Philosophy Now Forum

cladking wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 7:41 pm

Not sure what you mean by this sentence. There is no such thing as "intelligence". I assume you don't mean 'there is no such thing as intelligence'. And I'm guessing you mean there is no such thing as artificial intelligence.- But then the second half of the sentence..implies that once we realize there is not such thing as 'intelligent" then AI will no longer be a parlour trick.

Anyway, couldn't parse it. Can you reword it.

I mean it quite literally. "Intelligence" as we define it exists nowhere in reality.

Hopefully, how 'you' and some others define the 'intelligence' word, exactly, you have already informed 'us' of when I asked you to clarify last time. But, if you did not, then will you do it now thank you?

cladking wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 7:41 pm Animals and all other species do possess a miniscule amount of what we call intelligence but it's too small to be noteworthy.

The words, 'and all other species', are redundant here. But, obviously, you were not meant to know this with only a too small amount of intelligence to be noteworthy.

cladking wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 7:41 pm No condition that fulfills the defining characteristics of intelligence exists.

But, absolutely none of 'us' here yet know what the defining characteristics of 'intelligence', itself, from yours and some others definition of the 'intelligence' word. And, this is just because you have forgotten to, or are purposely not going to, tell 'us' what the definition of the 'intelligence' word is, exactly, which makes you human beings have so little 'intelligence', that it it is not even 'noteworthy', whatever that also means as well.

cladking wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 7:41 pm We mistake knowledge, understanding, and our ability to create as being a condition because we see it is concentrated in relatively few individuals.

But who and/or what is the 'we' word here referring to, exactly?

cladking wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 7:41 pm We mistake language and the knowledge we acquire thereby as "intelligence".

Do you really?

Why do you do this?

cladking wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 7:41 pm The problem is humans after 2000 BC are a special case.

Why?

What happened on that date?

cladking wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 7:41 pm We are each unique and some think better or faster than others because they organized their models such as to coincide with the state of human knowledge. Some people do think faster or more accurately than others but this has nothing whatsoever to do with an innate condition. No other species has ever "thought" at all! Ancient people didn't "think" at all. Rabbits don't think. Rather all other species apply their experience as filtered through the natural logic of their "brains" to their behavior. They all act on logic and knowledge just as did ancient man.

I agree that from what I have been observing of you adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, that a lot of what you say and do, especially in this philosophy forum especially is not the result of actual logic and knowledge, but then again a lot of what you adult human beings, in general, when this is being written, are not behaving on logic nor knowledge at all.

cladking wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 7:41 pm We act solely on what we believe.

Obviously, only if you have chosen 'to believe'.

Also, do you yet know why you would only act on what you believe?

cladking wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 7:41 pm These beliefs include our scientific models and all the models and habits of thought. We can't see reality directly as all other species before us because we use an analog programming in a digital reality. Our language is analog so our thinking is analog and derived from our beliefs.

So, once again, get rid of the beliefs, and do not forget the assumptions, then as I have been saying then this is how you will be able to get to, uncover, find, see, discover, know, and comprehend and understand what the actual irrefutable Truth of things is exactly.

But, as some have been, thankfully, pointing out and showing here that just getting past the one belief, that everyone must 'believe things' otherwise they could not even exist, is not the really the simplest and easiest thing to do.

And, obviously, if one has, holds onto, and maintains 'that belief', then they will have no hope of getting rid of what is here called 'analog thinking', which then means that their 'analog language' will remain.

And, it is obviously words and language where understanding and comprehension, literally, 'comes from'.

cladking wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 7:41 pm There is an event that is correlated to what we call "intelligence" but this event occurs in all species and I call "cleverness".

Okay, but I would still love to know what 'you' and some others refer to as 'intelligence', itself, exactly, and which you just call 'it' 'cleverness'.

I wonder why this one just did not keep 'it', whatever 'it' is, as 'intelligence' but instead changed 'it' to 'cleverness'. Which now makes me wonder if doing so was really 'cleverness' or 'intelligent', itself?

But, hopefully with clarification provided 'we' will soon see.

cladking wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 7:41 pm "Ideas" derived from induction, observation, experiment, and deduction are not really what I mean by "cleverness" but is similar to it.

Okay. So, 'we' are getting closer to 'it', but still just not there, yet.

cladking wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 7:41 pm The event to which I'm referring is usually situational and spontaneous (though "nothing" humans do is strictly spontaneous).

So, just a 'new idea', right?

cladking wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 7:41 pm Humans do not directly experience consciousness as other species do. We experience thought.

In case any one is Truly interested, all of this can also be explained in a way, which can be proved irrefutably True and Right, along with just about all of the other topics/discussions within this forum, and in as much or as little detail as wanted or needed.

Age has asserted that when he makes statements (and it must include also arguments) these are his views, not his beliefs.
When other people make statements, Age assumes and immediately accuses them of having assumptions and beliefs (in his sense of these terms).
He will mock, insult and condescend.
Of course, these judgments of people are, again, merely Age's views, not beliefs.

If you make a statement, Age will ask if you think you cannot be wrong, if what you asserted must be, to you, absolutely true. Sometimes he merely tells you, and others - since he often refers to the person he is quoting, in the third person - that you are making absolute assumptions. If you tell him you don't believe these things to be absolutely true nor do you think you could never change you mind, Age forgets this. Or, at least, he will go back to accusing you of having absolute beliefs and then asking you also.

So, what does this all add up to:

Age makes assertions he does not believe are true. They are views.
If someone else believes something, they are claiming nothing could change their minds.
Age gets to insult, judge and accuse people of things, but has no need to justify these claims, because these are merely his views.
Other people have the onus for their communication, since to Age they believe, while here merely has views.
Is that his view or belief?

In a relationship, IRL, this would all be toxic gaslighting behavior.

cladking wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 7:48 pm

What great strides were we supposed to be making with the internet? How have you measured that we haven't made the predicted ones?

Everything!

1. A 'great stride', like every thing else is relative to the observer.

2. Are you sure you human beings were meant to make great strides in scientific understanding of absolutely every thing, when the internet was created?

cladking wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 7:48 pm We should be able to solve far more mysteries (like linear A) and better understand physical phenomena (like siphoning) but mostly it has just been used to make the economy more efficient so the powers that be have to introduce artificial inefficiencies like planned obsolescence and global warming.

One could also say, claim, and argue that you adult human beings should have, by now when this is being written, solved how to live, play, and work together, as One, in peace and harmony, let alone even thinking nor worrying other things first.

But, just like how you are yet to solve the mystery of 'linear a' because you just do not yet have the 'link' from or between those set of writings to other set of writings is also why you have not yet solved the mystery of how you human beings were 'created' through 'evolution' because you have not yet got the 'links' between one part, or stage, of evolution from or between another part, or stage, or evolution. Writings, or language, itself, is just another evolving thing, which goes through different sets, or stages, of evolving. And, if the 'link' between two just got lost, or just has not yet been found, then there just appears to be 'a mystery' of 'how' from 'one' evolved into 'another',

cladking wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 7:48 pm If everyone had become wealthy there'd be nobody to pick the fruit and vote for more handouts or lower taxes.

Okay, but I am not sure you actually answered and clarified what "iwannaplato" actually asked you.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 8:09 pm

cladking wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 7:41 pm

Not sure what you mean by this sentence. There is no such thing as "intelligence". I assume you don't mean 'there is no such thing as intelligence'. And I'm guessing you mean there is no such thing as artificial intelligence.- But then the second half of the sentence..implies that once we realize there is not such thing as 'intelligent" then AI will no longer be a parlour trick.

Anyway, couldn't parse it. Can you reword it.

I mean it quite literally. "Intelligence" as we define it exists nowhere in reality. Animals and all other species do possess a miniscule amount of what we call intelligence but it's too small to be noteworthy. No condition that fulfills the defining characteristics of intelligence exists. We mistake knowledge, understanding, and our ability to create as being a condition because we see it is concentrated in relatively few individuals. We mistake language and the knowledge we acquire thereby as "intelligence".

The problem is humans after 2000 BC are a special case. We are each unique and some think better or faster than others because they organized their models such as to coincide with the state of human knowledge. Some people do think faster or more accurately than others but this has nothing whatsoever to do with an innate condition. No other species has ever "thought" at all! Ancient people didn't "think" at all. Rabbits don't think. Rather all other species apply their experience as filtered through the natural logic of their "brains" to their behavior. They all act on logic and knowledge just as did ancient man. We act solely on what we believe. These beliefs include our scientific models and all the models and habits of thought. We can't see reality directly as all other species before us because we use an analog programming in a digital reality. Our language is analog so our thinking is analog and derived from our beliefs.

There is an event that is correlated to what we call "intelligence" but this event occurs in all species and I call "cleverness". "Ideas" derived from induction, observation, experiment, and deduction are not really what I mean by "cleverness" but is similar to it. The event to which I'm referring is usually situational and spontaneous (though "nothing" humans do is strictly spontaneous).

Humans do not directly experience consciousness as other species do. We experience thought.

We can get out of the thought-based existence and experience consciousness directly again, but it typically takes a few years for someone to get there.

Actually it only takes seconds, once one learns the how-to, exactly.

Age,
If you can act like an adult pm me. I won't interact with you otherwise.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 03, 2018 11:28 am

cladking wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 8:14 pm

What good assumptions would lead to us making great strides in scientific understanding with the internet and how does this relate to the issue of AI and/or Age?

It's not so simple. First you get good assumptions (like reality is digital) and then you build on it.

Why do you not just start with irrefutable Truths only, and so-call 'build on that', only?

Why would anyone, logically and rationally, really want to even start or begin from 'an assumption' which could, obviously, be False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect from the outset?

cladking wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 8:14 pm We should assume people make sense in terms of their premises and deduce their premises.

Are they the same people that you assume or believe are not even 'intelligent' anyway?

cladking wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 8:14 pm We should never assume that what is obvious or what is passed down to us with language is correct.

But, you should assume other things, which could be Incorrect anyway, right?

I will ask this question again, to anyone here, Why even assume and/or believe absolutely any thing when that thing could be False, Wrong, Inaccurate, or Incorrect, or partly false, wrong, inaccurate, and/or incorrect from the very beginning? And, this goes for any 'time' as well.

Just look at the very issue you people have from assuming that there 'was a beginning' in relation to the Universe, Itself.

Now, even when so-called "scientist" talk about the Universe, and they have claimed to be OPEN about things in relation to the Universe, they still 'slip up' with words like, for example, 'At the early stages of the Universe'.

Also, assuming that you people make sense in terms of your premises, and 'deduce your premises' (if you meant, 'and how they deduced their premises', then you are only going to get further and further away from the actual Truth of things then you are now, when this is being written. And, as you so Rightly pointed out, civilizations and/or groups of people thousands and thousands of year prior were much, much closer to the actual meaningful Truth of things than you lot are now, in this very day this is being written.

cladking wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 8:23 pm

We can get out of the thought-based existence and experience consciousness directly again, but it typically takes a few years for someone to get there.

I don't disagree with you.

But I believe that not thinking while experiencing consciousness is limiting in that we can't apply our models to our experience or our experience to our models.

But, why even create 'a model', based upon a guess, and then just 'look at' 'that model'?

Especially when it is far, far simpler, easier, and quicker to just 'look at' the actual Truth first, and then just keep 'looking at', only.

cladking wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 8:23 pm I have great respect for anyone who can escape thinking and believe almost all individuals can profit from it.

Why?

Does it not go against a natural part of being a 'human being'.

Why would one even want to escape 'thinking', all of the 'time'?

Also, how could one escape 'thinking' but also still be 'believing'? is not 'believing' just another part of 'thinking', itself?

And, again, if one was believing anything, for example like, almost all individuals can profit from 'escaped from thinking', then just be another who is not Truly OPEN to learning and becoming wiser?

cladking wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 8:23 pm But experiencing this within a scientific framework is exceedingly difficult and might forever remain so. This is because our science virtually doesn't exist at all outside of its models and paradigmatical matrix.

Very True. 'Science' does not involve itself with Truth. 'Science' only involves itself with 'that', which is not yet known. But, like you alluded to people who do 'science' are more or less just making assumptions, and devising ways to make 'models' based on those assumptions, only.

Which is what can and has led so many people so far astray, and still is continuing to do so, when this is being written.

cladking wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 8:23 pm I believe ancient science required no models but its formatting would be far too complex for any human today.

Depending on how far 'back' you are talking about and who, exactly, they did not bother with what 'might be' and just stayed focused on 'what IS', only.

cladking wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 8:23 pm Computers might be able to handle it so machine intelligence may well be closer than we think.

'Closer' to 'what', exactly?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 9:45 pm

cladking wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 7:41 pm I mean it quite literally. "Intelligence" as we define it exists nowhere in reality. Animals and all other species do possess a miniscule amount of what we call intelligence but it's too small to be noteworthy. No condition that fulfills the defining characteristics of intelligence exists. We mistake knowledge, understanding, and our ability to create as being a condition because we see it is concentrated in relatively few individuals. We mistake language and the knowledge we acquire thereby as "intelligence".

I'll play the dull average thinker to, just to see where it goes. So, isn't how we use the word what it means? We've labeling behavior and people for quite a while as intelligent.

the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.

The ditchdigger you brought up and even AI both are able to acquire and apply knowledge and skills. The latter may not be conscious, but it can still learn things.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chfj7RHA5vM&t=519s

The problem is humans after 2000 BC are a special case. We are each unique and some think better or faster than others because they organized their models such as to coincide with the state of human knowledge. Some people do think faster or more accurately than others but this has nothing whatsoever to do with an innate condition. No other species has ever "thought" at all! Ancient people didn't "think" at all. Rabbits don't think. Rather all other species apply their experience as filtered through the natural logic of their "brains" to their behavior. They all act on logic and knowledge just as did ancient man. We act solely on what we believe. These beliefs include our scientific models and all the models and habits of thought. We can't see reality directly as all other species before us because we use an analog programming in a digital reality. Our language is analog so our thinking is analog and derived from our beliefs.

And yet, it seems useful to me to describe some behavior as intelligent, and some people has being intelligent. That there are degrees of intelligence. How have we been wrong?

you have been Wrong is by and when describing some behavior itself 'as intelligent', by describing some people as 'being intelligent', and by saying that 'there are degrees of intelligence'.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 9:45 pm And how could can humans' meaning of that word not actually be the meaning?

Very good clarifying question here "iwannaplato"?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 9:45 pm

There is an event that is correlated to what we call "intelligence" but this event occurs in all species and I call "cleverness". "Ideas" derived from induction, observation, experiment, and deduction are not really what I mean by "cleverness" but is similar to it. The event to which I'm referring is usually situational and spontaneous (though "nothing" humans do is strictly spontaneous).

Humans do not directly experience consciousness as other species do. We experience thought.

I certainly see that also, in many people. That much of the time they experience thought - these thoughts are triggered by stuff outside them. Their thoughts are triggered by things and not merely randomly. So, there is a connection, but it is thinner than they realize. But then there are other people who are not just experiencing thoughts. And presumably you consider yourself one of these people, since you are telling us how things are in the world: in animals, us, AI. So, presumably you think you are not merely experiencing your thoughts.

cladking wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 10:26 pm

That there are degrees of intelligence.

There are no degrees of anything. Reality is digital.

We perceive analog because we use analog language and reductionistic science.

...Later

Will you explain the actual difference between 'analog' and 'digital' here in relation to how you use those words and what you are talking about and referring to here?

Also, if you are using 'analog language', which causes you to perceive 'analog', but Reality, itself, is 'digital', then how do you know this, exactly?

Also, why do you not just use 'digital language', instead, which will help or make you see more clearly and 'digitally', and thus Reality, Itself, also right?

Age, I have you on ignore. I can see when you respond to me, since I get a notification. However, I am no longer interested in engaging with you for the following reasons:
1) you lie
2) you have double standards
3) you are an uncharitable reader - when assert things, you don't believe what you say to us. They are just views. Other people, you assume they are expressing absolute beliefs.
4) you forget interactions or just like people to repeat themselves
5) you ask people to do things that do not matter to you. after they follow the request, you then tell them it doesn't matter that they did.
6) when obvious behaviors and contradictions in in your writing and behavior are pointed out, you gaslight.

Age did warn the forum:

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 03, 2018 11:28 am I purposely present "fanciful" words to you, to evoke the response that I want, and get from you. You happily provide that which I seek.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 10:38 pm

cladking wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 10:26 pm

That there are degrees of intelligence.

There are no degrees of anything. Reality is digital.

We perceive analog because we use analog language and reductionistic science.

...Later

Just because a system or part or all of reality is digital or quantized it's still meaningful to speak in degrees.

If so, then why do you not speak in your claimed there is 'degrees of intelligence'? Sure you might well presume and believe that there are 'degrees' here, then judge and views others upon your very own personal and relative 'degrees of intelligence', but instead of just keeping all of 'that' within imagination or your very own thoughts, let 'us' see how your 'degree scale of intelligence' actually is while you explain what you are basing 'that' on, exactly, also.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 10:38 pm Discrete or continuous, 10 planck units or bits are still more than 5.

But, as "cladking" has been alluding to and/or pointing out, you human beings 'look at' and 'perceive' things (in) 'analog', whereas Reality, Itself, is (in) 'digital', itself. There are no actual so-called 'planck units' other than in concept alone.

There is no actual discreteness in the Universe, Itself, other than matter is separated by space. But, the two are so fundamentally 'linked', 'joined', and/or 'co-exist' together, as One, they could also be 'looked at' and 'classed' a 'continuous one'. They both, together, make up the whole of the one and only singular One anyway.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 10:38 pm You even referred to a tiny amount of intelligence in animals. You talked about ditch diggers being more intelligent than AIs. And implicitly you chose them as people who are less intelligent than other kinds of workers, at least statistically.

Why are there suddenly no degrees of intelligence in a discrete system?

But there is no 'actual' 'discrete system', other than the one I just described above, and of course the one made up conceptually by you human beings and which exists in 'thought' alone.

I, however, have already partly explained how and why 'this system' is, or more correctly was, necessary

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 10:38 pm Hell, we never say an IQ of 130.2445......infinite decimal places. We could translate every IQ into in base 2.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 10:42 pm

cladking wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 8:14 pm

What good assumptions would lead to us making great strides in scientific understanding with the internet and how does this relate to the issue of AI and/or Age?

It's not so simple. First you get good assumptions (like reality is digital) and then you build on it. We should assume people make sense in terms of their premises and deduce their premises. We should never assume that what is obvious or what is passed down to us with language is correct.

I don't assume that sentences are correct. But I have an issue with saying that a word we use doesn't mean what we think it does. It actually means something else. To whom? I can see arguing that it should refer to X, not Y.

But to say it does refer to Y seems strange to me.

And I can easily work with the common usage and find it, well, useful.

'I realized he wasn't so intelligent,' makes sense to me and has accurately communicated information to me. I thought he was being an ass, but then I realized he simply wasn't smart enought to__________________.

How often do you bring into discussion your views that involve the 'looking at' and/or 'judging of' 'people', compared to how often you do not do this here?

This is a philosophy forum of all places after all.

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 6:02 am

cladking wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 10:26 pm

That there are degrees of intelligence.

There are no degrees of anything. Reality is digital.

We perceive analog because we use analog language and reductionistic science.

...Later

If it's digital, it has to be digital on the Planck-scale or below that.

There is only one actual scale regarding this, and that is 'continuous'.

The planck-scale exists in concept only.

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 6:02 am Quite irrelevant to the everyday human 'scale'.

This could sound like you are saying that the 'human scale' overrides or supersedes the Universe or the universal scale, which, if you were, the absurdity of would and does speak for itself.

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 6:02 am How do you know it's digital?

Very good clarifying question here "atla".

But I would first want to have clarified and know what "cladking" means by 'digital', exactly, first.

What happened on that date?

This is when "absolute truth" lost its meaning. This is when the concepts of intelligence and artificial intelligence arose. Before this humans communicated with a language that reflected the logic of the wiring of the brain and reality itself. Each individual thought in the three (four really) dimensions of the brain but experienced no thought. In those days this formatting was universal across all life, all consciousness. "Words" weren't defined but existed in a mathematical relationship to one another. Each species had its own simple language and most with no more than a couple thousand words. But human language was a little more complex probably because of physiology and a closer connection from the speech center and higher brain functions. It was more complex and had ten or twelve thousand words.

By definition a language tied to reality and words with a mathematical relationship was metaphysical; it underlay a type of science that gained the knowledge necessary to build bees nests, beaver dams, and cities containing thousands of humans. Being metaphysical and highly complex it created the ability of each generation to build on the knowledge of the preceding generation. It created human progress. This progress in turn created more complex language and it started becoming too complex for people about 3200 BC. More and more people began speaking a pidgin form of the scientific language that was abstract and words were defined. By 2000 BC there simply were no longer enough Ancient Language speakers to operate the state and everywhere the official language was changed to the local pidgin language. This caused a 4,024 year dark ages.

Of course there have been many points of light even before the invention of modern science.

All of our assumptions are false. Due to the way our minds work using abstract language it is necessary that we start with assumption but we started with wrong assumptions so our "truths" are, at best, right only in a left handed sort of way. Assumption that do not reflect reality are wrong. Words containing a null set for a referent are "wrong".

There are no "laws of nature". All paradigms are wrong because nature obeys no such patterns. Reductionistic science is dependent on its definitions and axioms and can't see things that can't be reduced including the most important thing in existence; the observer.

There are many simple work arounds but nobody will want to even begin this task until they understand the nature of consciousness and its effects in reality. AI will almost certainly provide little or no insights into the nature of consciousness because the manipulation of abstractions can only lead to such understanding through experiment.

It's a mad mad world and has been this way for 4024.157823 years plus or minus a couple hundred.

Age,
viewtopic.php?p=695382#p695382

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 03, 2018 11:28 am