Intelligence

[Phil8659]

Intelligence
L long time ago, I was given a IQ test by the state of Michigan because my school system was certain that was mentally handicapped. So much so was their belief that they informed my parents before they actually gave me the test to help prepare them for me being shipped off to a special school.

Unfortunately, it did not work out well for them, the state tester informed every one that I had a very high IQ. which, if you understand the lingo, above genius.
However, all it meant to me is that I would have to become self-educated. The school quietly buried their mistake as if nothing happened, and my father got so pissed off that he stopped talking to me.
In my studies, I learnt that although the intelligentsia has a vague notion of what intelligence is, they cannot, nor has it ever been defined, therefore, how in the hell can they actually believe that they can test it? If you cannot define a thing, you certainly have no way to measure a thing. Simple as that.
Eventually, I was asked to express that standard to mankind, and because of all the particulars involved, all I can say is they are certainly not human.

Today, you have before you a computer which can process all information using simple binary. Plato called this binary Dialectic, and Aristotle pointed out one expression of it, assertion and denial. It is based on the definition of a thing, and that is why the computer can process all information, is because every possible thing is some material within limits. or again, A standard of behavior. Standard is to noun, as behavior is to verb.

Thus it provides mankind with four, and only four, basic systems of Grammar, Common Grammar, Arithmetic, Algebra and Geometry. Geometry puts a one to one correspondence between the behavior of the hand and the two elements of the definition of a thing. You can actually draw, today, a functional approximation of an analog computer using Sketchpad. It will process analogically and logically.

As we are an information processor, the foundation of intelligence is the ability to correct express ourselves in the confines of our Grammar Matrix. Yet, today there is not one educational system in the world which teaches it, i.e., not one person in the world, has be taught or has learnt the foundation of information processing using our Grammar Matrix.
When I was asked to express this, was long before I understood what I was being asked to do. I though I was asked too much and maybe they made a mistake, after all, I am only human and thus not really that bright.

So, real intelligence testing is not available to mankind yet, because, even though he works with a computer every day, demonstrating what Plato was trying to tell them, no one has ad that Eureka! moment in their life to change education today.

Now a lot of people are going to why piss and moan about this, but I have produced an encyclopedic work of geometry never seen before on this earth, all of it demonstrable in Geometer's Sketchpad and Mathcad. Geometry, historically called impossible. But, as Geometry is binary, it can be used computationally without limit.

And I will tell you why, so called aliens, although making their presence known to man, why they do not speak to us. We are literally proto-linguistic, incapable of speech as defined by Language. It would serve no purpose.

I have been twice on NASA forums, twice my just mentioning this fact got be barred for life, an introductory post6, was not allowed to be posted at all, and the second time, when it did go up, it was immediately removed and I was again banned for life.
Yes, you government knows exactly why they are not talking to us. But to admit it would mean an entire cultural change for the world.

[Flannel Jesus]

You remind me of this guy

https://youtu.be/So9LshyaHd0?si=4aQLe6-68hR_qach

[Walker]

If you cannot define a thing, you certainly have no way to measure a thing. Simple as that.

When you define a thing using a form of the verb “to be,” you implicitly and explicitly defy the Law of Identity.

The thought processes necessary for an OP re-write in e-prime would illustrate, should you need to give it a go.

[Phil8659]

If you cannot define a thing, you certainly have no way to measure a thing. Simple as that.

When you define a thing using a form of the verb “to be,” you implicitly and explicitly defy the Law of Identity.

The thought processes necessary for an OP re-write in e-prime would illustrate, should you need to give it a go.

What a definition is, goes at least as far back as Plato, who explicitly stated it, and it is demonstrated by your own computer, So why don't you illuminate this website and dazzle them with your brilliance and explain how a thing is defined.

Oh, and in case you forgot, the founder of Formal Grammar, put it in a dialog, Theaetetus.
And every book on arithmetic, shows you how to do it with numbers.

[Walker]

If you cannot define a thing, you certainly have no way to measure a thing. Simple as that.

When you define a thing using a form of the verb “to be,” you implicitly and explicitly defy the Law of Identity.

The thought processes necessary for an OP re-write in e-prime would illustrate, should you need to give it a go.

What a definition is, goes at least as far back as Plato, who explicitly stated it, and it is demonstrated by your own computer, So why don't you illuminate this website and dazzle them with your brilliance and explain how a thing is defined.

Oh, and in case you forgot, the founder of Formal Grammar, put it in a dialog, Theaetetus.
And every book on arithmetic, shows you how to do it with numbers.

I kinda thought you might recompose the OP in e-prime to understand the point about expressing in defiance of the Law of Identity.

[Phil8659]

When you define a thing using a form of the verb “to be,” you implicitly and explicitly defy the Law of Identity.

The thought processes necessary for an OP re-write in e-prime would illustrate, should you need to give it a go.

What a definition is, goes at least as far back as Plato, who explicitly stated it, and it is demonstrated by your own computer, So why don't you illuminate this website and dazzle them with your brilliance and explain how a thing is defined.

Oh, and in case you forgot, the founder of Formal Grammar, put it in a dialog, Theaetetus.
And every book on arithmetic, shows you how to do it with numbers.

I kinda thought you might recompose the OP in e-prime to understand the point about expressing in defiance of the Law of Identity.

Are you giving up so soon?

[Phil8659]

I guess you gave up, see post above.

Every possible gramma is only a method of using binary recursion. And since binary recursion can only produce a binary result, it should be obvious that a contradiction is not possible in the grammar, it always resolves to those who actually believe that the mistake is not their own. It is call transference in psychology.

believing that a grammar system can contradict itself, is furthermore, an anthropomorphism, and a really stupid one.

[Phil8659]

Another thing, Common Grammar is comprised of one naming convention, While arithmetic another.
Algebra is the combination of both naming conventions, so one does not call an Algebraic a number, nor a word, it is called an Alpha-Numeric.

[Walker]

Another thing, Common Grammar is comprised of one naming convention, While arithmetic another.
Algebra is the combination of both naming conventions, so one does not call an Algebraic a number, nor a word, it is called an Alpha-Numeric.

The Law of Identity says that Common Grammar is Common Grammar, not that Common Grammar is comprised. Algebra is Algebra, not Algebra is the combination. Your habitual and unthinking equivalences rely on "to be." Follow the Law of Identity.