GENIUS FORUMS

Can intelligence be defined without relying on anthropomorphism?

A simple definition of intelligence would be: "comprehension ability".

If that is still to anthropomorphic then one could leave the word intelligence undefined. Then intelligence is not precisely defined but it still is a property of the universe. That is to say, it is some universal[natural] law. If intelligence is a law of the universe, it is of both kinetic and potential form. As we observe intelligent beings in this corner of the universe, we are witnessing the kinetic form of the "law of intelligence".

The potential form exists within the fabric of reality itself, ready to be unleashed - to be transformed into kinetic intelligence.

Potential intelligence could be likened to the ability to give rise to authentic power: the potential to create/summon intelligent entities, from Mind - through spirit.

Spirit is equivalent to energy.

The mind therefore should be viewed as both a conductor and a conduit - with the ability to receive and transmit energy. Furthermore, the mind is capable of mimicing many of man's scientific creations.

The universe is filled with portals.

And, the universe is in your mind.

The ability to discern truth.

Intelligence is thus a function of courage, discipline and the ability to reason flawlessly.

-

Someone gave intelligence a good definition as "Ability to calculate the opimum effort".

intelligence is simply, and only "a way to obtain knowledge"

LooF wrote:intelligence is simply, and only "a way to obtain knowledge"

The dictionary gives "the ability to comprehend; to understand and profit from experience," which is maybe a little better. Intelligence includes not just acquiring knowledge, but being able to apply it.

I think of intelligence as "problem solving ability."

The problem with that definition, Dave, is that it doesn't specify where this "problem-solving ability" should be directed. Is it intelligent, for example, to spend one's life solving problems in the fashion industry?

-

DavidQuinn000 wrote:The problem with that definition, Dave, is that it doesn't specify where this "problem-solving ability" should be directed. Is it intelligent, for example, to spend one's life solving problems in the fashion industry?

I see that as the split between intelligence and wisdom. Intelligence is the ability to solve problems. Wisdom is what directs intelligence.

It's possible to be highly intelligent without being wise. I'm sure you've seen that.

ok,this isn't the anthropomorphic thing ,I didn't even come to it myself,but this is the cleanest in my appreciation:

Intelligence is the ability of composition,our power of arbitrary conjunctionalism giving harmony and significance to incongruities.

[quote="DavidQuinn000"]The ability to discern truth.

Intelligence is thus a function of courage, discipline and the ability to reason flawlessly.

-[/quote]

David,don't you know that the logic you awake through reasoning is useless to put in contact with reality?
Reasoning is a screever's logic...
So ultimately,through it ,you will find few 'interrelated' thruths,if even any at all!

Bert wrote:

David,don't you know that the logic you awake through reasoning is useless to put in contact with reality?

My own experience says otherwise.

I put it to you that Reality can only be found through the highly-tuned use of reason. There is no other way. Whatever you have found, Bert, if it was found through some kind of non-rational approach, it isn't Reality.

-

Bert, when you click 'quote' and a reply form opens up, make sure that the check box just below your message, next to the 'Disable BBCode in this post', is Un-checked. Then your reply should look like this.....

bert wrote:

DavidQuinn000 wrote:The ability to discern truth.

Intelligence is thus a function of courage, discipline and the ability to reason flawlessly.

-

David,don't you know that the logic you awake through reasoning is useless to put in contact with reality?
Reasoning is a screever's logic...
So ultimately,through it ,you will find few 'interrelated' thruths,if even any at all!

(Your Reply Here)

Then click 'Preview' to see if it is OK, then click 'Submit'

Sapius wrote:Bert, when you click 'quote' and a reply form opens up, make sure that the check box just below your message, next to the 'Disable BBCode in this post', is Un-checked. Then your reply should look like this.....

bert wrote:

DavidQuinn000 wrote:The ability to discern truth.

Intelligence is thus a function of courage, discipline and the ability to reason flawlessly.

-

David,don't you know that the logic you awake through reasoning is useless to put in contact with reality?
Reasoning is a screever's logic...
So ultimately,through it ,you will find few 'interrelated' thruths,if even any at all!

(Your Reply Here)

Then click 'Preview' to see if it is OK, then click 'Submit'

like this...thanks a lot Sapius

analog57 wrote:Can intelligence be defined without relying on anthropomorphism?

A simple definition of intelligence would be: "comprehension ability".

If that is still to anthropomorphic then one could leave the word intelligence undefined. Then intelligence is not precisely defined but it still is a property of the universe. That is to say, it is some universal[natural] law. If intelligence is a law of the universe, it is of both kinetic and potential form. As we observe intelligent beings in this corner of the universe, we are witnessing the kinetic form of the "law of intelligence".

The potential form exists within the fabric of reality itself, ready to be unleashed - to be transformed into kinetic intelligence.

Is there anything known that does not exist within the fabric of Reality?

Sapius wrote:Is there anything known that does not exist within the fabric of Reality?

An entity can exist in the imagination but not be an authentic actualization on a higher more relational plane of existence, such, that it forms at least a triad of interrelationships between itself and two other actual entities.

The fabric of reality is the multiplicity of intersections of all real events. An event is a relational occurance.

Nothingness is the total absence of any type of existence; therefore
nothingness is totally non-relational and non-existent. It is a
non-concept that cannot be. A totally non-distinctional "non" -
state...

Anything that exists must relate to another form of existence, such,
that a contrast, or definitional juxtaposition can be made with
something else that also exists. Existence can only be relational.

You and DQ cry: "Reality is relational is an absolute fact!" But an absolute thing is independent of anything else. It and all "sub-absolutes" are consequently absolutely separated from relating to other things, otherwise it could not be an absolute. Thus you cannot say that: "Reality is absolute is an absolute fact!" either.

Causality cannot be absolute because it is a relation. Absolutism is self defeating due to its mutual exclusivity via its non-relational definition.

One could possibly escape this dilemma by saying "Hey, only one thing[the totality] exists! there isn't any other thing for it to relate to, therefore absolutism remains valid!" Then again, the one thing ultimately cannot exist if there is no other outside relation for itself! Everything is Nothing would appear to be a paradox of monumental proportions!

Absolutism would appear to be an artificial and manmade construct, not a natural fact of existence.

Analog, let me say it again.

Analog: (Intelligence) The potential form exists within the fabric of reality itself, ready to be unleashed - to be transformed into kinetic intelligence.

Yes, I certainly think it is so, even from a layman’s POV such as myself. Since if a brain did evolve from real matter and can display 'intelligence', then 'intelligence' has to be ingrained in the fabric of reality itself.

An entity can exist in the imagination but not be an authentic actualization on a higher more relational plane of existence

Sure, but the point is that the power to 'imagine' and 'imaginations' themselves do exist.

The fabric of reality is the multiplicity of intersections of all real events. An event is a relational occurance.

Yes, sure, it is a multiplicity of intersections of all real events, but dreaming is a real event too, is it not? Not what you actually dream or imagine though.

(I'm sorry, I got to go, will get back soon)

One point - "You and DQ cry: "Reality is relational is an absolute fact!""
How did you conclude that David and I cry all the same tunes? How could there be any Absolute in the Absolute sense when Everything is not only so inter-connected but very much so inter-dependant! May be because I’m not a trained logician or a philosopher, but I simply cannot see ‘Causality’ itself independently functioning without time, matter, energy, and so on and so forth. I can see absolutes, but nothing Absolute.

We shall talk about Totality later.

Analog,

Come on, man. Flip some switches on your control panel, and go Hi-Res. You're defeating your name, by strictly sticking to a tape format - break and bind that loop - pin-pointing nano-nibbles? Let the tape play.

Reality is relational, but it's 'basis' is The Absolute.

You broke the dictionary --

Nothing in Reality is independent, so * nothing * is an absolute?

Nah.

(Actually...)

(Since every 'thing' is experienced through the mind, 'no-thing' occurs every night -- it is 'no-consciousness'.)

analog57 wrote:Nothingness is the total absence of any type of existence; therefore
nothingness is totally non-relational and non-existent.

And yet there it is, on this page, in your mind and in my mind.

Nothingness is not totally non-relational, in fact just like everything else, it's relative to what it is not. A=~(~A) - nothingness = not (not nothingness).

It is a non-concept that cannot be.

And yet you conceptualise on about it.

A totally non-distinctional "non" - state...

As you can see, it's quite distinct, it's not (not nothingness).

Anything that exists must relate to another form of existence, such, that a contrast, or definitional juxtaposition can be made with something else that also exists.

You mean 'things must relate to other things'. Far less words and quite the same correct meaning.

To be more specific, any thing is necessarily definitionally juxtaposed against what it is not.

Existence can only be relational. Anything that exists must relate

Yes, existence is relative.

"Reality is relational is an absolute fact!"

More correctly, it is an absolute truth that existence is relative.

But an absolute thing is independent of anything else.

No it's not, how could it be? An absolute truth is dependent on everything else, i.e. everything which is not said absolute truth.

In any case, you are conflating the issues again:

It is an absolute truth that existence is relative.

This does not mean that existence is absolute, clearly. It means quite the opposite, existence is relative. It is that truth which is absolute, not the thing.

It and all "sub-absolutes" are consequently absolutely separated from relating to other things, otherwise it could not be an absolute.

Thus you cannot say that: "Reality is absolute is an absolute fact!" either.

Complete gobbledygook.

You work hard at this don't you. And for what? You're getting absolutely nowhere, banging your head against a brick wall. Examine your motivations, then maybe you can change that work/progress ratio.

Causality cannot be absolute because it is a relation.

Quite right, causality cannot possibly be absolute. However, it is an absolute truth that causality is the nature of experience.

Absolutism is self defeating due to its mutual exclusivity via its non-relational definition.

Absolutism doesn't have a non-relational definition, that's impossible and highly irrational. Definition, by its nature, is relative.

One could possibly escape this dilemma by saying "Hey, only one thing[the totality] exists! there isn't any other thing for it to relate to, therefore absolutism remains valid!" Then again, the one thing ultimately cannot exist if there is no other outside relation for itself! Everything is Nothing would appear to be a paradox of monumental proportions!

The totality does exist, as nothing but our perception of it. Where's the paradox?

Absolutism would appear to be an artificial and manmade construct, not a natural fact of existence.

This doesn't mean anything, it's completely unintelligible. Tell me, what 'natural fact of existence' is not a 'man-made construct'?

And if it did mean what you meant it to, it couldn't possibly be any further from the truth.

DHodges wrote:It's possible to be highly intelligent without being wise.

I think this is a serious problem with the currently popular definition of intelligence. In past ages intelligence had a component of wisdom. You couldn't be intelligent unless you had at least a share of wisdom.

Nowadays a person is called intelligent even though they don't have an ounce of wisdom. If a person makes a lot of money, through crime, or by ripping people off, they are called intelligent.

ksolway wrote:I think this is a serious problem with the currently popular definition of intelligence. In past ages intelligence had a component of wisdom. You couldn't be intelligent unless you had at least a share of wisdom.

There are a bunch of things that may be considered to be part of intelligence, or may consider to be something else: emotional intelligence, language skills, math skills, eidetic memory, and so on.

It seems to me there are some very intelligent people that are not very wise (for instance, academics who get involved in very petty battles because of ego). It seems like it does take a certain level of intelligence to become wise, but intelligence alone is no guarantee of wisdom.

Since if a brain did evolve from real matter and can display 'intelligence', then 'intelligence' has to be ingrained in the fabric of reality itself.

I think a very interesting discussion can follow from Sapius's quote here!

Although I'm not sure if we can go so far as saying that it's ingrained in the fabric of reality itself. To me, that's the equivalent of saying "intelligence is ingrained in the 'fabric' of the Universe". And if that's true my contentions are these:

Intelligence is a tool that was preserved through Natural Selection. It started out very simple (in the first mammals and such) and must have been some sort of advantage so it was carried on and gained in complexity. So, I see that as being more of an 'accidental' phenomenon that grew, instead of being part of the Universe that seeded itself in the most primative of neurons.

Entirely right, it's an accidental phenomenon. Sapius's statement has no logic to it. We can just as easily say that bananas evolved from real matter and display yellowness, but that doesn't mean that yellowness is ingrained in the fabric of the universe!

Nothing is ingrained in the fabric of the Universe. Things just come into being when the causal circumstances are ripe, and then they disappear again.

-

DavidQuinn000 wrote:Entirely right, it's an accidental phenomenon. Sapius's statement has no logic to it. We can just as easily say that bananas evolved from real matter and display yellowness, but that doesn't mean that yellowness is ingrained in the fabric of the universe!

Nothing is ingrained in the fabric of the Universe. Things just come into being when the causal circumstances are ripe, and then they disappear again.

There doesn't seem to be any logic in talking about 'accidental' phenomenons on this level, because this implies some intentional or non-random phenomenons to make this distinction in the first place. Awareness is certainly ingrained in the 'fabric' of all that one is becoming aware of. And awareness is the foundation of reason and intelligence, is it not?

There doesn't seem to be any logic in talking about 'accidental' phenomenons on this level, because this implies some intentional or non-random phenomenons to make this distinction in the first place.

Maybe "accidental" wasn't the most appropriate word. A "preferable" phenomenon might suffice as the only opposite is "non-preferable".