Intelligence Is Ian Illusion

[Browny]

What a cute opinion.

 

[Alien Vision]

It's what I believe. So instead of being an immature git that scoffs at me. Why don't you use your ''intelligence'' and **** off will ya?

 

[global-wolf]

So why are you posting your deep ideas that no one understands on SMASHBOARDS?

 

[Alien Vision]

Because all of you are people either way. It doesn't matter where I post my ideas, I am currently here because I play brawl.

It's a convenient thing to do. What is the point of just jumping on a random site to throw around my ''fallacies''?

 

[global-wolf]

I'm sure there's a site somewhere that would be more welcoming to your ideas than a gaming site. In any case, it seems pretty obvious that you're never gonna convince anyone here of what you believe in because of the flaws in your argument that have been pointed out.

 

[Alien Vision]

Your terms flaw the fundamental properties of things, thus you are just as flawed as I am. Especially when you really think you have ''intelligence'' all figured out.

 

[global-wolf]

I have no idea what your first sentence meant. And no, I don't have intelligence "all figured out." All I said was that it exists, and the only thing you've been saying over and over again is that it does not exist, which other people have argued to be false.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Ironically, a smarter person probably would've quit by now (that's Kewkky, if anyone is wondering). But as said: cathartic, fun, boredom, etc.

Let's do this.

It's funny how you judge me so, yet you are only basing all of this on what people label it as. Intelligence is a measurement of our capacity to manifest knowledge, right? Well, apparently you don't know how to manifest yours, let alone look at what I am trying to point out. Verm even said I am on the right idea, I am just having alot of trouble putting it together without making a fallacy out of it because I lack the terms to do so.

That's nice. Maybe he should come in and clarify what you mean? Because so far, your points have made little to no sense, and have been effectively disproven by genetic biology for the most part.

I see humans brag about this imaginary power they call ''intelligence''. Of course, when you label it so, yes, it makes perfect sense to a robot who interprets it in a technical sense. When you look at it from a view that understands that our minds aren't able to be labelled to the point we understand it in and out. We can only understand it to a point, and I see no origin, nor existent patterns of intelligence except in a gleanable fashion. Intelligence is simply the wrong term to use when people seem to be able to figure things out more than others.

Man, this is like a textbook case of hippie freakout. "Doctors are hacks!" "We can only understand it so far!" "The world is full of mystery!"

Again, you're trying to argue away the mountain lion in front of you, as if any philosophical argument you have could stop you from being kitty chow. But hey, it seems we may be getting somewhere: you realize that we apparently define intelligence differently from you, as something quantifiable. But then you go and make the same mistake again and conflate our definition (clear, understandable, quantifiable) with yours (flimsy, meaningless, unquantifiable) and declare yours to therefore have meaning. Yes, we interpret intelligence in a technical sense when attempting to classify people according to their ability to use their brains. Makes sense, no? We interpret physical ability in a technical sense when attempting to classify people according to their ability to use their physique. I fail to see the issue here.

Furthermore, it's fair to claim that we can only understand to a point, but the problem is, again, you're reaching backwards towards a point we've already gotten to. We can't understand everything, but we do understand the mechanics of the brain fairly well; well enough to demonstrate that, say, thoughts come from electrical impulses through the neurons that imitate complexity in a scientifically explained way. I can't explain it personally to you; then again, I'm not a neurologist. It's not my field. However, that doesn't change the fact that we, again, know what we're talking about.

But when people figure out things better than other... What term should we use? That is what the word "Intelligence" means to the scientific and medical community. There's simply nothing more to say about it.

I am not going to say it again. It's because some people focus more on learning than others. Some people are knowledge crackheads like Einstein who devoted their entire self being to knowledge. They had trouble understanding the simple things in life because they jumped straight to advanced knowledge. We can too if we weren't distracted, had the right environment, weren't affected at birth, and other factors that can affect our overall mind tree.

K, first of all, what you're describing is, afaict, a ****** savant. Einstein was not one of them. Einstein was a truly intelligent person, with a deep understanding of reality, and a truly phenomenal ability to learn. He did not have trouble understanding the simple things in life; I don't know where you got that from.

But no. The phenomenon you are referring to are those with certain defects excelling in other areas; things like the person who cannot socialize at all, no matter how hard he tries, getting straight As in school; things like the ****** who can barely speak instantly knowing how many matches are lying in that pile on the floor... This is why we keep telling you that intelligence is multifaceted. It's no simple task to quantify intelligence because there's so damn much to it! This does not mean that it's impossible to quantify because it's unquantifiable; it means it's difficult to quantify. Who knows, you may be the next Mozart, despite the lack of any logical reasoning skills and no real knowledge of how to spell or build sentences! Just because you're incredibly stupid in one aspect of your life doesn't mean that your brain is dull in all of them...

I am not stupid because of what I say. I am stupid because I am going against the ''norm''.

No, you're stupid because stupid is as stupid does and you are doing a phenomenally good job of making yourself out to be a completely clueless moron with a huge mouth. Furthermore, when the "norm" is reality, going against it kinda makes you an idiot.

Any questions?

 

[Browny]

This reminds me of that blog which suggested that if all people were legally allowed to carry concealed guns, the world would be safer than if guns were banned.

To paraphrase a hero of our time;

AV, Im sure on some planet your argument techniques are very good. But your weakness is; this is Earth.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

This reminds me of that blog which suggested that if all people were legally allowed to carry concealed guns, the world would be safer than if guns were banned.

To paraphrase a hero of our time;

AV, Im sure on some planet your argument techniques are very good. But your weakness is; this is Earth.

I love you so much. Greatest. Movie. EVER!!!

 

[Alien Vision]

It's funny how you insult me, and act like that big wall of text is enough to justify a mental attribute that is ****ing man-made. Knowledge is information that our brain pre-existently understands. Intelligence is nothing. You are just talking out of your *** from there. Maybe it's because you are a technical *****. If only you could look at it the way I do, as in a sense of simple existence rather than a force that we can never fully understand so we just label it so we think we understand it. It's obvious that you are wrong, and something else causes people to interact with certain levels of knowledge differently.

I already stated the advocates of this predicament, and you have yet said anything about it. Instead, you still scoff at me like I am a ******, when I am clearly seeing something you choose not to see because you over-complicate everything, and I can't do anything really because I don't have your stupid terms to mark it to a T-- maybe it's because what I see cannot be defined with words. I'm telling you that I feel something is off about this ''intelligence'' and I will continue doing so.

 

[global-wolf]

Let's take a post I made on the first page:

Intelligence in its most basic form is the capacity of an individual to learn. I don't know how you can say that intelligence does not exist, i.e. when you compare the potential of abstract thought of humans and ducks.

Please try to form a sensible argument against this.

 

[Alien Vision]

How healthy our brain is, and how we exercise it-- along with what I've aforementioned-- allows us to figure things out faster than others.

Well, if you've noticed. Animals react according to instinct. This explains why dog's like to run towards cars because they don't understand the world we live in now. They only understand the world that was pre-existent. They also do not fear death. Although they can have nightmares, so they do indeed have a subconscious.

We on the other hand are amibguous life-forms with the ability to think for ourselves, and communicate because we have a conscious mind that allows us to live in this reality without our instincts. Animals will always live by instinct. Although you can ''train'' animals, (even spiders) as pets.

So maybe you aren't looking at the bigger picture here. I cannot begin to think what a duck could do with it's odd stacture, and flippers. While humans have hands, legs, a brain, and can use them to manifest what goes on in their mind.

It's hard to answer this question with simple words for ****'s sake. Ask me a question that actually has everything to do with your ''intelligence'' and human beings.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

It's funny how you insult me, and act like that big wall of text is enough to justify a mental attribute that is ****ing man-made. Knowledge is information that our brain pre-existently understands. Intelligence is nothing. You are just talking out of your *** from there. Maybe it's because you are a technical *****. If only you could look at it the way I do, as in a sense of simple existence rather than a force that we can never fully understand so we just label it so we think we understand it. It's obvious that you are wrong, and something else causes people to interact with certain levels of knowledge differently.

I already stated the advocates of this predicament, and you have yet said anything about it. Instead, you still scoff at me like I am a ******, when I am clearly seeing something you choose not to see because you over-complicate everything, and I can't do anything really because I don't have your stupid terms to mark it to a T-- maybe it's because what I see cannot be defined with words. I'm telling you that I feel something is off about this ''intelligence'' and I will continue doing so.

Man-made? No. I'm sorry, but if you're willing to ignore the medical professionals, ignore the neuroscience that proves it fairly conclusively, and ignore everything we have to say on the matter, then yeah, we got nothing. Because you took what we had and used the greatest argument ever against it: "LALALALALA I'M NOT LISTENING LALALALALALA".

What exactly does pre-existently mean? Do you mean that knowledge is something you have automatically? I honestly have no idea what you mean.

You can say that I'm talking out of my ***, but you're the one coming over with this 'force that we can never understand' crap. No. No, you are wrong. We do understand it, we have explained it, and you just don't like it so you're just reasserting what you said before for no adequate reason. We know where intelligence comes from, we know what causes intellectual defects, we can quantify various regions of intellectual ability. I scoff at you like a ****** because this really isn't that difficult to understand, but you still don't get it. We're coming in with facts and data (and, in Kewkky's case, sources) and you're still turning a blind eye and claiming "you can't know! It's impossible!" And to complain that we overcomplicate things? Buddy, you're the one who came into a field of advanced neuroscience and said "WE CAN'T POSSIBLY KNOW X". Don't start complaining when you do that and get sources shot your way which you don't understand but that show, fairly conclusively, that yes, we can know X, and we know we can know X because we already do know X.

Yes, we can know. And we do know. Do me a favor, and look at the correlation between a person's IQ and their contributions to society, their groundbreaking discoveries, their strokes of mental genius. That should be at least proof that the people who have higher IQs, as quantified by the methods scientists use, ARE ****ING SMARTER.

You "feel". Your intuition is lovely, but again: I intuitively feel that the mountain lion in front of me can't be real. Doesn't matter, it's still gonna eat me. You're incredibly wrong, and if you doubt you are, I welcome you to take it up with these guys: http://www.apa.org/journals/bne/

That's Behavioral Neuroscience. A peer-reviewed publication. I welcome you to posit and prove your hypothesis that intelligence is unquantifiable or doesn't exist. Knock yourself out. I won't hold my breath.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

How healthy our brain is, and how we exercise it-- along with what I've aforementioned-- allows us to figure things out faster than others.

Genetics and controlled testing say that, given the same training, exercise, and chemical conditions, different people will learn at different rates. Either way, you could claim that this is what we are talking about when we refer to intelligence. The health of our brains, our ability to figure things out, etc.

Well, if you've noticed. Animals react according to instinct. This explains why dog's like to run towards cars because they don't understand the world we live in now[1]. They only understand the world that was pre-existent[2]. They also do not fear death[3]. Although they can have nightmares[4], so they do indeed have a subconscious[5].

[1]Citation needed
[2]Citation needed
[3]Citation needed
[4]Citation needed
[5]Citation needed

Just sayin'. Furthermore, are you claiming that instincts help guide animals, or that that's all that animals have?

We on the other hand are amibguous life-forms with the ability to think for ourselves, and communicate because we have a conscious mind that allows us to live in this reality without our instincts. Animals will always live by instinct. Although you can ''train'' animals, (even spiders) as pets.

You think we aren't also, to an extent, guided by instinct? If you do, you'd be wrong: http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/tv/humaninstinct/

It's hard to answer this question with simple words for ****'s sake. Ask me a question that actually has everything to do with your ''intelligence'' and human beings.

But... that was the question. Lobbed right over the plate. To determine that intelligence does not exist, you'd have to demonstrate that this is not true:

"Intelligence in its most basic form is the capacity of an individual to learn. The capacity of an individual to learn is determined by its genetic makeup and its surrounding conditions."

The first half is a definition. That is, that is how we define the word intelligence. The second half has been empirically proven to beyond the slightest doubt.

QED. We done here?

 

[Alien Vision]

You still are labelling it, Cadet. You aren't looking at it the way I look at it. It's not ''intelligence'' at all. Anybody can learn something if they set their mind to it. Your thousands of terms, and walls of texts-- even your thousands of sources isn't proving a damn point. It still uses ''intelligence'' as a label rather than a deeply defined structure that explains why people are at different levels. No, it's simply because alot of people don't have faith in themselves and are intimidated by people like Stephen Hawking. Or, they were defected upon birth. Or, they just don't give a flying **** for knowledge all together.

You look at this ''intelligence'' as if you can see it, and study it. You can't, you are only labelling it as such then giving it your own MAN-MADE interpretation, when it's simply a result of the brain not being treated appropiately in different individuals in the end.

I see ''intelligence'' as a force humans have used to feed their ego. What I see what you are guys are talking about is simply people who dedicated their time to knowledge. They loved what they did, and they put their mind right into what they wished to acknowledge.

 

[global-wolf]

How healthy our brain is, and how we exercise it-- along with what I've aforementioned-- allows us to figure things out faster than others.

Well, if you've noticed. Animals react according to instinct. This explains why dog's like to run towards cars because they don't understand the world we live in now. They only understand the world that was pre-existent. They also do not fear death. Although they can have nightmares, so they do indeed have a subconscious.

We on the other hand are amibguous life-forms with the ability to think for ourselves, and communicate because we have a conscious mind that allows us to live in this reality without our instincts. Animals will always live by instinct. Although you can ''train'' animals, (even spiders) as pets.

So maybe you aren't looking at the bigger picture here. I cannot begin to think what a duck could do with it's odd stacture, and flippers. While humans have hands, legs, a brain, and can use them to manifest what goes on in their mind.

It's hard to answer this question with simple words for ****'s sake. Ask me a question that actually has everything to do with your ''intelligence'' and human beings.

Dogs chase cars because they do not comprehend that the car is not an animal running away. Their intelligence in that case does not override their instinct. On your statement that animals act on instinct only and humans completely ignore their instincts: there are many published researches that have shown this to be wrong.

I don't see how body build correlates to intelligence. Intelligence is generally regarded as a concept that doesn't deal with actually moving your body. It's in an abstract part of your mind.

 

[Browny]

I intuitively feel that the mountain_tiger in front of me can't be real. Doesn't matter, it's still gonna eat me.

This is what I read.

 

[Alien Vision]

I was referring to the shape of a duck, sorry. I don't see how a duck could do anything even if it had the ability to use knowledge at the level we do, let alone absorb it with a conscious mind with it's structure.

I didn't say we ignore our instincts. We are able to control them. I'm saying that animals are intertwined with instinctive impulses; while we are able to control our impulses.

 

[global-wolf]

You agree that a duck is not able to comprehend the same things as a human then. That is a sign of intelligence.

 

[frotaz37]

Omg stop acting like you can prove that intelligence exists with peer-reviewed science. That's so stupid, you can't define intelligence as a simple measurable variable in a brain as complex as the human brain.

All you can prove with journals about "intelligence" is that each brain has different abilities and that science has defined brains that are good at certain tasks as being "intelligent".

But hello, did you read the blog? He's obviously not saying these things observed by scientists haven't been observed. He's not saying sciences definition of intelligence doesn't exist.
He's saying that the term is weak.
It's limited.
It's too small of a term to describe the countless variables that make up a brain and it's ability.
Just because people create a test that is supposed to determine how smart you are doesn't mean that the results of the test reflect how truly smart you are. It just means that you did better and/or are better at the few specific tasks required by the test.

Stop being douche bags just because of the OPs name. I know most of you have nothing going for you in life and feel good when you put yourself above others but damn, at least make an effort to avoid flaming for no reason other than "WUT DIS GUY IS SAYIN IS DUM".

You agree that a duck is not able to comprehend the same things as a human then. That is a sign of intelligence.

No, that is a sign of a duck being unable to comprehend the same things as a human. That's it. Throwing the word intelligence into this statement just shows your willingness to generalize the term.

 

[global-wolf]

What do YOU call the condition being compared when a duck can't comprehend something and a human can? To me that's intelligence.

 

[Alien Vision]

They are lacking a conscious property of the mind to think beyond their mechanical like structure.

While humans are a chariot to themselves, and are leaders of what their mind interprets.

If it was really an ''intelligence'' difference between a human and a duck-- you wouldn't see some of our own race having a lack of it.

 

[frotaz37]

Okay so, a duck not being able to comprehend that eating less fat will lead to a longer life is defined as intelligence.
A humans ability to determine the diameter of a series of circles better than another human is defined as intelligence.

Do you see how neither of these things are similar at all yet somehow have been defined by the same word? I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure this is the point AV is trying to make. The term intelligence is thrown around by people in order to make them feel superior to others, even though intelligence isn't so easily defined and is used as a broad generalization to describe countless types of cognitive phenomena.

"Intelligence" as a straight up "My brain works better than yours" simply does not exist.
Intelligence isn't a stat like it is in D&D.

 

[global-wolf]

What makes the human mind not a "mechanical-like structure?"

Ninja'd, reading.

 

[Alien Vision]

We are able to see beyond this reality. We acknowledge more than what is here, and we are able to build on the already pre-existent.

Animals will forever be stuck in their natural minds.

Humans can advance.

 

[Spelt]

[1]Citation needed
[2]Citation needed
[3]Citation needed
[4]Citation needed
[5]Citation needed

People need to stop acting like user blogs is debate hall.

 

[frotaz37]

Animals will forever be stuck in their natural minds.

Humans can advance.

I dunno why you think this. Humans are animals, we aren't different.
You should look at some of the work people have been doing with chimps and other primates, you'd be surprised.

Unfortunately your statement is too vague to really respond to. "Humans can advance" means nothing to somebody who doesn't know your exact definition of advance.

 

[global-wolf]

@Frotza: Intelligence is usually separated into categories that concern a particular type of mental ability. For example, musical intelligence, logical intelligence, etc.

If what you said is the point AV is trying to make, then it's been completely lost in his posts.

 

[Kewkky]

Cough.

"Intelligence is your ability to obtain, process, store and recall information efficiently."

I really think this one single definition counts as an argument.

 

[Alien Vision]

I'm saying that animals by their definition; aswell as humans by their definition.

We are able to build upon our already pre-existent reality at enormous levels.

Animals can only learn so much from us, they will never truly grasp the inner reality we are able to grasp. This world to them is a world that their brain corresponds to in it's intricate ways.

This world to us can be defined, and understood with proper manifestation. We have a conscious mind that can build more than there already is. We are able to hide the ''animal'' side of ourselves, while animals still do their business everywhere they want because that is how their instinctive impulses work. We can teach them not to do something but that is simply the same process as teaching a baby how to speak our language. Dogs still can't speak our language because they lack something, and it's not ''intelligence''. They lack something more along the lines of being able to see more than what their instinctive side of their mind can.

Sorry, I am trying really hard to explain. D:

@ Kewkky. No, that is how you label it. That is your technical interpretation; which is MAN-MADE.

 

[Browny]

Thread over.

 

[Kewkky]

@ Kewkky. No, that is how you label it. That is your technical interpretation.

No, that is what the term intelligence represents.

 

[Alien Vision]

No, that is what you believe it represents when I've clearly stated other terms that explain the process of our cognitive indifference alot more conveniently.

 

[frotaz37]

Yeah Kewkky the fact that you would even post that just shows that you're making no effort to even try and understand AV at all -_-

BTW GUYS GOD WROTE THE DICTIONARY SO WHATEVER IS IN THERE IS UNIVERSAL TRUTH.

As for animals...I think understand what you're saying, but you probably gotta come up with a better way of explaining it, cause I'm pretty sure the only reason dogs can't speak our language is because of the structure of their jaw and vocal cords. Even then, they can get pretty close. Also, certain birds have the ability to speak and there are well documented cases of primates fully understanding and communicating advanced language concepts through sign language.

 

[Alien Vision]

I'm composing a song to represent how I feel while on this subject.

^^

 

[global-wolf]

I don't know why you would need to spend effort to define intelligence.

 

[Kewkky]

Well that's it, I'm off. Global-wolf was right, it is futile. You guys are denying reality and substituting your own variation of it for self-gratification purposes. I can't bother anymore to try explaining to people who can't be explained to. Have fun living in ignorance, I suppose. They say ignorance is bliss, and seeing you both becoming such good friends from this, I can't say i disagree.

Have a good one, gentlemen.

 

[Alien Vision]

Well. It's my passion to udnerstand more about this world, and the people that live within in it.

So that means I will point out things that seem out of place.

@ Kewkky. You are the ignorant one. You aren't even trying. I gave a reasonable opposition and you are going to not even respond like a person? Good grief. You have no balls.

 

[frotaz37]

Well that's it, I'm off. Global-wolf was right, it is futile. You guys are denying reality and substituting your own variation of it for self-gratification purposes. I can't bother anymore to try explaining to people who can't be explained to. Have fun living in ignorance, I suppose. They say ignorance is bliss, and seeing you both becoming such good friends from this, I can't say i disagree.

Have a good one, gentlemen.

ROFL you're the one who's trying to use a dictionary definition as the be all end all example of "reality". It's not our fault you completely lack the ability to think for yourself.

I don't know why you would need to spend effort to define intelligence.

Because it's relevant to the discussion, which is about...intelligence?