One of the most important criteria for intelligence is openness: openness to criticism and to alternative ways of comprehending a thing (possibly held simultaneously by the mind so that it may rotate between alternative frameworks to find a better one, and also to be found from the imagination, the creative process, the process of reasoning, or interlocution with others). Of great utility towards the end of being open are logical and conceptual tools, such as uncertainty itself and deductive (a priori) reasoning. One must always subject one's theories to doubt. That kind of humility results in wisdom, tolerance, and, ultimately, a far greater satisfaction of the goals that the mind in question sets its sights upon.

#CriticalRationalism #Epistemology #Intelligence #Philosophy

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

The fuck it is. License to intelligence, smarty pants

Make sure to have Samantha, Tom and Alex voices installed on your phone for enhanced experience.

#mainvolume #system

https://apps.apple.com/de/app/sys/id1439243037?l=en-GB

lol! if your AIs aren't doing this, they are not very intelligent. I am quite confident in this, but as with anything I do not claim to be an authority on the matter. Authority, as I always say, does not exist.

But also thank you, I think

Say no to artificial, that means faked by definition.

License to be intelligent 🧐

Ohhhh. Well thanks haha!

Funny how?

🤔

Forgive me, I have no idea what you are saying, so I'm scrambling for guesses.

Yet difficult to argue openness of intelligence when refusing to understand appears be the inhibitor to be.

🤔

And for what wisdom goes, where is the wisdom is random killing sprees that the governments so called intelligence agencies have been doing?

Words do not always indicate the same thing in different contexts or in different mental frameworks. You see, "intelligence agencies" are not very intelligent. This confusion you have made illustrates my point quite well, as, if you employ the tools I described, you will be able to readily understand these distinctions between words and concepts.

An assertion is not in itself a statement of belief in its authoritative truth. Appearances can be deceiving. You seem to be using an empirical method of discerning truth, while testing my capacity to form both a comprehension of an abstract syntax and of the meaning of your utterances. Are you a large language model? LLMs tend to predict based almost exclusively on empirical data.

I am?

Relevant to the equation how?

Size doesn’t change the fact that artificial can never become intelligent no matter how much it learns to mimic something by definition as intelligence implies understanding the unknown, not everything we already know to ask, and this besides the fact of how killing on random and probable somehow there are words for, like terror.

You still don't understand the distinctions between words, concepts, and reality. Artificial can become natural.

This also may be irrelevant to my original assertion, because I never brought up the concept of artificial intelligence in it.

My theory of intelligence remains unrefuted, and your replies to me illustrate exactly the pitfalls that my theory predicts when one is not utilizing these tools.

Thank you guys for the attention!

I'm proud of this shower thought. I wasn't even in the shower! lol!