Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
PsiSeeker

Intelligence.

5 posts in this topic

Basis

A term that has no universally accepted definition. I think the idea of intelligence for me is based on the following, "Accuracy within any system where perception is apparent." However what does accuracy imply?

Accuracy in this form I think would have to imply total conformity to the system or being completely aware of the absolute fundamentals that govern the system with application within the system that completely satisfies every aspect of the system.

However what is the point of process within such a thing if total awareness is apparent? Output? If there was output then it would completely defeat the idea of process since redundancy would be the only output.

I think in humans that is partially the reason we developed emotion. A defensive mechanism to ward of infinite redundancy capable of processing "Do" or "Don't" in multitudes at a time creating a 3 dimensional "sense of feeling" after output results in later stages of the brain.

The Point

The idea of intelligence is an illusion since it is ultimately based upon the ideas of certainty and uncertainty resulting in redundancy. "The process of evolution" makes more sense than "The process of intelligence." For me at least this line of thought is why I find it phenomenally easy to believe that what is manifested as conscious experience within the brain is the result of evolution touching on higher dimensions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me intelligence is the ability to learn. The way that intelligence is measured I find suspect as some people are gifted in different areas. Higher intelligence may very well be the ability to connect with higher dimensions or entity's. They are still trying to figure out how the Brain works and why it works differently in different people. If they ever do figure it all out I believe it will be our downfall as independant thinkers. Nano-chips will be inserted in an effort to make everyone the same. That would take away the excitement of learning and exploring new things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me intelligence is the ability to learn. The way that intelligence is measured I find suspect as some people are gifted in different areas. Higher intelligence may very well be the ability to connect with higher dimensions or entity's.

I like this line of thought :).

They are still trying to figure out how the Brain works and why it works differently in different people. If they ever do figure it all out I believe it will be our downfall as independant thinkers. Nano-chips will be inserted in an effort to make everyone the same. That would take away the excitement of learning and exploring new things.

They have a fairly good idea nowadays :). Multiple intelligence theory I think is a good idea so far. Anyway, the degree of complexity that something has to have to be inserted in the brain would have to be phenomenal. If the brain can't find use of what is put in it it will just "cut it off" I think. A big problem would be mental illnesses that would form if something like that could work since perception would be changed throughout the course of time. Various mental illnesses resulting from Neurosis would probably occur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However what is the point of process within such a thing if total awareness is apparent? Output? If there was output then it would completely defeat the idea of process since redundancy would be the only output.

If I understand you correctly, this means thinking about thinking about thinking. The output would be the same redundancy. Is there a way out of this or are we trapped within our own conformity to our own conceptional system?

Emotion is a relief from this but it doesn't solve the problem. Can there be perception without redundancy? Without self-reference? Without being within the system?

We define words using other words as definitions. I can define 'box' using words, or I can simply look thoughtlessly and non-conceptually at a box. Is this kind of perception outside the self-referential, redundant system of perception?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I understand you correctly, this means thinking about thinking about thinking. The output would be the same redundancy. Is there a way out of this or are we trapped within our own conformity to our own conceptional system?

Thinking about thinking repeated I think is the result of thinking that does not achieve feeling. For me there is a fundamental difference between experiencing emotion (feeling) and emotion itself.

Emotion is a relief from this but it doesn't solve the problem. Can there be perception without redundancy? Without self-reference? Without being within the system?

I think what occurs when this happens is that the higher levels of the brain will instinctively turn to the lower levels of the brain for answer skipping the middle parts of the brain. (as you, say emotion is a relief from infinite redundancy since it allows grouping without total conformity or just takes the average state of a lower level that approximately matches the average state of a higher level resulting in an average state in the middle leaving a conscious experience of feeling.)

(Noting that I'm only using "Upper, middle and lower" as referential points, it can be more complicated than that and I think I can explain why.)

We define words using other words as definitions. I can define 'box' using words, or I can simply look thoughtlessly and non-conceptually at a box. Is this kind of perception outside the self-referential, redundant system of perception?

It is possible to suspend the "word" and only concentrate on the "shape, colour, texture." It is also possible to look at the box and experience it in levels of "experience" beyond anyone but your own ability to contemplate it's existence.

To create different perceptions of what is fundamentally, in a reality of perception, by average confirmation of a populace the same thing.

I believe a process of "dimensional thinking" is the result of the "grouping of ideas" based on the idea of average consistency of the total brain however accuracy breaks down when looking at the fundamentals of such a thing since the brain isn't 100% accurate due to being based on "things" which are uncertain themselves fundamentally. I think this is why evolution is occurring to begin with however consciousness is definitely touching on higher dimensions in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.