Is intelligence subject to interpretation?

Is intelligence objective?

If you begin with all the same machines, then someone uses that to make another far better machine, then you do objectively have a better machine/person…?

I believe that anyone can tell when they see the product of a superior mind. Yet an inferior mind cannot know exactly what that is…?

The question is; don’t we all do that? Don’t we all optimise the mind to what we need. I for example, am a crap car mechanic.

Further, we must ask if Nietzsche looking down upon what he considers a lesser mind [or degenerate as he saw it], is in fact him looking down upon a simply different causality? So that other guy, is him if he was born with those inherited genes, and into that family circumstance and situation/s, then Nietzsche would definitively be equally the degenerate.

Ergo there is no difference et al.

_

Same here. You gimme a million dollars, I can build a robot for you.

But far as cars go, something about the grease of it all.

I can build a car on a computer though.

Thanks. Difference as not existing is a valid idea, but the problem with it is reason - reason as separate from reason of reason is always a mega problem. I believe myself that intelligence is not subject to interpretation, however uniformity as the format of reality makes it hard to always believe in that idea.
Say person H thinks something really intelligent, but always needs to make an effort to articulate it; the uniformity of reality (anyone in the US being identical to anyone in Europe) means that person H will have a very difficult time trying to spread that intelligence around the world.

No difference is truth, yet it’s also the creator of problem. Uniformity should by why nations end, yet it’s actually the reason why nations never end; all people on Earth should live in a house that’s the same size, yet uniformity is why mansions exist; uniformity is why no news media will reference the actress Willa Ford’s history of weekends as the story of reality, etc etc.

not necessarily; If you keep mixing genes, you get an increasing diversity and not singularity [something akin to a beige monoculture], as the result. if you take genes from Africa and place them in the cold north, they will become blonde Arians or what have you. in both cases a oneness by virtue of its means to making things one [like a blender], will manifest or otherwise be the thing which does the opposite. the African has all it needs to become the Norseman.

Individuals will select their culture and lifestyle patterns, like will attract like, and opposites will repel. If nations were like people, then you always have that even though it makes no sense [e.g. in a near future world full of flying cars, ergo will migrate all over the place, mate n stuff].

I don’t believe there is a law of uniformity, at least not without there also being its equal and opposite = diversity. Which surely means we exist in a reality which contains both [laws]? Where one force is that of unification, another divides [via perspectives/subjectivity] = no division without unification [and hence vice versa].

It’s kind of the problem of conflation; I have reason to believe that reason itself is difference at inception, and therefore contradiction is a real challenge to be accomplished. Between now and 100 days from now, I can expect neither the BBC or CNN to raise the topic of whether all nations should end (two news networks at completely opposite ends of the Earth), yet I’m free to influence reality through that knowledge - this kind of thinking leads me to believe that uniformity as a problem in fact doesn’t exist, and actually there is just no difference.

The one universal is cause; anything has a cause, and I think that’s the problem when it comes to intelligence - if everything has a cause, but intelligence isn’t universal, how does one resolve that problem?

And maybe that’s the answer! Maybe the clash in of itself is the intelligence.
What do you think of that idea: that intelligence is the creation of problem?

Intelligence is formed of specific functions, so yes, it is objective. Although one must consider who is giving the ratings when it comes to actual measures.

Different types of problems require difference types of intelligence to best resolve them. That leads to quite a variety of types of intelligence. Some people disregard many of those types and thus discount some forms of intelligence as not being there, when in fact, it was there. The whole idea of trying to measure intelligence on a 20-200 linear scale was utterly ridiculous from the getgo, and no doubt inspired by someone rating pretty low.

Could intelligence simply be that which can’t be opposed?

shellytrokan

.

Surely difference at inception would generate conflicting notions and perspectives, - contradiction? We couldn’t be the same if we tried, all this 19th century panic over one’s individuality first assumes singularity, that e.g. all brains are the same, intellectual function etc. as an organic machine, brains are very similar, but as subjective perspective oriented entities, they cannot imho be anything but unique.

So yes I agree, uniformity isn’t really a problem and relies upon fallacious foundations.

If I may, I think cause and effect are what I call ‘Lego philosophy’, and is a very linear view of the world. You cannot isolate ‘cause’ from ‘effect’ and at root, because reality goes into superposition and gets all quantum on causalities ass. Light [having small or no mass] can easily go into superposition and has a measurable value [2013 experiment showed] when it does. The brain is lit up like a Christmas tree on crack, and some of the info [I think] will be going in and out of superposition, so if you get down to fine enough detail it wont be linear.

Light is universal, and intelligence or experience are conflations of the simpler facet; to exist, to be [which are thus iterations thereof].

not sure what you mean there, as I don’t have the information background you did when forming those notions.
We don’t have something which nature does not. The purported duality between our minds and nature, are as much an illusion and those concerning individuality. Nature doesn’t have intellect like humans [except where we are nature of course], it doesn’t have a way to compose a 3rd person view and ‘game-world’ like we do in our minds. It does its ‘thinking’ directly, as the direct experience of reality that we actually don’t get.

_

If nature doesn’t have intellect prior to life forms, can pre-life form reality have intent?