Is creating intelligence an artifact of intelligence?

[harmonica]

Trick question.
Humans have no intelligence.
An infant race with no real grasp of consciousness or understanding of what qualifies as sentient. Facing the infinite under the delusion of a false sense if self importance. Unable with limited senses to truly perceive the Universe let alone understand it or ourselves.

In other words...

Above my pay grade.

And yet we are obsessed with creating smart things.

Every smart thing I have has broken.

So has God’s.

no--it was '''created''' broken --never ran well--never perfect
can't break if it was always broken

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So you don’t believe man creating smart things qualifies as proof that creating intelligence is an artifact of intelligence?

Ding, the first two words of the post you quoted are, "Not always". As in, creating intelligence is not always an artifact of intelligence. The second sentence then explains why.

Read left to right, top to botrom.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Is it the nature of intelligence to create intelligence? Is creating intelligence an artifact of intelligence?

Not always, obviously. Selection "created" intelligence.

So you don’t believe man creating smart things qualifies as proof that creating intelligence is an artifact of intelligence?

Hopelessly circular arguments are circular. Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb,.. DUMB!

 

[Grumblenuts]

Sometimes I'm not sure about my dog and other animals from time to time. Are they more intelligent, than I think about them? Are they more intelligent, than I am on my own?

Bingo. Also, they wouldn't be caught dead wasting their time pondering their own intelligence.

 

[alang1216]

I'm saying the question is unanswerable, we don't have enough data to even venture a guess.

What would it take for you to venture a guess?

More data. I am perfectly comfortable saying we just don't know. In this case, we can't even speculate intelligently.

 

[Thunk]

Ok, so what answers do work for you?

(To pass knowledge down to the next generation.)...I find that important...but it's not the meaning of life (for me).

(To become the best version of myself.)...Again, I strive to do that, but my purpose in life might be to put a word in the right ear at the right time...it might be to stop a fight (or start one). King Luther would have never guessed that his only purpose in life was to "sire" king arthur.

 

[ding]

Ok, so what answers do work for you?

(To pass knowledge down to the next generation.)...I find that important...but it's not the meaning of life (for me).

(To become the best version of myself.)...Again, I strive to do that, but my purpose in life might be to put a word in the right ear at the right time...it might be to stop a fight (or start one). King Luther would have never guessed that his only purpose in life was to "sire" king arthur.

Ok, I didn't say my answers were your answers. I was interested in hearing how you would answer your questions.

 

[ding]

I'm saying the question is unanswerable, we don't have enough data to even venture a guess.

What would it take for you to venture a guess?

More data. I am perfectly comfortable saying we just don't know. In this case, we can't even speculate intelligently.

What data are you expecting exactly?

 

[ding]

Is it the nature of intelligence to create intelligence? Is creating intelligence an artifact of intelligence?

Not always, obviously. Selection "created" intelligence.

So you don’t believe man creating smart things qualifies as proof that creating intelligence is an artifact of intelligence?

Hopelessly circular arguments are circular. Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb,.. DUMB!

When Maxwell went looking for proof of Einstein's general theory of relativity his observation - which was a proxy of the phenomena - wasn't considered circular. Neither is an example of intelligence creating intelligence.

 

[ding]

So you don’t believe man creating smart things qualifies as proof that creating intelligence is an artifact of intelligence?

Ding, the first two words of the post you quoted are, "Not always". As in, creating intelligence is not always an artifact of intelligence. The second sentence then explains why.

Read left to right, top to botrom.

It doesn't have to be always to validate that creating intelligence is an artifact of intelligence. It only needs to be a preponderance. And that it clearly is.

 

[ding]

Trick question.
Humans have no intelligence.
An infant race with no real grasp of consciousness or understanding of what qualifies as sentient. Facing the infinite under the delusion of a false sense if self importance. Unable with limited senses to truly perceive the Universe let alone understand it or ourselves.

In other words...

Above my pay grade.

And yet we are obsessed with creating smart things.

Every smart thing I have has broken.

So has God’s.

no--it was '''created''' broken --never ran well--never perfect
can't break if it was always broken

Did you type that on your smart phone?

 

[zaangalewa]

Is it the nature of intelligence to create intelligence? Is creating intelligence an artifact of intelligence?

Sure. One day every most unimportant quant will be part of a living entity. That's not a natural law, but I'm sure that's what we will do, when we will survive a little longer, what I doubt about, because this needs love and rationality.

It doesn’t matter what we do.

Aha.

It’s pretty obvious that it’s natural for us to try to invent smart things.

We’re obsessed with making smart devices.

Your brain (=reality simulator) has a weight of about 1.5 kilo-gram. Now imagine you try to think with a kind of brainware by using a complex structure of matter with the mass of 1.5 kilo-billion suns ... . Where's the real limit?

I’m not sure what you are getting at.

Sure you are not sure.

 

[Rigby5]

You can not create intelligence.
We do not know how.
We can use our intelligence to write computer programs that can simulate intelligence by using our own and predicting possible events.
And we can teach people how to better use their inherent intelligence.

 

[Grumblenuts]

When Maxwell went looking for proof of Einstein's general theory of relativity

"James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879)" - Wikipedia
Einstein - "Born 14 March 1879"- Wikipedia
Yes, you are indeed clueless.

Maxwell postulated that light is a form of electromagnetic radiation exerting pressure and carrying momentum. This provided the basis for Einstein's work on relativity

Maxwell’s discovery of a factor of proportionality between dielectricity and magnetism led to his theory of conjugate pair of inductions, dielectric and magnetic, in union, propagating at the velocity of light thru the “Luminiferous Aether”. Hence, electro-magnetic waves in free space, unbounded by gross physical matter, mass free energy. This propagation is within the dielectric, or aetheric, medium itself.

 

[Rigby5]

When Maxwell went looking for proof of Einstein's general theory of relativity

"James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879)" - Wikipedia
Einstein - "Born 14 March 1879"- Wikipedia
Yes, you are indeed clueless.

Maxwell postulated that light is a form of electromagnetic radiation exerting pressure and carrying momentum. This provided the basis for Einstein's work on relativity

Maxwell’s discovery of a factor of proportionality between dielectricity and magnetism led to his theory of conjugate pair of inductions, dielectric and magnetic, in union, propagating at the velocity of light thru the “Luminiferous Aether”. Hence, electro-magnetic waves in free space, unbounded by gross physical matter, mass free energy. This propagation is within the dielectric, or aetheric, medium itself.

Not necessarily true that Ding is clueless.
People were looking for the solution that became Einstein's theory of relativity, before Einstein was even born.
A miscommunication is still possible?
Maxwell was onto relativity before Einstein, as far as electro magnetism anyway.

 

[there4eyeM]

Intelligence would rather seem something that is experienced and perhaps shared rather than something created.

 

[ding]

When Maxwell went looking for proof of Einstein's general theory of relativity

"James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879)" - Wikipedia
Einstein - "Born 14 March 1879"- Wikipedia
Yes, you are indeed clueless.

Maxwell postulated that light is a form of electromagnetic radiation exerting pressure and carrying momentum. This provided the basis for Einstein's work on relativity

Maxwell’s discovery of a factor of proportionality between dielectricity and magnetism led to his theory of conjugate pair of inductions, dielectric and magnetic, in union, propagating at the velocity of light thru the “Luminiferous Aether”. Hence, electro-magnetic waves in free space, unbounded by gross physical matter, mass free energy. This propagation is within the dielectric, or aetheric, medium itself.

Not necessarily true that Ding is clueless.
People were looking for the solution that became Einstein's theory of relativity, before Einstein was even born.
A miscommunication is still possible?
Maxwell was onto relativity before Einstein, as far as electro magnetism anyway.

I misspoke it was Eddington I meant to say who validated Einstein’s ToR.

It was Maxwell’s work that clued Einstein in on the discrepancy in Newton’s work.

 

[ding]

You can not create intelligence.
We do not know how.
We can use our intelligence to write computer programs that can simulate intelligence by using our own and predicting possible events.
And we can teach people how to better use their inherent intelligence.

I agree. But we are obsessed with making smart things and this is an artifact of our intelligence.

The evolution of space and time however did create intelligence. And it did so according to the laws of nature.

 

[ding]

Is it the nature of intelligence to create intelligence? Is creating intelligence an artifact of intelligence?

Sure. One day every most unimportant quant will be part of a living entity. That's not a natural law, but I'm sure that's what we will do, when we will survive a little longer, what I doubt about, because this needs love and rationality.

It doesn’t matter what we do.

Aha.

It’s pretty obvious that it’s natural for us to try to invent smart things.

We’re obsessed with making smart devices.

Your brain (=reality simulator) has a weight of about 1.5 kilo-gram. Now imagine you try to think with a kind of brainware by using a complex structure of matter with the mass of 1.5 kilo-billion suns ... . Where's the real limit?

I’m not sure what you are getting at.

Sure you are not sure.

I am certain I am not sure of what you are trying to say.

 

[harmonica]

Trick question.
Humans have no intelligence.
An infant race with no real grasp of consciousness or understanding of what qualifies as sentient. Facing the infinite under the delusion of a false sense if self importance. Unable with limited senses to truly perceive the Universe let alone understand it or ourselves.

In other words...

Above my pay grade.

And yet we are obsessed with creating smart things.

Every smart thing I have has broken.

So has God’s.

no--it was '''created''' broken --never ran well--never perfect
can't break if it was always broken

Did you type that on your smart phone?

what???