every being is completely different when it comes to the many experiences they are built of and their logic and so everyone's perfect would also be different contradicting perfection. — DAC

Could you give me an example that would illustrate clearly whatever it is that you are trying to communicate?

but at the same time I myself have goals that are probably somewhat fanciful.

aiming for pure objectivity with as little subjectiveness as possible. Then being able to recognize patterns, predict, and so on — InvoluntaryDecorum

Even with that qualification it seem strange to aim for a goal you can never reach.

fair enough.

thank you for clarifying. Your explanation was amazing. If we need to subjectively determine what is purely objective and what is not purely objective wouldn’t that mean that pure objectivity is impossible?

If I’m being honest I’m not even sure what subjectivity refers to. Where does subjectivity end and objectivity begin? Or vice versa.

Ironic thing to say for someone that doesn't have an opinion — MAYAEL

I have a view of a view but not a view of intelligence.

I’d love to hear more from you on this topic.

The IQ score is like cock size for nerds. — Tom Storm

I actually view it as a life and death type of topic. IQ really doesn’t interest me that much.

If you google intelligence and essentialism you will see a lot of material. Much of it more useful than anything I would say. — Tom Storm

Fair enough.

also I want to warn you in advance Tom that my discussion of these subjects could become tangential.

I honestly don’t know where to begin. Should I tackle the essentialism question first? Or should I provide my thoughts on whether or not it is important to have a view on intelligence before I address the essentialism subject?

I like your definition but what metrics should be used to detect “pure objectivity”. Many people will claim to be “purely objective”. How do we separate the fraudulent claims from the genuine article? Please forgive me for bombarding you with these questions.

I also didn’t appreciate your ad hominem attack.

The simple fact you presented the topic alludes to the fact that in your head you hold a certain opinion and belief about the concept and word intelligence and it's proof because you made the post asking the question meaning you value it in some way or form and acknowledge its existence this is a fact not my opinion — MAYAEL

If you don’t even think that intelligence exists I’m not sure why you decided to discuss this subject in the first place.

I see what you’re saying. I’m sorry if I upset you but that wasn’t my intention. I wish you luck in your endeavors.

how well one is able to process information — InvoluntaryDecorum

What exactly do you have in mind when you say process? Do you mean something like the development of an interpretation?

interesting.

intelligence wasn't the reason Mr x completed y and z and yet people wrongly the credit intelligence for it — MAYAEL

I never gave a definition of intelligence or suggested that it was the reason for anything. I’m trying to figure out what it is. You say that it is a social construct that doesn’t really exist but I haven’t heard any argument to support this conclusion. You make claims but you don’t support them.

I guess my point is you're viewing intelligence as a thing in itself that can be given the credit for accomplishments and or failures and be given as a reason for why a thing was done or accomplished — MAYAEL

This is not my view of intelligence. I’m trying formulate my view. I don’t have any position on the subject yet.

it’s possible the prayer is a kind of therapeutic process.

Likewise the nature of this thread that was started implies that the concept of intelligence was taken the wrong way by said topic starter — MAYAEL

I disagree. Taken the wrong way by who?

I don’t want to criticize you because I really do appreciate your participation in this discussion but an important part of communication is being able to tailor your message to the needs of your audience. My understanding of the subjects you discussed is simply not at the level that would be required for us to meaningfully engage in any dialogue.

Each neuron has a primary output (ganglial tail) and a cloud of synapses (like hairs on the other end) that bond them 1:1 or 1:n to other neurons (or even multiple times to a single neuron). Each one of those synapses and the ganglia transmit all 4 variables of state to their neighbors or possibly to a nerve cluster or to the lymbic region for connection to a whole other region of the brain. — SkyLeach

This is all Greek to me.

For any of you who might think I'm being hyperbolic, consider this: a microprocessor (current generation) is a single dye (piece of silicon) containing a gating bridge, at least two "cores", control logic and connections to L1 and L2 cache (L3 is only on dye in Xenon procs) and each core is hard-encoded instruction sets for about 12 different specially stacked instruction sets (dictionaries of operations) from the x86 architecture to MME and SSE architectures. Essentially all of them are 64x64 operator/operand intersections. — SkyLeach

I literally can’t comprehend this information.

I like the premise of this discussion.

I’m not sure what view you are referring to. I’m not interested in reviving any doctrine.

well for a starting example the very nature of this topic is evidence that people treat it the wrong way as I suggested — MAYAEL

Could you clarify what you mean by “nature”? And also would you mind presenting your understanding of what the nature of this topic actually is? Otherwise your sentence will continue to seem somewhat ambiguous.

I don’t see how B follows from A in this if A then B formulation. Maybe that’s just because I can’t see through the fog of my own or someone else’s bullshit but either way I can’t see how B follows from A in this if A then B formulation. Maybe the hidden premise is that anything that exists is automatically possible but this seems like something that needs to be proven or else it is almost true by definition.

It's not a an argument from ignorance, because I have no burden of proof. I simply suggested to ask yourself what the evidence suggests, and to test the quality between the different types of evidence. — Garrett Travers

I agree that you don’t have any burden of proof but what kind of test do you have in mind? I can’t think of any way to test for this kind of phenomenon.

It also does not allow for the possibility that the answer is unknowable, only knowable in the future, or neither completely true nor completely false. — Garrett Travers

Maybe the element is somewhere in here.

all I know is that you said “ You have no reason to suggest you aren't seeing it.” which seemed fishy but now you’ve got me curious. What is the element to the fallacy that makes this not an argument from ignorance?

your question makes me remember a logical fallacy. I think it might be a form of argumentum ad ignorantiam. Keep in mind that I’m not saying I am hallucinating just that I don’t know if I am or not.

You have no reason to suggest you aren't seeing it. What would constitute evidence of you having hallucinated something? — Garrett Travers

Good question. I need to think about it.

How do I know if something is true? I'm looking at, it's right there. How do we know the sun is really there? Because it is self-evidently emergent in the universe. — Garrett Travers

The only problem I have with this is that I have no way of knowing if I’m really looking at something that actually exists because I could be hallucinating or dreaming etc. I know we already discussed this and I don’t want to beat a dead horse. Plus this is a discussion devoted to an entirely different purpose and I don’t want to ignore that.

no the only part that confused me was the introduction of the whole a thing is what it is and couldn’t possibly be what it isn’t concept. That concept traditionally being represented by A=A.

oh ok thanks for clarifying.

No, I'm saying that if an assertion about a fact of the world cannot be placed under the scrutiny of falsification, meaning it can be tested in a manner that has the potential to dispprove it in one or more ways, then it isn't science, per Karl Popper, and should thereby be dismissed from one's philosophical approach until such a time that it can. — Garrett Travers

What assertion are you referring to though? Is it the assertion that a thing isn’t what it is?

Not in any falsifiable manner. — Garrett Travers

I’m not sure I understand the point you’re trying to make about falsification. Are you referring to my mirage hypothesis?

I’m familiar with the law I’m just not on board with the way it is represented Or symbolized.

I don’t know if it makes sense to use mathematical symbols like the one for equality in the context of epistemology. 2+2=4 but I don’t know what A=A means.