What measure is Intelligence

[Thief]

Yes......... Chaos! Simply the perfect intelligence quotient!

Everything will turn out exactly as required, with utterly ruthless expediency........ when 'chaos' is applied.

And the further we research and wonder about its roots, so the further we will find that the answers are beyond our reach.

Chaos has evolved into a science of the same name...btw.
and it's not what most people think.

The events studied have 'random' patterns that have no mathematical description.
Yet, the patterns repeat....and the replication goes on.

The flight of the dandelion seed has no predictable path.
But get one on your pretty lawn and see what happens!

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

It's funny you should talk about intelligence in such grandiose terms. Basically to quote the ancient Greeks, "We know nothing."

I didn't know the Greeks were defined by a single work of Plato's.

 

[idea]

The events studied have 'random' patterns ...

Nothing is random - in order to be random, you would have to turn off all the laws, all the interaction potentials, it would have to move without a cause.

what people really mean when they say "random" is "a complex system that follows a Gaussian distribution"

chaos isn't even random, it's high sensitivity to initial conditions.

 

[ImprobableBeing]

I want to discuss intelligence, particularly I.D. Intelligent Design (I didn't put this in the evolution part though cause I figure it can be used to discuss intelligence in general).

I suppose it could in that people who believe in ID have an IQ that is below functionally retarded chimpanzees.

 

[Thief]

Nothing is random - in order to be random, you would have to turn off all the laws, all the interaction potentials, it would have to move without a cause.

what people really mean when they say "random" is "a complex system that follows a Gaussian distribution"

chaos isn't even random, it's high sensitivity to initial conditions.

The science of chaos leans to results that cannot be calculated.
We can be sure the pending event.....be when and where can be a trick.

 

[idea]

The science of chaos leans to results that cannot be calculated.
We can be sure the pending event.....be when and where can be a trick.

"cannot be calculated" is not equivalent to "random".

 

[Thief]

"cannot be calculated" is not equivalent to "random".

Try calculating the flight path a dandelion seed.
Let me know how that goes.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Still not the same as Random.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

"cannot be calculated" is not equivalent to "random".

How are you defining random then?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Try calculating the flight path a dandelion seed.
Let me know how that goes.

Its complicated by if you have the measurments of its weight, arodynamics, wind speed, density of the air, and velocity then you can in fact calculate the flight pattern. However obtaining all this information is near impossible.

 

[Thief]

Its complicated by if you have the measurments of its weight, arodynamics, wind speed, density of the air, and velocity then you can in fact calculate the flight pattern. However obtaining all this information is near impossible.

Two sentences that conflict each other...^...

 

[idav]

Two sentences that conflict each other...^...

It isn't necessarily a conflict. In theory we could predict every event given enough knowledge. Predicting the flight path of a dandelion is like predicting the weather, it can be done to certain degree of certainty. The only way it can be done perfectly is by knowing all the unknown variables and plugging them into the equations.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

In theory we could predict every event given enough knowledge

We can't. But you make an important point- there is a difference between epistemic indeterminacy (we may never be able to determine future states of the system because it is too complex, but we could in theory) and ontological (theory itself holds that we can't predict precisely future states).

 

[idav]

We can't. But you make an important point- there is a difference between epistemic indeterminacy (we may never be able to determine future states of the system because it is too complex, but we could in theory) and ontological (theory itself holds that we can't predict precisely future states).

Can you say what you mean by ontological indeterminacy? Do you have any examples? My take is that "too complex" and unknown variables will always be a factor in determining or not determining future states.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Can you say what you mean by ontological indeterminacy? Do you have any examples?

"Ontological (in)determinism concerns (in)determinate state changes in complex systems, independently of how different categories of observers may (or may not) be able to acquire knowledge about these changes. Epistemological (in)determinism, on the other hand, characterizes systems as (non)determinable by idealized observers, who may (not) be able to obtain complete and accurate information about the system’s present state, in order to convert such into data about future state(s) by using the appropriate dynamical laws."
Indeterminacy: The Mapped, the Navigable, and the Uncharted

Translation- ontological indeterminacy involves unpredictably that cannot become predictable even with ideal observers and measurements. That is, even in theory we couldn't know future states. Ontological means it "really exists". Epistemic indeterminacy, on the other hand, concerns practical limits. We can't "know" future states because there are just too many variables or processes for us to handle now, but if we had perfect instruments and ideal observers, then we could know these states. In the former case, we are limited because the unpredictability is part of the system itself. This need not involve random (in the probabilistic sense) processes like in QM. Nonlinear systems present a challenge because our approach to nonlinearity mathematically involves treating curves like lines. Locally, they are like lines. However, in higher dimensions the phase space of complex systems behave so erratically that even infinitesimal changes in time lead to fluctuations we can't even in theory model. Such systems are ontologically indeterminate in that the necessary solutions are impossible (the systems are mathematically intractable). Epistemic indeterminacy can be quite similar to this type of ontological indeterminacy. The difference is subtle, but a simplistic and easier way of conceptualizing it is to think of complex systems which are ontologically indeterminate as being too complex for mathematical models to "solve" while epistemic indeterminacy involves too many processes and external influences for use to control (or control for) mechanically in e.g., an experiment.

My take is that "too complex" and unknown variables will always be a factor in determining or not determining future states.

Quantum mechanics is a statistical mechanics at heart. It is entirely deterministic only because it treats the system as being in multiple states at once. There is no way of knowing which one of (potentially infinite) possible states one will get without measurement. The indeterminacy is absolute and we cannot even in theory "know" future states. Currently, although some postulate that there are other, similar processes that are absolutely-even-in-theory-indeterminate we have no empirical evidence that these aren't just too hard to model mathematically or too difficult for us to work with experimentally rather than exhibiting the kind of randomness inherent in QM.

 

[Thief]

It isn't necessarily a conflict. In theory we could predict every event given enough knowledge. Predicting the flight path of a dandelion is like predicting the weather, it can be done to certain degree of certainty. The only way it can be done perfectly is by knowing all the unknown variables and plugging them into the equations.

I don't believe in numbers as the holy grail....of anything.

Just today I've seen a documentary interviewing both sides of the 'equation'.
And there isn't one.

Unknown?....as in Spirit?
ok

 

[Mycroft]

There's a great lecture by Neil DeGrasse Tyson called 'Stupid Design' which I highly recommend to all Intelligent Design folks.

 

[George-ananda]

There's a great lecture by Neil DeGrasse Tyson called 'Stupid Design' which I highly recommend to all Intelligent Design folks.

I've seen some of this. From my worldview, it's all based on an assumption that I don't share; that the 'Designer' was the easy to attack God concept from biblical Christianity. The 'Designer' may have been IMO what colloquially has been called 'Nature Spirits/Demigods' that are above the physical realm but not infallible.

 

[Mycroft]

I've seen some of this. From my worldview, it's all based on an assumption that I don't share; that the 'Designer' was the easy to attack God concept from biblical Christianity. The 'Designer' may have been IMO what colloquially has been called 'Nature Spirits/Demigods' that are above the physical realm but not infallible.

It doesn't really attack 'god' but more illustrates how imperfect nature is.

 

[George-ananda]

It doesn't really attack 'god' but more illustrates how imperfect nature is.

I understand. But it's implying that if a perfect God designed it then it should be perfect.

It's the old Dawkins-like attempt to make the debate Biblical Christianity OR Atheism and tries to ignore the possibility that I'm arguing for; neither of the above.