence on its own doesn't mean anything, it's only when you expressed intelligence that it haves a meaning.
A great example is to compare it to contemporary AI.
If an AI can recognize and describe any scene or video you give it a picture of we'll consider it to be a great AI.
If a person can recognize and describe any scene or video you give him a picture or video of you can at best say that he's not a complete and utter retard.
So the AI will be intelligent in the aspect of visual recognition and description. For a human however this type of intelligence is so extremely baseline that we don't even consider it intelligent. It's only if you're very proficient in games, math, engineering, design or some other career worthy traits that you become intelligent in human eyes.
>>7996174
Yes but what is the underlying aspect of each of those things which leads you to see them as intelligent?
>>7996166
He touched up on it nicely
>>7996862
Intellegence is the measure of cognitive capability. High and low levels of Intellegence are determined statistically, relative among a given type of cognitive processor.
So like he said, an AI processor today would be considered highly intelligent if it were able to do what most current AIs cannot, despite the fact that evenly humans with low intellegence are capable of exponentially more.
To answer your question, it is very much an objective concept that is observed in physics - though it is subjective in a sense to the processor type.
>>7997267
That said, you cannot determine the intelligence of a cognitive processor from its behavior alone because of how hugely dependant on development (environment) it is. A brilliant processor can function like shit if raised abusively and malnourished.
Intelligence is still a property of the processor rather than the system as a whole, it's just that the system prevents us from determining that property solely from the processor's behavior.
>>7996174
I would view intelligence the ability to learn. All animals have some degree of intelligence. In fact I often there are smarter animals than some posters on this board.
>>7997314
>there are smarter animals than some posters on this board.
Bears.
>>7996280
>The world as we perceive it is our axiom, we work from there
This, exactly. That's the axiom /x/ can't accept. It's contrary to the very concept of the paranormal.
>>7996470
I was looking for definition specifiers, not category specifiers.
>>7996862
>you can at best say that he's not a complete and utter retard
Interesting. I can see how it makes intuitive sense that it has to have some trait or capability before it can be meaningful to call something intelligent but my mind hesitates to consider it that simple.
>>7997243
There might not be one. Intelligence doesn't necessarily map to a singular phenomenon like AI enthusiasts imagine it might. I'm starting to really think there is no such thing as general intelligence.
>>7997314
>>7997325
What a great derail.
>>7997458
Uh do you know what subjective even means?
Intelligence being subjective means that there is no universal definition. What one considers intelligent may not be agreed upon by others.
If you are looking for the definition that society has decided to agree upon... Well touch luck, it's always morphing to fit the needs of the establishment
Why don't you make your own definition then ask what it means to be able to do as such. IE "what is it that allowed Einstein, Aristotle, etc to develop these great schools of thoughts? Is there even a common denominator?"
Then some will say there is nothing common, and others will disagree.
>>7997719
>What one considers intelligent may not be agreed upon by others.
Definition is subjective, then. Not a valid definition in my book. If you can't communicate your notions unambiguously to me, then you haven't done any defining.
>that society has decided to agree upon
Yes, if such an agreement already exists. If not, see the OP.
Also:
>society has decided
Society isn't capable of making decisions. Society can agree on things, but it can't "decide" to agree. It doesn't have first-order agency like that.
>the needs of the establishment
Such a thing does not exist. I'm not saying the process you describe doesn't occur, but it sure doesn't occur in response to nonexistent needs.
I'm also saying that such a thing doesn't occur. No politician benefits from trying to define intelligence, of all things. The education system is broken for much more abstract reasons that government "wanting" to "control" "intelligence."
>>7997719
>Why don't you make your own definition
I've been trying for awhile. I hadn't found a good one yet. But to answer your question:
>what is it that allowed Einstein, Aristotle, etc to develop these great schools of thoughts?
Because I don't actually subscribe to those schools. In my mind neither of them put forward anything more than an interesting premise, and all the schools of thought that followed were created by entirely separate people.
>>7997719
>some will say there is nothing common, and others will disagree
What an utterly useless sentiment. Are you trying to say that all discussion serves no purpose simply because people aren't forced to agree with anything? If not, I don't see the relevance here.
Intelligence is just how fast you can process information imo. Consciously or otherwise. Some will near immediately know an answer, others will take time.
>>7997863
>how fast you can process information
Don't we get faster as we get older? With training and the like?
>>7996166
A lack of stupidity.
>>7998034
The variety of things different people consider stupid varies considerably more than the things that different people consider intelligent. Defining it by its negation increases the difficulty of the question.
>>7997806
wtf?? Definitions are not subjective.
Some concepts are inherent;y subjective while others are not.
Do you want me to explain the difference between objectivity and subjectivity to you like your five years old?
The natural sciences are objective. The social sciences are subjective.
This does not mean that these concepts can't be explained unambiguously. It only means that the definitions can vary depending on the society they come from, or they can even vary from individual to individual.
Basically, subjective means "it depends" and depending on the concept it even depends on the situation
So you can ask people's opinions on what they think intelligence means. As you may know, some opinionated people can get incredibly specific with their ideologies and such.
If you ask me, intelligence is awareness and a holistic understanding. Being good at one thing but not being able to communicate to strangers on the street doesn't make you intelligent, it makes you autistic.
Anyways, if you want intelligence defined, I respond with... in terms of what?
>Society isn't capable of making decisions. Society can agree on things, but it can't "decide" to agree. It doesn't have first-order agency like that.
Haha don't be autistic. I mean a society implicitly makes decisions when it is ever able to come to a consensus. Obviously society cannot explicitly make decisions unless there was like a dictator or something...
>Such a thing does not exist. I'm not saying the process you describe doesn't occur, but it sure doesn't occur in response to nonexistent needs.
I was making implications about the establishment of modern science. Like others have noted elsewhere, autistic mathematicians get fuckloads of funding, but the intelligence research itself is obscure as fuck. Pretty ironic that there's so much attention in Artificial intelligence when human intelligence itself is scarcely talked about at the academic level...
So yea, it seems we are agreeing, Oh char limit..
>>7998346
>The natural sciences are objective. The social sciences are subjective.
Stopped reading there. Talk at your level, not your terrible perception of mine. /sci/ is not an explain it like I'm five board.
>>7998363
If your the one who posted what I am replying to, then I should be the one that stopped reading at
>Definition is subjective, then. Not a valid definition in my book. If you can't communicate your notions unambiguously to me, then you haven't done any defining.
You clearly have no idea what subjectivity actually means. I'm just responding to your fuckery, so it's amazing that you are appalled at my fuckery.
perception of your level? HA
Even if you did stop reading there, then that's great. You said definition is subjective, and I said that that is an invalid claim considering the definition of the word subjective itself.
Your level is literally invalid. Even worse than a five year old. Go back to school kiddo, you're not done learning yet
>>7998377
>subjectivity
The fact that you ever used the word should have told me to stop reading right then and there.
>perception of your level
No, I said speak at YOUR LEVEL, not whatever bullshit you think mine is. I asked for a definition, not your philosophy on subjectivity. Fuck off, your posts are anti-constructive in the hyperextreme.
>>7998346
> definitions aren't subjective!!!!11!!
> you can ask people's opinions on what they think intelligence means
> Basically, subjective means "it depends" and depending on the concept it even depends on the situation
> if you want intelligence defined, I respond with... in terms of what?
How's that multiple personalities disorder working out for you?
>>7998382
>Definition is subjective, then. Not a valid definition in my book.
This is an invalid statement. I am speaking at my level to explain how that is an invalid statement.
Ironic how you claim my posts are anti-constructive when you are literally being too arrogant to even read them. Stop being a hypocrite ya dingus
>>7998386
noun: intelligence
1.
the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.
That definition is objective, however this ability cannot be objectively measured. In fact, there is no consensus on what the cause of this ability even is. Not to mention that there isn't even a consensus on what "acquiring and applying knowledge and skills" even means, since one could argue that creating melodic music or art in general requires applying knowledge and skill of rhythm and harmony.
This lack of consensus indicates the subjective nature of the concept of intelligence itself.
But the definition is objective.
>>7998387
>Definition is subjective, then.
>then
Then, meaning, if I were to steelman your stance it would translate to that. The absolute horridity that you've spouted here under the pretense of debate is evidence enough for me to dismiss your posts. The fact that you ever used "subjective" in a topic about defining a term should have been warning enough. Your posts don't even deserve a steelman.
I'm not going to read a paragraph of bullshit just to help you feel relevant. If you can't contribute to the topic, don't post.
My best, laziest interpretation of your argument resulted in you flying off the handle. You are literally not worth my time if that's your tactic.
>>7998394
>That definition is objective
No, it isn't. "Clearly defined" doesn't make a term objective or subjective in any way. The entire idea is entirely irrelevant to this thread.
Here's your steelman:
>lots of people don't get it yet, therefore whatever
I'd fill in "whatever" but it doesn't look like you were trying to make a point at all.
>>7998400
adjective: objective
1.
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
Clearly defined means it is objective, since the definition itself is not influenced by opinions.
>The fact that you ever used "subjective" in a topic about defining a term should have been warning enough.
Uh... what?
The topic is "What is Intelligence?" and the answer is that it is subjective.
All I am saying, in this regard, is that a better question is "What do you think intelligence is?" or "What does intelligence mean to you?"
And I already gave my opinion, it was in the post that you decided not to read. Oh the irony... I'll say it again once you stop being butthurt over your lack of awareness of how subjectivity and objectivity works
>My best, laziest interpretation of your argument resulted in you flying off the handle. You are literally not worth my time if that's your tactic.
I never flew off my handle. I think you're the one that is. Why are you trying to convince me that I'm not worth your time, yet you continue to respond? Sounds like a trolling attempt. So actually responding to this attempt at convincing me how I am so worthless is just going to instigate more shit flinging. But yea, there's just so many things wrong with that. For one thing, it has nothing to do with the discussion that you apparently so desperately want.
>>7998406
>objective
Stopped reading there. I literally just told you that subjectivity and objectivity have nothing to do with this thread. If you can't separate out the bait and post constructive responses, leave. I don't need your feedback.
>>7998406
>yet you continue to respond?
The same reason I'd punch you in the face if you'd played this tactic in a face-to-face debate. Telling you to fuck off is worth my time, but responding to the content of your posts isn't.
>>7998410
>The topic is "What is Intelligence?" and the answer is that it is subjective.
>All I am saying, in this regard, is that a better question is "What do you think intelligence is?" or "What does intelligence mean to you?"
jesus fuck man stop being so arrogant
>>7998411
>arrogant
Dismissing shitposting and bait isn't arrogant, it's the 4chan way of life. Thanks for finally submitting a TL;DR.
>a better question is
Read the OP. Note how I ask the same question 400 different ways. (Conservative estimate.)
>>7998416
>le meme
okay your the one who doesn't deserve this.
im out
>>7998420
Thank you.
>dismissing an opponent on the basis of opponent being a 4chan user
Quoting to rerail thread:
>>7996166
>If you don't feel like you can define it, who/what would you turn to to define it for you? What is the bleeding edge of intelligence research? Will studying AI get us a solid definition or do we need to study humans? Aliens? Animals in general? How do you create a path that could accurately define intelligence?
>>7997806
>If you can't communicate your notions unambiguously to me, then you haven't done any defining.
"hurr durr is subjective" is an invalid response. The point of the thread is to give your definition, not an analysis of people's ability to hold differing views. (Unless such ability is how you define intelligence.)
Ambiguous definitions aren't definitions, they are debates waiting to happen. I don't mind debate so long as that debate isn't about fucking subjectivity.
>>7998439
>I don't mind debate so long as that debate isn't about fucking subjectivity.
But that's exactly what you were doing for like hours...
You could have simply acknowledged that yes, it is indeed a subjective concept, and that you already acknowledged and recognized this in the OP. It's not an invalid response, it's a moot response. I was just bringing it up again because my opinion of what intelligence is, is inherently linked into the ideas of subjectivity and objectivity itself. Math comes from philosophy for a reason. To be intelligent one has to understand the fundamental nature of axioms, and the fact that nothing can truly be proven to be objective, and it's the first axiom of causality that creates any semblance of objectivity. Math, essentially, is the theoretical abstract study of what patterns there could possibly be, and physics is the application of these frameworks of patterns onto this most consistent phenomena that we call reality.
I stated my opinion earlier that
>If you ask me, intelligence is awareness and a holistic understanding. Being good at one thing but not being able to communicate to strangers on the street doesn't make you intelligent, it makes you autistic.
I just extrapolated on what it means to have a holistic understanding, how the sciences really come from math and how math really comes from physics. Really understand these things to gain a holistic understanding.
And yes, the ability to hold differing views is essential to this holistic understanding. This ability to hold differing views also allows one to be able to talk to strangers. Street smarts, as they say.
>>7998461
>>7998416
And btw. I would not say that you acknowledged it in the OP.
But that is because I misinterpreted
>How do you define intelligence?
as meaning, how are you supposed to define intelligence, at least in the context of the post and subject title, that's what it seemed to mean.
This is where I can now elaborate on what I really mean on being able to communicate with strangers. Mastery of language is essential in clarity of communication, which is IMO essential for being intelligent. Speaking ambiguously and using nonspecific words is counterproductive to awareness and in cultivating intelligence. So is a number of other things that you seem to have done so ironically since you are so interested in what it means to be intelligent.
>>7996221
>OP confirmed autist.
People like you are the worst.
Apparently these "intelligence" threads are full of obviously handicapped people. I feel sorry for them, even though I should not. This must be what they call humility.
>>7998653
Lol. Have you even been around handicapped people? Most aren't able to type up a sentence.
the ability to form connections
so basically everything, and nothing, also a stupid piece of vocabulary today
>>7998346
I caught an error. Intelligence is subjective only if you're psychologically hiding it from the objective collective.
maybe OPs beef might be with measuring it quantitatively
like IQ.
maybe intelligence should be ultimatly critiqued like a piece of art rather than muddeled over like an equation.
>>7998902
How do you hide intelligence? For that matter how do you show intelligence? Wasn't that the point of this thread?
Also you're not making any sense. It's like you don't know what those words mean
>>7998461
>for like hours
I was playing Spider solitaire for hours. Telling you to stop shit/baitposting about subjectivity took ten minutes out of my play time. Ten minutes is worth it to kill the bait.
>>7998461
>You could have simply acknowledged that yes, it is indeed a subjective concept
Except it isn't, so I couldn't. Stopped reading there.
(I'll come back to your post later though.)
>>7998477
>that's what it seemed to mean
Then maybe you should actually read the whole OP before shitposting ITT.
>>7998477
>essential for being intelligent
Eccentrics the world over disagree. So long as you can find one person that understands your genius, you don't really need anyone else.
>>7998477
>counterproductive to awareness
Awareness of WHAT? This is a thread about defining intelligence, not about any social justice bullshit that you might have imagined.
>in cultivating intelligence
Communication is not the first step in cultivating anything. It's the second step. Until you've made something worth sharing, all communication will be equally unproductive.
>>7998511
Which I why I came to (love) /sci/ (so much). I'm here to stop being an idiot in each of my fields of study. (Because being equally good at everything means being equally bad at everything.)
I never took pride in being a generalist. It was just the most effective way for me to use the resources at my disposal. (Which was primarily time.)
>>7998724
This.
>>7998653
>even though I should not
Your ruler is broken.
>>7998859
I call that creativity. I'm still not sure the exact role creativity plays in intelligence, but I don't consider them the same thing yet. I'll need to meet a ton more autistic AI before I can be confident that creativity maps bijectively to intelligence.
>>7998902
>an error
Debate, so long as you're trying, is never an error.
>>7998920
Decent perspective, thanks. You're probably the only decent member of the entire collective. Hive faggots still need to GTFO.
>>7999471
>Wasn't that the point of this thread?
No, the purpose was simply to define it. Applying that definition to a behavioral analysis is purely a second order consequence. We haven't even gotten to the epistemology portion of this thought.
We can almost define intelligence as the ability to hide or show things at will.
>>7999471
>It's like you don't know what those words mean
That anon is probably one of the coreisall faggots.
>>7999526
>Except it isn't, so I couldn't. Stopped reading there.
I already greatly elaborated how it is, so let me just cite myself. It's subjective because it's in the definition. I explained that although the definition is objective and agreed upon, the concept itself is subjective due to the lack of consensus on what the cause of intelligence is. In the definition it's defined as an ability.
>>this ability cannot be objectively measured. In fact, there is no consensus on what the cause of this ability even is. Not to mention that there isn't even a consensus on what "acquiring and applying knowledge and skills" even means, since one could argue that creating melodic music or art in general requires applying knowledge and skill of rhythm and harmony.
You responded to this with something incorrect, or at the very least unsubstantiated and lacking analysis
>"Clearly defined" doesn't make a term objective or subjective in any way. The entire idea is entirely irrelevant to this thread.
This is incorrect and I explained already how
>>Clearly defined means it is objective, since the definition itself is not influenced by opinions.
Which you then responded with complete and utter arrogance
>Stopped reading there. I literally just told you that subjectivity and objectivity have nothing to do with this thread. If you can't separate out the bait and post constructive responses, leave. I don't need your feedback.
You telling me something doesn't make it true. *gasp* Yes I know hard to believe right? I have cited the definitions and provided analysis into how subjectivity and objectivity actually have everything to do with this thread, while you continue to make unsubstantiated claims. Also what do you even mean by "separate out the bait and post constructive responses"
Dare I say, an intelligent person can respond constructively to bait. And probably should, when there is nothing else, lest the thread stagnates
>>7999526
>Then maybe you should actually read the whole OP before shitposting ITT.
How would reading the entire post clarify what you meant? I fully explained how reading the entire post is what caused me to misinterpret what you meant since it was the context and subject title that led me to that interpretation.
Also, You do realize that saying you apparently did mean that in the OP, means you are agreeing with me about how intelligence is a subjective concept (because that's what that is. that's what I mean consistently) since you are responding like you did do something that I said you should have done. Yet you are arguing that I am wrong in different replies. Get your shit together, and when I say shit I mean integrity. Stop making unsubstantiated claims about how I am wrong and then responding like I am right, or just flat out agree with me.
>Eccentrics the world over disagree. So long as you can find one person that understands your genius, you don't really need anyone else.
This is so wrong it hurts. When did the word of eccentrics become the infallible truth? You know that delusional people can understand each other very well? Ever step into a religious institution?
>Awareness of WHAT? This is a thread about defining intelligence, not about any social justice bullshit that you might have imagined.
Awareness of logic. Intelligent people are aware of logic. That's how they acquire knowledge, as the definition states.
If you think awareness is a social justice term maybe you should go back to ler eddit...
>>7999526
>Communication is not the first step in cultivating anything. It's the second step. Until you've made something worth sharing, all communication will be equally unproductive.
Okay awesome. Communication is required after, as you say, the first step is made of having something worth sharing. I never said communication itself is the first step. Requiring something worth sharing before communicating is just something so obvious I was hoping that it goes without saying; actually it probably does and I wouldn't have had to clarify if you weren't being so fallacious.
You literally used the strawman fallacy. Which is so ridiculously ironic since you use this nonsense term "steelman" that I had to google, which is supposed to be the opposite of the strawman fallacy concept. It's supposed to be used as a suggestion to recommend the other debater to create the strongest argument possible before continuing the debate, but you use it arrogantly by actually acting as if you know what the other person's argument is and then accusing it to be inadequate. What, can you read minds now? Why not actually challenge and criticize the argument you perceive instead of brushing it aside.
Anyways, you don't need to make something worth sharing, you can just discover it; you know acquiring knowledge, like the formal definition states.
>I call that creativity. I'm still not sure the exact role creativity plays in intelligence, but I don't consider them the same thing yet. I'll need to meet a ton more autistic AI before I can be confident that creativity maps bijectively to intelligence.
Um, you know autistic people are often considered to be very creative, despite not having any awareness of social concepts. It's the fact that they aren't logical that makes them autistic. Sometimes you get the opposite where they are completely logical but not creative at all. Those are called savants, if only because they still don't have any awareness of social concepts.
>>7999533
If you are only looking for a definition, it's been posted. The formal definition is
>the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.
It's the nature of this ability that is the cause of debate. If one is able to identify this ability (and prove it) then everyone and their mother would know exactly what intelligence is and there would be no need for iq tests and such, let alone this thread.
So yea, behavioral analysis is exactly the point of this thread, since we already have a formal definition which points to the ability. The lack of agreed upon behavioral analysis is the whole crux of the issue at hand.
epistemology? We have the knowledge of what intelligence is. There is a formal definition already, why would one not start from there? Is the formal definition flawed?
>We can almost define intelligence as the ability to hide or show things at will.
What. Where did that come from?
>>7999624
>It's subjective because it's in the definition
Cite your definition first, then your analysis of the definition. I'm not going to argue the cart just because you put the horse behind it.
>>7999624
>unsubstantiated claims
Fuck off. I'm OP. I know what kind of feedback I'm looking for and "hurr durr is subjective" isn't it. You can't argue on behalf of your feedback without accepting me as an authority on what type of feedback I want.
>>7999624
>an intelligent person can respond constructively to bait
Yes, that's what I love about /sci/. I was surprised to see that /sci/ had a ton more stupid questions than /x/ ever saw, but more than that I was surprised that /sci/ actually made constructive responses to what would have been bait on any other board. It's one of /sci/'s unique traits that makes me really admire this board.
But some things bait specifically for walls of text. In that case, not biting means not falling for it. To indulge your subjectivity argument before you've supplied us with your notion of what intelligence is would be counter-productive and entirely backward.
>>7999624
>lest the thread stagnates
I was content with the contents before you showed up and starting shitposting about subjectivity prior to sharing your notion of what intelligence is. It's bait and you either know it or you're retarded.
I would rather have seen this thread sage than get caught up in subjectivist bullshit philosophy. I've already had wonderful feedback so far. There's no need to ruin it with useless contributions.
>>7999674
>what you meant
Because it would show that I didn't mean anything on my end. I wanted to ask a question, to cast a wide net to get the largest diversity of feedback possible. I got that.
>>7999674
>reading the entire post is what caused me to misinterpret
No, you said that the topic line and the last line of the OP were what made you tangent off on some bullshit subjectivity tangent. The question itself was much more general, by design.
>>7999674
>means you are agreeing with me
Literally anti-feedback. Stopped reading there.
>>7999721
>the strawman fallacy
Stopped reading there. Please refrain from trying to explain my perspective. It's clear to me that you don't actually understand it at all.
>>7999752
>It's the nature of this ability that is the cause of debate
Finally, something that I actually agree with. I'm going to force myself through this one post just because it actually sounds halfway relevant and not like an attempt to derail the thread by naming off types of fallacies.
>>7999752
>there would be no need for iq tests and such
That's a fair assessment. Is there a real need for such things or is it pure wankery? It could well be the case that intelligence is already so well understood that any meta-study of intelligence is pointless pedantic bullshit.
I won't argue which I think is the case, but that's because I want feedback. You brought it up, so you argue your stance on it. I'm just here to take apart any fallacious arguments I find. You get to play claimant here.
>>7999752
>a formal definition
That's exactly what we don't have here. Dictionaries give literary definitions, not formal ones. I can see how that could be a source of considerable confusion between our mind-types. Whereare you think that the dictionary is somehow magically relevant, every other poster ITT gave their own definition. I won't turn this into an "art of definition" thread (because it's not and it's be derailing) but... I guess no buts. I'm going to ignore anything you say about the nature of definition here on out, so be warned.
Everyone else ITT understood the question as well as its subjective angles, but they replied constructively anyway. Show yourself to be at that level if you really want to have an honest man's debate with me.
>>7999752
>agreed upon behavioral analysis
I can see where you're coming from. Yes, after a definition is formalized we could potentially move on to behavioral analysis. Only after.
>>7999773
I already did in this thread but sure I'll spell it out for you, again.
noun: intelligence
1.
the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.
adjective: objective
1.
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
>Fuck off. I'm OP. I know what kind of feedback I'm looking for and "hurr durr is subjective" isn't it.
Nigga what. Don't you know OP is a faggot. You literally came here with a question, and I'm answering it, providing citation and analysis. If you can't accept that then you are being arrogant and fallacious, which is way worse than being a troll.
If you think the response is invalid, then it's up to you to support your claim of my response being invalid
>You can't argue on behalf of your feedback without accepting me as an authority on what type of feedback I want.
I'm not providing feed back, I'm answering your question. You did not make any claim in the OP for anyone to provide any feed back. This is not how any of this works.
>/x/
no one gives a single fuck about that place, stop bringing it up, and holy shit stop comparing this place to that. This is not your blog. I used to lurk and post in that place for years but you don't see me mentioning it. We know /sci/ is cool, no one needs your shitty validation. Go post to plebbit if you feel the need to blog without making a blog
>But some things bait specifically for walls of text.
Why is that a bad thing. I like reading and writing so it's win win. Arrogantly ignoring the wall of text is what's entirely backward.
> To indulge your subjectivity argument before you've supplied us with your notion of what intelligence is would be counter-productive and entirely backward.
Why don't you support this claim? As I've elaborated so many times, my notion (or rather the very definition of intelligence) is inherently subjective.
>>7999773
>I was content with the contents
>I would rather have seen this thread sage than get caught up in subjectivist bullshit philosophy. I've already had wonderful feedback so far. There's no need to ruin it with useless contributions.
I would like more discussion on it though. Your opinion is yours. If your done with the thread you can leave.
>before you showed up and starting shitposting about subjectivity prior to sharing your notion of what intelligence is. It's bait and you either know it or you're retarded.
I guess I am retarded. Oh wait, you're just making more unsubstantiated claims. It's not bait and is relevant as I just elaborated yet again.
>Because it would show that I didn't mean anything on my end. I wanted to ask a question, to cast a wide net to get the largest diversity of feedback possible. I got that.
Then why did you respond like you did mean something earlier? Stop being so inconsistent. Anyways, in that case I did answer by saying it is subjective due to the formal definition. I then went on to explain my own opinion on it. I have no idea why you are complaining so much and making so many baseless accusations
>No, you said that the topic line and the last line of the OP were what made you tangent off on some bullshit subjectivity tangent. The question itself was much more general, by design.
As I said, if the question was so general and allowed a diverse amount of responses, then this "bullshit subjectivity tangent" is just as a valid response as any other.
>>7999826
>Literally anti-feedback. Stopped reading there.
Now you are just making gibberish
>>the strawman fallacy
>Stopped reading there. Please refrain from trying to explain my perspective. It's clear to me that you don't actually understand it at all.
Um, the strawman fallacy has nothing to do with your perspective. If I am saying you made a fallacy of the strawman, that means YOU are the one trying to explain MY perspective by misrepresenting it and then arguing that instead
>>7999752
>why would one not start from there?
Because your definition is apparently subjectivist bullshit and doesn't measure up to the quality of definitions supplied by actually contributing anons. Let's drop the dictionary for the time being since it's apparent that both of us have the skills to define things well beyond the shittastic quality of internet dictionaries. >>7996268+>>7996280
>>7999752
>Where did that come from?
Anti-collective reasoning. It won't come into the discussion unless collectivists show up. You can safely ignore it. (It's also true and probably the only claim I've actually made in this entire thread.)
>>7999828
>You literally came here with a question
No, I literally came here with a question BUNDLE, designed specifically to cast as wide a net at possible specifically for the sake of avoiding subjectivist bullshit.
Every other anon before you understood that they were supposed to remove all the subjectivity bullshit from their definitions before posting them. Why didn't you?
It seems like bait, and I don't really have any reason to tolerate it.
>>7999828
>citation and analysis
1. Citation means shit-all to me. I'm from /x/. Second, citing definitions is bullshit when I've literally asked you to come up with your own definitions.
2. You haven't provided any analysis from what I've read. Every single one of your posts reads like buttmad bullshit because I didn't accept your definition as relevant to this thread. Pro tip: It still isn't, because it's not YOURS. It's the one you stole from the dictionary and if you're really trying to pass if off as valid feedback, then it'd be plagiarism.
Literally, what you claim to be providing hasn't been provided and wouldn't be relevant to this thread even if it had been provided. Your entire method is wrong.
>>7999828
>which is way worse than being a troll
Please avoid ad-hominem arguments unless they relate to your definition of intelligence. Don't respond to me, respond to the content of my posts.
>>7999826
>like an attempt to derail the thread
well I was never trying to do that
>by naming off types of fallacies.
How is that derailing the thread? fallacies themselves can derail threads, and "naming off" or identifying fallacies are attempts to stop this derailment
>It could well be the case that intelligence is already so well understood that any meta-study of intelligence is pointless pedantic bullshit.
Wtf are you talking about? Did you just call your own thread pointless pedantic bullshit. lmao wtf I don't even
> You brought it up, so you argue your stance on it.
No it's not my stance. I am just inferring from the formal definition. When I say
>>there would be no need for iq tests and such
What I mean is that because iq tests exists, society clearly thinks there is a need for it. IF, I repeat, IF one is able to identify the ability that is the cause of intelligence, THEN there is no need. HOWEVER one cannot explicitly identify the ability. Because of it's nature. It's causing debate; since it's because of it's inherent nature that's causing the debate then that's what makes it subjective. This is what I've been explaining all this time. If it wasn't objective, then there would be no debate on it's nature because it would be explicitly obvious to everyone what this ability is and how one can identify it
> Dictionaries give literary definitions, not formal ones
Dude what, you are just arguing semantics here. I also gave my own definition, my opinion, but because I try to be as logical as possible I first felt the need to explain why I should share my opinion. This is because the formal definition is not adequate so one should give their opinion. That is what people do when dealing with subjective concepts. When people feel the need to share their opinions about a concept, then it's because the concept appears to be subjective. That's literally what the definition is.
adjective
1.
based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
>>7999826
>. I'm going to ignore anything you say about the nature of definition here on out, so be warned.
Warn me all you want but I don't give a fuck until I see a proper invalidation of my claims. That means supporting what you say, and not just making unsubstantiated claims. Or just continue being arrogant, this is a great exercise. And maybe someone else will come and respond, but that's incredibly doubtful since people don't like reading walls of texts regurgitating the same shit over and over because someone is being arrogant and making unsubstantiated claims and baseless accusations. I've even elaborated on how you are being arrogant, unsubstantiated and baseless when I see that you are.
>Yes, after a definition is formalized
Why don't you use the literary definition and work from there, like I have been this whole time. You are literally working from nothing and just pointing fingers...
>>7999828
>your claim of my response being invalid
I don't care to. It's not the type of dialogue I'm looking for. If you don't accept me as an authority on what I care to talk about, don't talk to me at all. You have to respect my autonomy or this thread will go nowhere.
>>7999828
>stop comparing this place to that
No. The difference between quality of discussion on /x/ and quality of discussion on /sci/ is that /x/ predates on subjectivity and /sci/ avoids the objective/subjective split entirely. You are literally the only one ITT that thinks subjectivity could possibly be relevant to this thread. No other anon needed to bring it up.
Subjectivity is literally triggering for me, because I'm from /x/. If you can't respect that I came to this board to avoid that bullshit, you shouldn't be interacting with me in any capacity at all.
>>7999828
>no one needs your shitty validation
/sci/ is life, /sci/ is god. All haters should eugenic themselves from the gene pool.
>>7999828
>Why is that a bad thing
Only an ex-/x/phile would understand.
You can safely ignore that entire tangent because it's not /sci/-relevant.
>>7999828
>my notion (or rather the very definition of intelligence) is inherently subjective
>the ability
So you categorize intelligence as an ability. I fail to see how that makes it subjective. To me, saying that intelligence is an ability leads directly to a method of measuring said ability. Contrary to popular idiom, measurement is the opposite of subjectivity. Objectivity isn't the opposite of subjectivity, it's an irrelevant metaphysical concept that /sci/ can do without and does.
>>7999863
>If your done with the thread
I'm not done with it, I'm content with it. I'm not going to stop monitoring it just because you can bait hard enough.
>yet again
I'm going to ignore any further claims you make about yourself or what you're trying to say. Don't tell me that you've said something, just say what you mean. (And make it relevant to the nature of intelligence.)
>>7999871
>Because your definition is apparently subjectivist bullshit and doesn't measure up to the quality of definitions supplied by actually contributing anons. Let's drop the dictionary for the time being since it's apparent that both of us have the skills to define things well beyond the shittastic quality of internet dictionaries
Uh no. random bullshit that strangers are spewing is bullshit, unless it's based on logic and facts or previously agreed upon definitions.
You posted two opinions. But you refuse to accept my opinion. What is this bullshit
>Anti-collective reasoning. It won't come into the discussion unless collectivists show up. You can safely ignore it. (It's also true and probably the only claim I've actually made in this entire thread.)
Why don't you share what you mean by collectivists since that looks like a term you made up. It's not a claim, it's gibberish.
>No, I literally came here with a question BUNDLE, designed specifically to cast as wide a net at possible specifically for the sake of avoiding subjectivist bullshit.
The more ambiguous you make something, the more likely you will get "subjectivist bullshit"
You keep using that term but I don't think you know what it means. That would explain why you don't want to hear it, seems like you don't even want to learn what it means. Stop being an arrogant imbecile.
Or you know, for once actually explain how subjectivity is bullshit. You know you never actually did that???
>Every other anon before you understood that they were supposed to remove all the subjectivity bullshit from their definitions before posting them. Why didn't you?
Actually I saw a lot of subjective shit that people have said. Just because they don't use the word doesn't mean they are not being subjective. IDK why you are so allergic to the word itself.
It's not bait. People are being subjective all the time. I just seem to have the awareness and specification enough to actually thoroughly explain&elaborate what I mean
>>7999871
>1. Citation means shit-all to me. I'm from /x
then GTFO OUT OF /sci/
>Second, citing definitions is bullshit when I've literally asked you to come up with your own definitions.
I did come up with my own definition. And you are saying it's not what you are looking for, without explaining why other than "hurr subjectivist bullshit"
I respond to that by explaining how it's not bullshit, and since you don't seem ready to accept it I start to provide citation and definitions. I thought you were being logical you know. But really you just
wow. fuck it. you have WAY too much autism. im done. lol
>>7999863
>why did you respond like you did mean something earlier?
Not sure what you mean. I honestly don't see it. If you want to quote me and tell me what you thought I meant (steelman), feel free. If you felt like I was doing anything other than responding to feedback, you'll have to show me where and why you thought that. Keep in mind, though, that meta-discussion isn't the same as discussing intelligence. I'd much rather hear your thoughts on intelligence than try to struggle with meta-intent analysis. (Unless such analysis is relevant to whichever definition of intelligence you wish to discuss.)
>>7999863
>just as a valid response as any other
I already addressed that, but just to be clear: There's a reason behind my refusal to indulge subjectivist bullshit. Don't respond to this paragraph unless you can pinpoint exactly where I addressed it.
>>7999863
>the strawman fallacy
Is irrelevant. I don't care who you thought was strawmanning who, the fact that you named the fallacy rather than explaining the logic behind it is disingenuous bait-like behavior. Notice how /sci/ isn't just a list of people making claims and responding with the names of logical fallacies? That's because intelligent discourse doesn't involve accusing your opponent of committing a fallacy.
>>7999909
>"naming off" or identifying fallacies are attempts to stop this derailment
Then you're shit, post shit, and couldn't possibly contribute any intelligent feedback to the topic of defining intelligence. Naming off fallacies doesn't stop bait from getting posted, it just makes you the idiot that bite hard on the bait.
Note that, while this is an ad hominem argument, me telling you that you're a shit does actually have something to do with the definition of intelligence I wish to discuss. I can actually maintain topical coherent by using you as a sample.
>>7999909
>Did you just call your own thread pointless pedantic bullshit
Potentially. I'm a perfectionist, so pedantry is never far behind.
Why did I even respond to you this much. holy shit. I'm just sleep deprived, so bad for your judgement
listen you little shit. you don't come to /sci/ to cherry pick. especially when you declare that you hail from /x/
sit back and take in what you understand. if you don't understand, respectfully ask for an elaboration. otherwise you will get no where
I'm incredibly nice to the point of delusion. I really gotta stop giving the benefit of the doubt.
I explained so many times how you are being arrogant. I explained my perspective on how subjectivity is relevant to the discussion. You provded no rebuttal and instead just shrugged it off. over, and over again. just fuck off and an hero, humanity is better off without arrogant dipshits like you
>>7999978
>pedantry is never far behind
Also, for the record: I'm pretty sure pedantry isn't the source of intelligence. I tend to think creativity has more use in coming up with ideas than structure does.
>>7999909
>I don't even
This really shouldn't come as a surprise to you. Pretty much everything you said ITT was pedantic in at least a dozen different ways. This entire board can be a bit pedantic at times. Sometimes even borderline autistic. It's not a bad quality for this board.
>>7999909
>society clearly thinks there is a need for it
[citation needed]
Hint: Society does a lot of completely useless shit.
>>7999909
>one cannot explicitly identify the ability
Hm. So you think intelligence is unidentifiable? Why? Argument from ignorance? (Keep in mind that I haven't read most of your posts prior to the one where you calmed down and made an on-topic claim that I could agree with and sink my teeth into.)
>>7999909
>it's inherent nature that's causing the debate then that's what makes it subjective
Ignorance causes debate. Tons of anons before you made a ton of perfectly valid definitions. None of them were debated because they were all pretty decent. You are literally the only person here that thinks intelligence is unidentifiable, subjective, or up for debate. Literally, it is only subjective in your mind. Nobody else sees it the way you do.
![LogicalFallaciesInfographic_A2[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/IhhNks5.jpg "LogicalFallaciesInfographic_A2[1].png")
just because everyone agrees doesn't make it true. only logic makes it true.
stop posting until you've actually read everything about logical fallacies
>>7999909
>If it wasn't objective, then there would be no debate on it's nature
Even if I accept this logic, we can substitute out conditions:
>if some asshat hadn't brought up subjectivity, then there would be no debate on its nature
...And find a ton of perfectly valid conflicting hypotheses. Basically your logic is invalid because it's not an iff.
Nobody's debated its nature yet. Nothing you said (that I could verify was worth reading in the first place) was about the nature of intelligence, but about the stupidity of the definition you chose to yell at me about. To this post, absolutely nothing has been said about the nature of intelligence as an ability or otherwise.
>>7999909
>it would be explicitly obvious to everyone
I don't immediately see how that follows. Can you extrapolate on why you see intelligence, and only intelligence, in that light?
>>7999909
>arguing semantics
Threadly reminder that debating semantics isn't a fallacy when semantics is the topic. This is a thread about making a definition of intelligence. It's gonna get semantic in here.
>>7999909
>I try to be as logical as possible
>why I should share my opinion
Communication is first order when communicating, but second order when formulating ideas (about intelligence). No matter how logical you are or aren't, your ability to communicate is a separate thing. It's not a given that trying to be logical will increase the effectiveness of your communication. I can't tell you how to explain your ideas, but so far your communication has been shit. I'm not sure what relevance the source of your notions has on anything you've said. To me, the source isn't relevant until you make an interesting claim to support.
>>7999909
>the formal definition is not adequate
Yes, and everyone responded with their opinions, except you. You're the only person ITT that went off on some bullshit tangent rather than making their own definition. Every other anon intuited out the irrelevance of subjectivity, so why not you?
>>7999909
>subjective concepts
That's an oxymoron. No wonder your communication skills are shit.
>>7999909
>When people feel
>share their opinions
People are exceedingly diverse. Not everyone does things for the same reasons or under the same stimulus.
I think you might actually be autistic, anon. I don't mean that as an insult, I just think it might be the case based on how you speak about motives.
>>7999932
>That means supporting what you say
Fallacy: Me supporting my claims has nothing to do with me attacking your claims. The two are separate in their entirety, and I can refute your claim long before I'll ever need to make a claim to support. I've been attacking your claims. I don't see any reason to do anything else yet. You're the one that picked your definition.
>>7999932
>arrogant
Sorry, but disagreeing with you isn't arrogance and never will be. I dismissed your posts because they were shit, not because I didn't want to address your points. It actually really fucking bothers me when I have to skip over entire posts for the sake of keeping a threat on target. I don't like doing it at all, and I kind of hate you for giving me a reason to do it.
>>7999932
>I've even elaborated on how you are being
I honestly don't see it. Repetition isn't elaborate in any way.
>>7999932
>Why don't you use the literary definition and work from there
Because that would be fucking retarded. When I ask you to make your own definition, quoting the dictionary is infinitely and axiomatically disingenuous.
>>7999962
>unless it's based on logic and facts or previously agreed upon definitions
That is literally the most autistic thing I've ever read. That was bad and you should feed bad. No other singular statement could possible be more retarded in the context of this thread. I'm not one for memes but that was literally so bad that I legitimately want you to do something dumb enough to get yourself killed. Choke on something stupid that shouldn't have been in your mouth in the first place or absentmindedly confuse the window for a stairwell. Your logic is literally cancerous and needs to die.
Language evolves through metaphor. Words are just shorthands for things we don't want to pedantically explain every time we wish to talk about them. Definition isn't built on definition; that would be circular bullshit. Definitions are built on metaphor, and it's a scientist's job to figure out the truth behind the metaphor and use it to construct a non-shitty explanation. If you can't literally make up definitions on the spot, something is seriously wrong with your brain to the point where you shouldn't be here on /sci/ at all. Please, for the sake of literally everyone who will ever bear the pain of having a conversation with you, kill yourself. An hero as soon as possible.
Definitions are built on metaphor, not on other definitions. You have entirely misunderstood the purpose of this thread in an alarmingly bad way. Your post was bad and you should feel bad.
>>7999962
>You posted two opinions.
I still haven't given my notion of what intelligence is. If you're referring to anything else I've said, it wasn't an opinion. I don't think I've said anything even remotely on par with an opinion. So far I've only really either ignored your bait or told you it was bait or gave my reasoning for why I think your reasoning is wrong. I won't adopt a fourth behavior for some random 4chan shitposter.
>>7999962
>Why don't you share what you mean by collectivists
Because every collectivist I ever met was an utter shithead not worth talking about. My sole intent is to eradicate that bullshit from /sci/. It's an /x/ thing that has no place on this board.
>>7999962
>The more ambiguous you make something, the more likely you will get "subjectivist bullshit"
Wrong. The more ambiguous something is, the more effort people will put in to taking away that ambiguity. Where you see a linear correlation, I see an inverse relationship. Either you haven't studied the matter very thoroughly and you've mouthed off bullshit that you have no expertise on or you've suffered some kind of abuse (or natural defect) that's left you unable to see alternate viewpoints. I'm not going to indulge your retarded opinions if you can't argue them competently and it is entirely disingenuous for you to think I ought to.
>>7999962
>You know you never actually did that???
I'm an ex-/x/phile. Subjectivity is triggering for me. I'm not willing to discuss it and never will be. It doesn't matter if the entire world thought I didn't understand the meaning of the term, I will never be willing to discuss it. If you can't respect that, don't talk at me.
>>7999962
>Just because they don't use the word doesn't mean they are not being subjective.
That is *PRECISELY* what it means. Your entire mass of indignant bullshit is second order evidence that someone disagrees with you strongly enough to call out your subjectivity for the bullshit that it is. Every comment is further evidence.
>>7999962
>seem to have the awareness and specification enough to actually thoroughly explain&elaborate what I mean
No, you sure as fuck don't. "Being subjective" means literally nothing the way you abuse the terms.
>>7999977
>im done
Then GTFO OF /sci/. "hurr durr isnot bullshit" is NOT a valid way to defend your stance. It never will be.
>>7999989
>if you don't understand
This has never occurred at any point in time.
My disagreement with you was never a result of any ignorance on my part. I understand, analyze, and refute. I don't need to put my own claims up. If you can't explain your stance without feeling out your perception of my ignorance then you will never be capable of communicating with me in any constructive capacity.
>>7999989
>respectfully ask for an elaboration.
Fuck. Off. If you are such a massive cunt that you literally act like an indignant shithead for this length of time and then expect me to be the one who humbles up and asks you to stop acting like a shithead and explain it concisely and humbly, then you aren't worth anyone's time. Kill yourself. You are not fit to post on /sci/ if you only explain things decently when asked nicely. Fuck off and die. You have significantly lowered the quality of this thread and this board.
The best part of this argument is that it couldn't happen if either party had ever been exposed to informal logic at any time in their lives.
>>8000006
>logic makes it true
No it doesn't, dipshit. If logic made things true, /x/ would all be wizards by now. Reality trumps logic every fucking time. Never bait the names of logic fallacies on /sci/ ever again. I sincerely hope you die.
>>8000126
OP here. I understand it, I just don't tolerate over-formal bullshit. If I'd never met /x/, I could've tolerated this discussion a hell of a lot better. But from my experiences with magic and beliefs and so on, I have keen eyes for clipping out ritualistic subjective pedantic bullshit. It's literally triggering for me, I'm not even joking.
>>7996166
Intelligence is just having a blue digital face desu
We were hella stupid before those were invented
>>8000150
Like, if this had happened in person, I would literally have punched my opponent in the face and told them not to blame me for the pain because "hurr durr your pain is subjective."
That would literally had ended the argument.
>>8000126
Heeeyy maan, I think my logic is pretty sound.
Intelligence is a subjective concept
As I said, since the definition of intelligence is
>the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.
The key word here is ability
>That definition is objective, however this ability cannot be objectively measured. In fact, there is no consensus on what the cause of this ability even is. Not to mention that there isn't even a consensus on what "acquiring and applying knowledge and skills" even means, since one could argue that creating melodic music or art in general requires applying knowledge and skill of rhythm and harmony.
I obviously must have autistic tendencies to be able to put up with this guy for even that long, but I'm always open to criticism :)
Please destroy my logic, but don't ignore it or brush it off. I love being proven wrong, it's the best way to gain enlightenment
>>8000201
>subjective concept
That's still an oxymoron.
>key word here is
Good definitions don't have "key" words. All of them together make the definition. Even as a category, abilities aren't subjective so your argument break right there.
>enlightenment
>>>/x/
Thanks for demonstrating that you're a shitposter.
holy shit fucking shut up
has anyone ever agreed with you? ever? although in itself that means nothing, but you certainly can't comprehend this thing called logic
>>8000257
A hypervast majority of all possible psyches tend to agree with me. If I wanted you to agree with me I'd put my definition of intelligence forward. I don't care to do so yet.
>>7999471
You "hide" intelligence by letting it be externally not present. You show intelligence by displaying skills such as planning, following through with purposes, intents, and goals, knowledge and understanding through words and appropriate behavior (in context of your objective self), etc... But even though I'm telling you what intelligence might be, I think there have been more enlightening posts in the thread, and btw I know what those words mean.
>>8001623
>You show intelligence by displaying skills such as planning, following through with purposes, intents, and goals, knowledge and understanding through words and appropriate behavior
Intelligence does not come from actions. Proof of the potential of intelligence maybe, but that's different.
It's the ability that causes intelligence that cannot be shown at all.
>in context of your objective self
lol the self is not objective. every new moment the brain configuration is different and so the self changes. and if it's not objective then of course, it is subjective. and it really does not seem like you know what the words objective and subjective mean
>>8002053
Are you contributing to the thread?
I said you SHOW intelligence.
Self is very objective, unless you're saying we don't live in a real world, lunatic.
"Intelligence measures an agent’s ability to achieve a wide range of goals across a wide range of environments".
/thread
>>8002116
>Self is very objective, unless you're saying we don't live in a real world, lunatic.
the self is not objective. what is real and what isn't is very disputable in philosophy.
further discussion on this topic will derail thread.
I think it is you who does not want to contribute to the thread
>>8002138
>"Intelligence measures an agent’s ability to achieve a wide range of goals across a wide range of environments".
So how do you measure this ability? Also, wouldn't a goal for one person not be a goal for another? How can we agree on what a goal is? We can't do that, let alone agree on what this ability is, so we definitely can't agree on a mechanism for measuring this ability
>>8002158
Any meaningful discussion has geometric moments where we ask "what if?" You must assume something to create structure. Structure comes from geometry. Otherwise you're lost in an abyss of "it just is,"
solipsism is not subjectivity.
>>8002177
what the fuck are you talking about you autistic shit
what does any of that have anything to do with the discussion of intelligence??
>>8002203
I was replying to a post. It said self is not objective. But that's wrong, because it is objective. And so is intelligence.
>>8002203
Algebra is existential sure, but there has to be a geometry for it not to be nihilistic (empty).
>>8002212
Okay, describe how self is objective
>>8002214
Maybe you should see a psychiatrist/psychologist and have them explain your problem. It's not my problem. Sorry you're insane and don't live in an objective world.
>>8002213
shut the fuck up you schizophrenic idiot
>>8002219
I don't have a problem. I described how the self is subjective here
>lol the self is not objective. every new moment the brain configuration is different and so the self changes. and if it's not objective then of course, it is subjective. and it really does not seem like you know what the words objective and subjective mean
You say I am wrong, and then make your own claim. But you did not even describe it. Either you can try to break down my explanation and invalidate it, or you can provide your own explanation on how you think the self is objective.
I don't have a problem here, you do.
>>8002225
Solipsism is not constructive to the thread, troll. And wow... "intelligence is subjective" really derailed the whole thread, it had potential, I say.
>>8002234
you insisting on commenting idiotic babble is derailing the thread. you aren't making any sense and that makes people angry
>>8002233
What you said is not scientific at all. But assuming there is a brain configuration, assume that it has dynamic existence with respect to time. Now you can form this to an equation from this and say that it has a formula, and thus is objective. In fact, if you know anything, you have to admit the brain is an object and has measurable aspects through the use of object.methods, for example, iq test. Look up neuroscience, or machine learning. One person in the thread said intelligence is determined by how well you learn something, which is a good point. Look up the MPN, neuron equation. Do some research, don't just reinvent the wheel.
>>8002237
No, the person who commented "intelligence is subjective" derailed the thread. I'm just existentially continuing that conversation, in vain of the stupidity of those I reply to.
>>8002254
>assuming there is a brain configuration
What? The brain is made of atoms. When these atoms move, the brain changes, and so the self changes.
>assume that it has dynamic existence with respect to time. Now you can form this to an equation from this and say that it has a formula
What? This equation would then be able to tell the future. Are you saying humans can see into the future?
What the fuck are you talking about man
>>8002267
Yeah, actually I am saying humans can see into the future with a lot of math, did you never see the magic in all those high school story problems in math? Just because something is impermanent only means there are additional dimensions (time). That doesn't imply anything that exists doesn't exist.
>>8002259
>im just acting retarded because others are!
you are retarded
>>8002280
I'm the anon who commented that intelligence is observable. I have lots of free time, you could troll me all day.
>>8002278
Math is not Physics. And the physics that could let us see into the future (determinism) turned out to be incorrect (Newtonian physics). The modern physics (quantum mechanics) are not deterministic models and instead rely on probability.
The brain is made up of particles that move. They move, according to the model in quantum mechanics, in a seemingly random fashion.
No, humans cannot see into the future. That goes without saying...
>>8002293
>I'm x
>I'm y
I don't care who you are, you huge retard. I'm replying only to the post I'm replying to. And you're a retard because of the things you're saying when I reply to them.
This, for example. Once again a fucking retarded post, le trolling meme etc etc
kill yourself desu
>>8002296
No, it is not "random."
>>8002302
ahh hehehe this guy really doesn't deserve the responses and explanations that I am giving him
I have this belief (that this guy is really challenging) that autistic people aren't actually dumb; if they are lacking logic then they should be able to learn this logic.
It's only the arrogant people that cannot be help. I'm trying to master the art of persuasion (using logic, as opposed to manipulation) and at first this felt like an exercise in that
I realize now, logic does not work on arrogance. HOWEVER manipulation should be really easy on arrogant people. That's something I try not to do consciously. That shit is too powerful and can be used for evil; I already know too much about human psychology. With great power comes great responsibility to not be evil, and I think I'll become evil very quickly when I taste such great power
Anyways, logic doesn't work on arrogance. But I will continue to be logical, but passively. I got shit to do
>>8002322
Yes. It is SEEMINGLY random. lrn2read
>>8002332
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics
search "random" and you'll actually learn something. Or give a source on your statement.
>>8002357
Um I did. It comes up three times.
>>8002358
Cool. I'm here to learn and teach a little, not intellectually masturbate.
>>8002324
> ahhh haha hehe hoho! my impressive mental powers of logic do not work on your arrogance, fellow troll!
are you fucking 12? stop sperging out you fucking schizo. this isn't your blog
>>8002368
fuck. maybe I am the autist
>>7996280
How can allow the perception of the world to be an axiom?
Different people perceive the world differently, so this inconsistency cannot allow an axiom to be created
>>7996268
Fucking this.
The whole point of philosophy is to " question these assumptions and break down the problem to its fundamentals, and then build conclusions up from there."
When one studies philosophy they discover the assumptions/axioms/postulates that create the perception of an objective reality. Some exploration of 'cogito ergo sum' and related philosophical discourse, arises the realization that phenomena (the world) itself is simply not objective; one cannot prove that the world or anything is "real"
So what does one do? The whole point of philosophy that gave birth to mathematics is the ability to identify patterns! I elaborated on this part already here
> I was just bringing it up again because my opinion of what intelligence is, is inherently linked into the ideas of subjectivity and objectivity itself. Math comes from philosophy for a reason. To be intelligent one has to understand the fundamental nature of axioms, and the fact that nothing can truly be proven to be objective, and it's the first axiom of causality that creates any semblance of objectivity. Math, essentially, is the theoretical abstract study of what patterns there could possibly be, and physics is the application of these frameworks of patterns onto this most consistent phenomena that we call reality.
>>If you ask me, intelligence is awareness and a holistic understanding. Being good at one thing but not being able to communicate to strangers on the street doesn't make you intelligent, it makes you autistic.
>I just extrapolated on what it means to have a holistic understanding, how the sciences really come from math and how math really comes from philosophy*. Really understand these things to gain a holistic understanding.
On other hand, there's also importance of communication which I'll elaborate l8r.
>>8002605
TLDR: SO BASICALLY
Smart people are those that realize phenomena or 'things' cannot be proven to be real, only patterns can be proven to be real.
And even patterns are based on the assumption, the grand daddy of all assumptions that is cause and effect. causality, determinism.
>>8002612
Which is why there's this faggot on /sci/ going around questioning quantum mechanics and how it implies the universe is fundamentally indeterministic. I am that faggot, and I am saying that if the axiom of causality is proven false then that makes the scientific method itself to be proven false... which recursively makes all of science, including quantum mechanics false which then makes the act of invalidating the axiom of causality false... it's just total fuckery
>>8002324
>it's only the arrogant people that cannot be help [sic]
i guess you'd know about that
![1620986_10152350622006698_7793174376589768784_n[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/JdTDWMZ.jpg "1620986_10152350622006698_7793174376589768784_n[1].jpg")
>>8002616
Let me repeat
Please destroy my logic, but don't ignore it or brush it off. I love being proven wrong, it's the best way to gain enlightenment
If I am being arrogant, then I am not aware of it. I know I am ignorant, and this awareness of how ignorant I am fuels my desire to learn
>>8002626
He doesn't like the words you used. To me, you remind me of every 14 year old asian I've ever known.
There's no 'proving wrong' with emotions. They are self-reported, every person is required to report them faithfully to others.
>>8002647
I've always wished there more like-minded people to talk to. Where can I go meet 14 year old asian?
Wait a second...
>>8002053
>every new moment the brain configuration is different
It isn't. Rewiring the brain is not a magical process.
>if it's not objective then of course, it is subjective
coreisall faggots need to stop posting here before they get doxxed. This level of pseudologic is an insult to every serious /sci/ poster and there are only so many instances where we're going to put up with forceful stupidity.
>>8002116
>unless you're saying we don't live in a real world
It's a from of explicit retardation from the hypnosis community. Yes, somewhere in the world is an actual effort to teach horrifically bad/wrong logic.
>>8003348
Care to explain how the logic is lacking? How can something be neither objective nor subjective?
And I never said that rewiring the brain is a magical process. But "rewiring the brain" or having it change at all would imply that the self changes all the time and so the sense of self is more of an illusion than based on something consistent
hypnosis community? wtf lol.
why don't you read up on some philosophy. cogito ergo sum m8
>>8002138
Do we know that intelligence is a general trait? Or is it localized to areas of expertise? Is GI different from other types of potential intelligence?
>>8002158
>is not objective
Don't shitpost if you don't want to derail.
>let alone agree on what this ability is
You are literally the only faggot ITT that thinks that.
>>8002177
>solipsism is not subjectivity
Don't try to debate against hive faggotry. They just invent new ways to skew their utter retardation.
>>8002296
>in a seemingly random fashion
You can always tell where a thought comes from.
>>8002324
That wasn't even word salad, it's thought salad. Go see a fucking shrink (psychiatrist) and stop trying to learn fake NLP bullshit.
>>8003374
How am I shitposting? I think you're the one shitposting by making vague ambiguous claims
>>let alone agree on what this ability is
>You are literally the only faggot ITT that thinks that.
Okay what is it that everyone else thinks regarding 'what this ability is'
>>8003400
No you can't... Learn2psychology
Thoughts come from your subconscious, which you are not always aware of completely
>>8003406
What the fuck are you talking about? All I was saying is that I think dumb people can be made smarter by explaining logic. It's not that complicated
>>8002605
>the world
No, people perceive PARTS of the world differently. The one thing everyone seems to disagree on is human nature and art. Everything else appears the same exact way to everyone.
>>8002605
>The whole point of philosophy is
Wrong. Philosophy is much more abstract than empiricism. Wherever you got your ideas about philosophy, they were wrong.
>>8002605
>create the perception
Philosophy doesn't create perception. It creates ideas. If you can't tell the difference between ideas and reality, you need to get off this board. >>>/x/
>>8002605
>philosophy that gave birth to mathematics
That is so wrong it's alarming. Whatever happened in your past that made you think this way is a pox on human intelligence.
>>8002605
>importance of communication
Don't. Intelligence has nothing to do with communication unless you've embedded communication into your chosen definition of intelligence. In that case, give you definition first. Formal debates start by defining terms.
(This thread isn't a formal debate and never was going to be one. Shitposters pls leave.)
>>8002614
>fundamentally indeterministic
Braindead retardation has always been incapable of understanding quantum mechanics. This is not news to anyone.
>>8002626
>enlightenment
Daily reminder that there are hypnotist assholes who literally try to abuse people by defining enlightenment as something that it isn't. The use of the term warrants only expulsion to /x/, where such abuse originated in the first place.
>>7996166
>ITT /sci/ tries to discuss psychology.
>Clusterfuckeration as usual.
And me without my popcorn.
>>8003431
>>8003439
>mentioning /x/ again and again
oh your'e the same autistic sperg aren't you lol
>>philosophy that gave birth to mathematics
>That is so wrong it's alarming. Whatever happened in your past that made you think this way is a pox on human intelligence
do some research before you say shit is wrong. philosophy created math. it's just what it is.
or check some posts in this big thread on mathematics. math is literally a form philosophy
>>7997985
>>8000518
etc
or this random poster that says even science is philosophy
>>8003410
>>8003459
No it would have been fine but OP is a sperglord that self admittedly comes from /x/ and doesn't care about citations and is also inconsistent and etc
>>8003371
>would imply that the self changes all the time
Only for some fucked up definition of "self" that diverges so far from the norm that it belongs on /x/.
>>8003426
>vague ambiguous claims
I'm OP, I'm from /x/, and I have multiple types of stalkers. They aren't delusions, they are explicit attacks that I have evidence of. Everything I say is carefully crafted to expose exactly the traits I want exposed for the sake of showing people how to get around the shitposting that accompanies stalking.
But that's an /x/ topic. Go to >>>/x/17582192 if you really have a pressing desire to call me out.
>what is it that everyone else thinks regarding 'what this ability is'
Read everything prior to >>7996221 and discard virtually (if not literally) everything that came after it.
You are always aware of your subconscious.
>>8003426
>It's not that complicated
Don't pretend to be other anons. I can suss subtle shit like that out like there's no tomorrow.
>>8003460
>the same autistic sperg
Yes, I'm OP. Hi. I made this thread to escape all the /x/ bullshit I'm trying to rid myself of. Hopefully, an obvious /sci/ veteran such as yourself, who has survived countless raids would sympathize with my ex-/x/ plight. (Assuming you're a serious /sci/ poster and not a collectivist stalker fag.)
>math is literally a form philosophy
Except it isn't. GTFO.
>quoting a tripfag
Try harder.
>>8003462
>inconsistent
Quote any two posts you thought were mine. If you link a post that wasn't mine you automatically earn a solid GTFO from me.
>>7996166
>define intelligence
>you can define it
you some dictionary fag?
>>8003488
I try to avoid bringing it up if at all possible, but I'm an AI researcher.
Difficulty defining intelligence was the source of my ex-delusions.
>>8003491
Oh, and there are communities that literally try to invoke and manipulate that type of delusion! Can't forget to mention the Basilisk cults.
Not a single mention of WAIS-IV? Oh well.
>>7999871
>citing definitions is bullshit when I've literally asked you to come up with your own definitions
I once had #meta on irc.tulpa.im give me shit about that. I asked about "higher magic" and they asked me to define it as if to destroy the validity of the question itself. Literally every spiritualist I've ever met was a massive cunt. I'm here precisely to avoid /x/ bullshit.
>>7999996
>society clearly thinks
[citation needed] in all cases. This has nothing to do with definitions. If you can't tell two different contexts apart, lurk /x/ until you can. If that was your best instance of a supposed inconsistency then you have an honorary GTFO from me. (Note that honorary GTFOs are distinct from automatic GTFOs.)
>>8003513
>About 444,000 results
That's either some 8/8 gr8 b8 2 r8 or an Echs tier sign.
This isn't an IQ thread though. Hell maybe this can put an end to IQ threads once and for all.
>>7996166
I'm afraid that I won't be able to explain intelligence to most people who lack a significant level of understanding of scientific psychology. This is not meant as a dig. It's simply that there is a bunch of foundational material that must be grasped before one approaches the topic of intelligence in order to comprehend it scientifically.
Judging by all the turns this thread has taken, I'm going to assume that you aren't well-versed in psychology. Perhaps you should concern yourself with the more basic stuff such as: What is behavior?, What is thinking?, What is the relationship between behavior and the environment?, What is learning?, What is language?, How do humans differ from other animals?, How does behavior change occur?, What are the assumptions of scientific psychology?, What are the methods of psychology?, What are psychological constructs?, What is construct validity?, etc.
Without a knowledge of those topics, we'll be talking circles around one another.
>>8003528
>What is language?
That's the one I still haven't cracked yet. All the other questions have come up numerous times in numerous different ways in my study of AI and the general human psyche. I could discuss them at length, but it'd probably annoy the hell out of you because I don't use the terms you're familiar with. In my mind we study the same exact thing from different angles.
>>8003535
Language is a set of symbolic vocal and written communication as well as symbolic thought. The symbolic structures often (not always) share properties with their referents in terms of their evocative function. We feel fear when hearing a scary story although none of the elements of the story are present during the storytelling. Therefore, language is inherently tied to other systems such as emotion.
The capacity for symbolic connections beyond those explicated is another uniquely human trait which enable use to 'figure out' or 'intuit' meanings that might not be spelled out. It also enables language-based creativity and problem-solving.
>>8003554
>inherently tied
That's where we disagree. As an AI programmer I'd need to know exactly how that worked in order to implement it, and in know that I'd be able to make an AI that didn't have it. (Assuming perfect access to the algorithm.)
Have you studied psychopathy at all? I tend to think most development patterns for modern AI are on a trajectory to develop AI with mental disorders of some kind or other, and when a skilled scripter "gets it right," so to speak, it'd likely result in an exceedingly psychopathic AI.
>>8003566
>in knowing that
>>8003566
>...make an AI that didn't have it.
I get your point and I realize that AI will have to keep emotion and other such messy things out, for now at least. However, when we observe early language, the first words learned are usually emotionally-laded ("mama", "dada", "paci", etc.). Even in adults, talking about food will cause us to salivate. So there's more to language than simple logical connections.
I'm familiar with psychopathy but it's not my specialty. I expect that a purely logical AI without theory of mind or empathy would probably be psychopathic. It would be efficient and ruthless. Kinda scary.
>>8003581
>Even in adults, talking about food will cause us to salivate.
How common is that? I have some limited experience with hypnosis and I don't think there's ever really a uniform level of suggestibility like that.
>>8003591
It's very common.
Say "Think of a lemon" and most people will salivate.
Walk on to a college campus and say, "Trump" and measurable stress responses will occur.
Many words have a secondary effect besides a purely semantic one.
>>8003603
>very
How very? It's okay, this is the science board. You can post actual statistics here.
>>8003613
This phenomenon is taken for granted at this time as it not novel anymore and has been exhibited decades ago.
Don't have the full study but here's one abstract and citation:
Natural words as physiological conditioned stimuli: Food-word-elicited salivation and deprivation effects.
Staats, Arthur W.; Hammond, Ormond W.
Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol 96(1), Nov 1972, 206-208. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0033508
Abstract
Measured the salivation of 40 undergraduates to lists containing food and nonfood words. 1/2 the Ss were instructed not to eat anything on the day of the experiment. Ss salivated more to auditorily presented food words than to nonfood words. Food-deprived Ss salivated more to food words than did nondeprived Ss. Results lend support to a classical conditioning theory of the emotion-(attitude) eliciting function of words. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
>>8003566
>As an AI programmer I'd need to know exactly how that worked in order to implement it
No. There's no need to carbon copy brains.
As long as your own implementation gives similar results in testing it doesn't matter.
>>7997863
>Some will near immediately know an answer, others will take time
I feel like there is also a quality of answer that should be taken into account along side speed.
Especially when we are asking questions without known right answers.
>>7996166
I heard ben goertzel define intelligence as pattern recognition.
>>8003400
Or is this just a semiotic circular cycle? The practice of semiotics feeds the perception of semiotics, when there may really be none.
>>8003581
What's more to language than simple logical connections? Complex logical connections? Explain.
>>8003406
Are you that same kid from the IQ thread citing wiki articles on IQ without any room for interpretation?
>>8005421
Also
>wahh anyone I can't understand is schizophrenic and has thought salad!!
I was able to understand him just fine. Stop telling people they don't make sense and just try to comprehend the abstractions they're trying to put forth and respond accordingly. I fucking swear /sci/ has so many problems with this... when you get too abstract everyone just says you're unable to be understood and boots you off, it drives me insane.
>>8003647
>salivated more
It's been a long time since I thought in terms of straightforward hypotheses like that. How about enlightenment? Have you studied meditation and the like? As far as I know monks are able to demonstrate a sort of "immunity" to things like that. I honestly don't think psychology will get to any non-"obvious" conclusions until we start to test more advanced types of hypothesis.
>>8004299
Some questions might not have unique/global/'one' "right" answers. In that case 'intelligence' probably ends up closer to "creativity" than anything else.
>>8004306
>ben goertzel
That'd be great, if Ben came to /sci/ to post ITT.
>>8004338
No, you can always tell where a thought comes from. Always.
>>8004368
>logical connections
Languages are a living metaphors. If you see logic in language, you're probably not looking at human language.
>>8005421
No, but that kid is from the same family of shills that's been stalking me: >>8003472
>>8005427
>and respond accordingly
I did comprehend it. The problem is that people like that are engaged in active destruction of any sane method of dialogue. If you want to defend the content of their message, that's perfectly fine. But if you want to defend a claim they didn't make and you want to argue that they aren't exactly the kind of person I think they are, this is gonna get meta very very fast.
>>8006066
>more advanced types of hypothesis
For background on that, as an AI researched I'm basically the person that has to teach a machine how to have the complexity of thoughts necessary to independently learn and reason about the world it's immersed in. It's not uncommon for me to work with meta-hypotheses ten meta levels deep.
>>8007251
>researcher
>>8004306
There's good evidence that this is the case.
I'm doing my research in intelligence and (in an extremely limited sense) trying to make machines that learn in the same way.
My personal favorite theory, although it needs a lot of validation, is that intelligence describes prediction.
The idea is that our brains are able to use memory of patterns to make predictions about what will happen next, allowing us to build a model of the world around us.
>>8007276
>although it needs a lot of validation
That's where I was coming from for awhile. In the end I had to discard that model because it wasn't actually a model. It can't account for creativity in a predictable/programmable fashion so any AI made under that pretense would be incapable of coming up with new ideas. Overall I tend to think of it as a thinly veiled unfalsifiable hypothesis anymore.
>>8007290
Off topic but when did people start using "anymore" outside of negations?
>>8007297
When they realized that even reality itself was just the negation of nothingness.
>>8004306
>>8007251
>ben goertzel
He's just a vocal transhumanist blogger that rehashes memes into essays.
His academic performance is entirely unremarkable.
I just wish he'd shut the fuck up until he does something that's worth mentioning.
You want AI? then big data companies like google/facebook/baidu/apple/microsoft are your goto.
>>8007339
Thanks. I figured that anon was a shitposting rationalist but I didn't have the personal experience necessary to say so myself.
>>8003688
I'd need to know what I was designing it for if I were to make a working model. "Just make a thing that learns on its own" doesn't work out in practice.
>>8008123
>what I was designing it for
Is a far cry from having to know exactly how the human brain works.
>>8008132
My research target was always human-grade AGI. That goal fell through when I realized haptics and artificial noses had no market viability.
>>8003526
Why does this guy keep mentioning /x/?
>>8009847
There were some stalker faggots trolling earlier. I'm from /x/ and I have a bit of a cult following that I'm trying to rid myself of. Basically it was my way of saying why the thread turned to shit.
