NOT (Intelligence)

[jaboteer]

Forget everything you have read, heard, or thought about intelligence because we now trek to the other side where examples of what is not(intelligence) counts more than ever.

I would have to say something to the effect that: not(intelligence) is discontinuity. What is not(intelligent) cannot be directly followed. Do you agree?

[untermensche]

The absurd is one aspect of the not-intelligent.

The absurdities of life show it as a thing not the result of any intelligence.

To have deep affections for things that will eventually die is absurd. A sign that this scheme is not the result of any intelligence.

[jaboteer]

The absurd is one aspect of the not-intelligent.

The absurdities of life show it as a thing not the result of any intelligence.

To have deep affections for things that will eventually die is absurd. A sign that this scheme is not the result of any intelligence.greetings.

(1) I thought of this absurd factor but then I remembered Camus and how he used the absurd to demonstrate how Sisyphus exists within the myth.

(2) The absurdities in someone's life can also be greatly contrived by others to obtain adverse effects.

(3) When you use the adjective deep, to qualify affections, I get the impression that not(intelligent) has some sort of jumping off point - suicide. The idea of equilibrium recurs in my mind with deviations from idealized equilibrium perhaps indicating the not(intelligent)

[Revolutionary]

What? I don't understand the OP.

[da_raven]

I'm in the dark too

[untermensche]

greetings.

(1) I thought of this absurd factor but then I remembered Camus and how he used the absurd to demonstrate how Sisyphus exists within the myth.

(2) The absurdities in someone's life can also be greatly contrived by others to obtain adverse effects.

(3) When you use the adjective deep, to qualify affections, I get the impression that not(intelligent) has some sort of jumping off point - suicide. The idea of equilibrium recurs in my mind with deviations from idealized equilibrium perhaps indicating the not(intelligent)
Camus says of Sisyphus that despite the absurdity of his situation he still finds strength in his constant rebellion against this absurdity. Camus goes on to write "The Rebel", as a later expression of his philosophy.

I think the absurd is only apparent to the intelligent, and totally missed by the not-intelligent. The rock does not see the absurdity as Sisyphus slides it up the hill every day.

Intelligence is therefore able to seperate itself from the absurd, and live unabsurdly.

Camus said that to not live for posterity is to avoid living the absurd.

[jaboteer]

Camus says of Sisyphus that despite the absurdity of his situation he still finds strength in his constant rebellion against this absurdity. Camus goes on to write "The Rebel", as a later expression of his philosophy.

I think the absurd is only apparent to the intelligent, and totally missed by the not-intelligent. The rock does not see the absurdity as Sisyphus slides it up the hill every day.

Intelligence is therefore able to seperate itself from the absurd, and live unabsurdly.

Camus said that to not live for posterity is to avoid living the absurd.Say, I have erred. I was taken up by Camus when I was younger, so much so that even up to two days ago when I commented about Sysiphus, I had forgotten the Myth was fiction and Camus was at the height of his essay contributions to our world.

Does this mean that the dis-continuity between, good philosophical fiction and my inability to view it as such, in so much as my own disguising of its true nature - fiction, led me to crossover to being not(intelligent)? Or is there some other more fitting description to discontinuous. Not stupid, I hope!

I have a few examples of dis-continuity found in Nature which will be addressed sooner than later. At this point in time I am unsure whether dis-continuity, as I had premised it, will fully pass the test of being not(intelligent)

[jaboteer]

What? I don't understand the OP.Can you formulate phrases concerning what you think or thought not(intelligent) could represent? I thought discontinuous systems may be a candidate for not(intelligent) seeing these systems defy intelligence.

A clear example would be the new matrix mechanics, which was discovered using the greatest guessing game devised after the one used by men who wanted to know if their wives or girlfriends had cheated on them!

[jaboteer]

I'm in the dark tooYes it is quite contrary here.

[fast]

Forget everything you have read, heard, or thought about intelligenceThat is an impossible task, but had you said to be open-minded to another idea that you have while being careful not to be overly biased, then perhaps I could have accommodated.

because we now trek to the other side The other side of what? Thinking?

where examples of what is not(intelligence) counts more than ever.What examples, and why do they count more than ever? Another thing, why are you saying, "not(intelligence)?" Don't you realize how hard it is to even figure out what you mean by that? Oh, and stop with the parentheses.

I'm supposing that you are trying to figure out what intelligence is by examining what you think that intelligence isn't. For example, one may want to figure out some common characteristics associated with professionalism by making note of the opposing characteristics that come to mind when thinking of acts not associated with professionalism.

I would have to say something to the effect that: not(intelligence) is discontinuity. Never mind that you're wrong--The structure of that has just got to be a fallacy.

If it's raining, then it's cloudy, but if it's not raining, then are you saying that it's not cloudy? Don't think so, for it may be cloudy. In other words, even if intelligence is continuity (whatever that may happenchance to mean), that wouldn't necessarily infer that discontinuity is not intelligence--in fact, I'm not even sure that means anything.

What is not(intelligent) cannot be directly followed. You should really spend just a tad bit more time with your posts.

Do you agree?Never, and you can't make me. :D

[jaboteer]

If it's raining, then it's cloudy, but if it's not raining, then are you saying that it's not cloudy? Don't think so, for it may be cloudy. In other words, even if intelligence is continuity (whatever that may happenchance to mean), that wouldn't necessarily infer that discontinuity is not intelligence--in fact, I'm not even sure that means anything.

You should really spend just a tad bit more time with your posts.

Never, and you can't make me. :DI believe not(discontinuity) includes continuity and partial continuity.

Discontinuity is a reference term, a jumping off point so to speak. Unlike other things I have written, this one has yet to be proven as valid. I see you are helping. :cool:

Can I say there is no intelligence when systems which were created to act together become seperated? Does this mean two systems which are non-continuous cannot support intelligent activity.

(1) Please do not walk on the lawn.
(2) Please do not walk on the sky.

[untermensche]

Say, I have erred. I was taken up by Camus when I was younger, so much so that even up to two days ago when I commented about Sysiphus, I had forgotten the Myth was fiction and Camus was at the height of his essay contributions to our world.

Does this mean that the dis-continuity between, good philosophical fiction and my inability to view it as such, in so much as my own disguising of its true nature - fiction, led me to crossover to being not(intelligent)? Or is there some other more fitting description to discontinuous. Not stupid, I hope!

I have a few examples of dis-continuity found in Nature which will be addressed sooner than later. At this point in time I am unsure whether dis-continuity, as I had premised it, will fully pass the test of being not(intelligent)
Discontinuity is an aspect of intelligence. It is what enables knowledge to move forward.

If all intelligence could do was replicate what was given it, then no new idea would occur to anyone.

I would also say that what we call genius is many times an exaggerated ability of intellectual discontituity, with also the ability of restructuring anew.

[fast]

I believe not(discontinuity) includes continuity and partial continuity. You say, "not(discontinuity)" as if it's a word of some sort. Is it a noun?

Discontinuity is a reference term, a jumping off point so to speak. "Discontinuity" is a term, yes, but why bring that up? I thought you were talking about, "not(discontinuity)." I have never came across the term "not(discontinuity)"--assuming of course that it's a term; moreover, I suspect that it's not a term at all. I think you ought to agree with me on that. Also, I think you shouldn't say, "not(discontinuity)" on the basis that it's not a term.

Unlike other things I have written, this one has yet to be proven as valid. I see you are helping. :cool: Even if I can't help, maybe I can help you say what you want to say a little better; perhaps that will allow for another to understand you--someone that may happen to know the answers to the questions you seek.

Can I say there is no intelligence when systems which were created to act together become seperated?I can say that people bark, but saying that people bark of course doesn't mean that people bark. Likewise, you can say it, but I'm not going to endorse it as a true statement.

Does this mean two systems which are non-continuous cannot support intelligent activity. You seem to think there are such things as intelligent systems. Unless that’s just an esoteric way of talking about humans, I do not have a sufficient reason to label non-human systems as intelligent--though I may make exceptions for passionate pleas about certain animals.


(1) Please do not walk on the lawn.
(2) Please do not walk on the sky.
Is this supposed to tell me something? The first is a polite imperative that makes sense whereas the second though polite doesn't make sense to say. Why would someone even say that? I understand it, but why say it? I wouldn't say to a guest in my house, "Welcome to my home ... oh, and please, don't walk on my ceiling."

[Nicholas]

If we can call it unintelligence, I would define that as an agent incapable of intentional thought,
or from a biological perspective, an agent unable to show adaptive behaviour with respect to its' environment.

[untermensche]

If we can call it unintelligence, I would define that as an agent incapable of intentional thought,
or from a biological perspective, an agent unable to show adaptive behaviour with respect to its' environment.
I would call this high end intelligence.

But intelligence is demonstrated when an organism moves by its own energy in any environment and is able to survive in it.

I would not consider the survival of plants an act of intelligence. Life can exist without intelligence in other words.

[jaboteer]

...
Is this supposed to tell me something? The first is a polite imperative that makes sense whereas the second though polite doesn't make sense to say. Why would someone even say that? I understand it, but why say it? I wouldn't say to a guest in my house, "Welcome to my home ... oh, and please, don't walk on my ceiling."One thing I have noted with philosophers is the pre-suppositions on which they embark. Firstly can we say that humans are always intelligent? No we cannot, because babies are not intelligent in the way an adult can be described as intelligent.

When adults are described as intelligent, does this mean they were always intelligent? and if they were not always intelligent - then what were they?

It seems they were Not (intelligent), anf if no one can describe what they were not then how the fuck do they know what they are?

"$%"//?*0422"2@£¢¤²³¼²¦¤¢¤£"

[jaboteer]

If we can call it unintelligence, I would define that as an agent incapable of intentional thought,
or from a biological perspective, an agent unable to show adaptive behaviour with respect to its' environment.The way some people would have it here would entail everything is intelligent seeing they cannot find any examples of what is not intelligent.

There are a few reasons why I wish to draw attention to what is not intelligent. The most basic of reasons, is so people can realise they are thinking and acting in stupid ways. The next reason is to construct a map or general plan as you may which will point the way to forks in the road where following one path leads to intelligence and the other path leads to what is not intelligent.

[jaboteer]

Discontinuity is an aspect of intelligence. It is what enables knowledge to move forward.

If all intelligence could do was replicate what was given it, then no new idea would occur to anyone.

I would also say that what we call genius is many times an exaggerated ability of intellectual discontituity, with also the ability of restructuring anew.I would have to rebut with: it seems to me the context of discontinuity may lead to what is not intelligent.

I believe that when knowledge moves foward the continuity is retained even though there may have been previous gaps in one's knowledge.

[fast]

One thing I have noted with philosophers is the pre-suppositions on which they embark. And sometimes a book really is a book.

Firstly can we say that humans are always intelligent? As usual, we can say most darn near anything we want, but that of course does not therefore mean that what we say is true. Oh, and the proposition "humans are always intelligent" is very ambiguous.

Humans as a whole are intelligent beings--as opposed to trees that are incapable of thought and reason. Does this mean that every individual is intelligent? No. Therefore, it is not true that all specific humans are always intelligent--It's sad to announce this, but they do die. Yet, as I’ve said, humans are intelligent.

[... B]ecause babies are not intelligent in the way an adult can be described as intelligent.What do you mean by "in the way"? Are babies different than adults? Yes, but what does the difference between a baby and an adult have to do with whether one, both, or none are intelligent. By the way, babies are intelligent beings. They even show signs of intelligence. That's a good reason (by the way) to conclude that babies are intelligent--because they show signs of intelligence. They may not have amassed hordes of useless knowledge like the typical adult sacks of celluloid, but babies, dear sir, are intelligent beings.

When adults are described as intelligent, does this mean they were always intelligent? The vast majority of the time, yes, but that of course doesn't mean that the adult was always an adult. Oh, that last bit applies to your next quote as well.

It seems they were Not (intelligent), anf if no one can describe what they were not then how the fuck do they know what they are? If you want to emphasize a term, and if you want your readers to understand you, then do so as it ought to be done. For example, if you want to say, "It seems they were not intelligent" yet feel that you need to emphasize "not" and "intelligent", then you could use italicizes and write, "It seems they were not intelligent". If that is not sufficient, then try rewording your statement; personally, I'm fond of using contrast.

What I'm not fond of is when one brings confusion and frustration to a situation that already has too much of both.

"$%"//?*0422"2@"
I've analyzed this cryptic notation and have concluded that it's complete gibberish. It's seems to be a sign of frustration.

£¢¤²³¼²¦¤¢¤£
I don't have the time to decode this portion, but I suspect that if I were to do so, it would likely be gibberish as well--based on the findings of the previous analysis.

[trip]

It's all gibberish. Seriously.

[jaboteer]

And sometimes a book really is a book.

If that is not sufficient, then try rewording your statement; personally, I'm fond of using contrast.

What I'm not fond of is when one brings confusion and frustration to a situation that already has too much of both.


I've analyzed this cryptic notation and have concluded that it's complete gibberish. It's seems to be a sign of frustration.


I don't have the time to decode this portion, but I suspect that if I were to do so, it would likely be gibberish as well--based on the findings of the previous analysis.Why are you bothering to commet about my style of writing and not about the content?

[jaboteer]

fast, why should I take you seriously seeing you seem to have such a weak conception of what is intelligent. Why do you not come out with it and say, as far as you know, not(intelligent) seems to be, not (human), so I thought it out for you, which makes it all right, I guess :D :D

[jaboteer]

It's all gibberish. Seriously.Considering, you seem to connect in a knowing manner, to what is gibberish, do you think it possible, to philosophise on the matter - a bit?

[fast]

Why are you bothering to commet about my style of writing and not about the content?Good ideas need to be shared. If you want to share your good ideas, then you need to do so. Besides, there's nothing that you've said to me that I haven't responded to.

I'm not out to make you look bad or myself look good. I freely admit that I when I first read your original post, I hadn't the foggiest about what you meant. To be honest (as I have been), I'm still struggling to understand what you're saying. I've even been very specific as to why there is a barrier to communication.

fast, why should I take you seriously seeing you seem to have such a weak conception of what is intelligent.You should take me seriously because I’m trying hard to understand you; plus, I’m not doing things for you not to take me seriously. Additionally, I have no idea why you think that “a weak conception of what is intelligent” (even if true) would have an impact on why you should take me seriously. I wouldn’t base a reason to take someone seriously because a person seemed to have a weak conception of what is intelligent.

Why do you think that I have a weak conception of what is intelligent anyway? Do you think that trees are intelligent?

Why do you not come out with it and say, as far as you know, not(intelligent) seems to be, not (human), so I thought it out for you, which makes it all right, I guess :D :DI do think that intelligence is a term that can and ought to be applied to humans, but I like I said, I would apply the term to certain animals also. If any creature showed signs of intelligence, I would at least entertain the idea that said creature is intelligent. If you are going to apply intelligence to the non biological entities, then you need to share with me this strong conception of intelligence to which I am not privy. I wouldn’t characterize geophysical activity or solar systems as intelligent. Would you?

And stop with the “not” being separated by single word parenthesis, please. I don’t mind pretentiousness, or even arrogance, but clarity is not something that is easy to do without.

[jaboteer]

Good ideas need to be shared...Suppose you were showing someone what intelligent behaviour in your home was supposed to be like. What makes you pick out from all the phrases in the world, "don't walk on the ceiling" as one which exhibits no intelligence?

Oh I am a bit reckless when it comes to being frustrated, but you needn't mind about that.

[fast]

Suppose you were showing someone what intelligent behaviour in your home was supposed to be like. Would it matter to you that if during my supposing that I happened to believe there is no such thing as intelligent behavior? That's right ladies and gentlemen; The Great Fast hereby denounces such a supposition. Intelligence, my reckless friend, is not a behavior.

Does this mean that I am unable to elicit what I think one may mean by the utterance of such a saying? No, but to understand what one means is not to say that what one says actually makes sense--though I may be able to make sense out of it.

When the lady of the trailer wearing curls and flip-flops runs out in chase of the newspaper boy who just trampled her newly planted weeds says, "show some intelligent behavior" it wouldn't take much wherewithal to grasp that she desires the young lad to behave like one ought--implying that one who doesn't act like one ought is not intelligent--an invalid inference in itself.

What makes you pick out from all the phrases in the world, "don't walk on the ceiling" as one which exhibits no intelligence?I was merely mimicking with analogy your statement "Please do not walk on the sky." I could have given others. Are you suggesting that my intelligence (what few ounces I have left :D ) made me (I say, "made me") pick that particular one?

Oh I am a bit reckless when it comes to being frustrated, but you needn't mind about that.Don't let me get to you; I'm just practicing to be pretentious. I don't really know that much. It's all you philosophy types that seem to know so much. Me, I'm just trying to make sense of it all.

PS: since I've come across as such an ass, I hereby award you with three ad hominem attacks. Might wanna pm 'em though -- mod's don't take kindly to 'em. :wave: <just tryin' to ease the tension>

[jaboteer]

Would it matter to you that if during my supposing that I happened to believe there is no such thing as intelligent behavior? That's right ladies and gentlemen; The Great Fast hereby denounces such a supposition. Intelligence, my reckless friend, is not a behavior.
It was only just a few days ago I was strolling along a sidewalk down a side street here in Montreal, when three pretty young ladies made me swear 'cause they were amicably chatting away while occupying all possible sidewalk territory. I thought they were disrupting my flow even when they realized I was approaching. I was uncomfortable with my discontinuity!

Well, Mr. Fast, I thought they were not being intelligent in the least by commandeering the whole pavement. This is a behaviour, n'est pas?.

[jaboteer]

--implying that one who doesn't act like one ought is not intelligent--an invalid inference in itself.It would be difficult to disagree. Does this mean there is intelligence and then there is intelligence. Both Johnny and Paul are individually intelligent but when together, they can never discover continuity within their small collective.



p.s. Collective: Two or more active minds producing a single result.

[fast]

I was uncomfortable with my discontinuity! :D

Well, Mr. Fast, I thought they were not being intelligent in the least by commandeering the whole pavement. This is a behaviour, n'est pas?.

And if it were the case that while you walked and swore, you also brandished a gun in your hand for all to see, and if they still blocked your path, I'd have to readily agree that it was definitely not very smart behavior on their part. Curiously though, how could such lovely (were they lovely?) ladies act even of a level commensurate to your depiction if not intelligent?

[fast]

Does this mean there is intelligence and then there is intelligence.Run that by me again.

Both Johnny and Paul are individually intelligent but when together, they can never discover continuity within their small collective.

p.s. Collective: Two or more active minds producing a single result.Maybe you should have explained what you meant by the term "continuity" also, for I still don't get it.

[jaboteer]

:D



And if it were the case that while you walked and swore, you also brandished a gun in your hand for all to see, and if they still blocked your path, I'd have to readily agree that it was definitely not very smart behavior on their part. Curiously though, how could such lovely (were they lovely?) ladies act even of a level commensurate to your depiction if not intelligent?I think it was because they all had dis-organized their knowledge, in the sense that the knowledge they should have posessed concerning the immediate environment, and its useage, was jumbled, which is another way of saying disorganized knowledge.

fast, do you think there is a not intelligent way of walking on ice?

[jaboteer]

Run that by me again.

Maybe you should have explained what you meant by the term "continuity" also, for I still don't get it.Can judgement be suspended on tis one? I would have to express continuity in terms of organization and performance. The glove fits the hand demonstrates continuity between a fitting of glove on a hand resulting in glove on hand.

[dug_down_deep]

And stop with the “not” being separated by single word parenthesis, please. I don’t mind pretentiousness, or even arrogance, but clarity is not something that is easy to do without.
Just to chime in on this minor point...

I find the use of the parentheses to increase clarity, not diminish it. It's a way of dealing with what's inside (or not dealing with it, which seems to be the intention of the OP) the parentheses before you negate it, and in emphasizing that the negation is a separate operation, as opposed to a sign (or other intractable part of the parenthetical value).

This sort of thing is used in programming code to achieve clarity, both for the compiler/interpreter and the human reader.

Now back to yer business...

[fast]

I think it was because they all had dis-organized their knowledge, in the sense that the knowledge they should have posessed concerning the immediate environment, and its useage, was jumbled, which is another way of saying disorganized knowledge.Wouldn't it be simpler and probably more correct to say that they knew exactly what they were doing but simply had no respect--which of course is not to say that there were without respect but instead failed to display respect commensurate with how it ought to have been shown given the circumstances.

fast, do you think there is a not intelligent way of walking on ice?I'm willing to allow a little slack, but not so much so that you hang yourself. So, I don't mind you saying the following to a class of children:

"there is an intelligent way to walk on ice, and there's a not so intelligent way to walk on ice; look at Ms. Titlebroom <and the children look and laugh>; so see kids, there is an intelligent way to do it, and a not so intelligent way to do it."

However, jaboteer, though you may say it and convey a specific meaning, I don't want you to then think of a person who walks like Ms. Titlebroom on ice is therefore not intelligent, for such is not the case.

Can judgement be suspended on tis one? I would have to express continuity in terms of organization and performance. The glove fits the hand demonstrates continuity between a fitting of glove on a hand resulting in glove on hand.

Judgment, like the bustling breeze forging forward in the echoless night ... from what stage shall continuity ponder my dastardly fall, I wonder? You bringeth up organized pales of monotony and performance to boot no less, but dare thee cast the glove of all tidings to be spent? Discontinuity hails the broken-down dilapidated glove to which can never again be worn--at least not with the same innocence as the pubescent. Be gone thine knot and bringeth continuity like the sharpness of a brand new shoestring (knotless I might add).

I could do like so many others do and sit here and pretend to know what you said and respond back-- with something just as esoteric and on the fringes of nonsense as you have provided; we could even hold a conversation and make the casual passerby think that what we're talking about is out of their league, but I don't want to talk so that only a select few will grasp my hazy unclear points. I want the average Joe (people like me) to understand not only me, but you and the clarity you can bring, as well.

[fast]

I find the use of the parentheses to increase clarity, not diminish it. I have no problems (or issues) with the proper use of parentheses. In fact, I have no problem with the occasional mistake (or even the annoying excessive use of them)—as I shall demonstrate:

And yes, I (The Great Fast) do believe, as you do as well, that the use of parentheses can (as it often does) bring much needed (or increase as you say) clarity of (as opposed to the diminishment of) the points trying to be made.

He, however, (and the he to which I speak is Jaboteer), was not bringing (nor increasing) clarity.

It's a way of dealing with what's inside (or not dealing with it, which seems to be the intention of the OP) the parentheses before you negate it, and in emphasizing that the negation is a separate operation, as opposed to a sign (or other intractable part of the parenthetical value).

This sort of thing is used in programming code to achieve clarity, both for the compiler/interpreter and the human reader.

Now back to yer business...

This isn't programming code; this is English.

[dug_down_deep]

This isn't programming code; this is English.
Too bad. Philosophical debate would probably be better served by a language with clear definitions and syntax, as opposed to one with allusions, connotations, ambiguities, and the other piles of steaming horsecrap the English language is full of.

Still, it makes pretty poems that anyone can interpret in any way they please. And that's nice. I guess. Keeps philosophical forums humming, for one thing.

[jaboteer]

Wouldn't it be simpler and probably more correct to say that they knew exactly what they were doing but simply had no respect--which of course is not to say that there were without respect but instead failed to display respect commensurate with how it ought to have been shown given the circumstances.
...
If it is simpler, as it looks, I wouldn't have been able to premise the conjunctions and correspondence relevant to the context.



I resist strongly any urges to create shapes in society (to think through) out of philosophical logos. It might ruin my business. Pointing the way to stupidity and leading the attack back to intelligence is dis-organization of knowledge but this is a third-eye-view. Third eye views are useful as guides for creating instructing procedures as you have cleverly managed to show."there is an intelligent way to walk on ice, and there's a not so intelligent way to walk on ice; look at Ms. Titlebroom <and the children look and laugh>; so see kids, there is an intelligent way to do it, and a not so intelligent way to do it."


Continuity is an aid which helps in the fabrication of evidence to support knowledge. Discontinuity is the mental circling method which helps to constrain any boundary conditions as sensible approaches to solving the situation. a sort of scientific method..