Intelligent Apex Argument
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-09-2013, 09:06 AM
RE: Intelligent Apex Argument
(16-09-2013 03:01 AM)Mike Wrote:  Someone ask this on a forum. Here it is :

We are intelligent as a species in relation to other species. Species that make us look smart when we're next to them; animals, insects etc. But some people seem to think, regardless of these creatures, we tip the scales of intellect, that we're somewhat at the higher end of the spectrum. Even to the point where we've taken up the authority to dictate what can and cannot exist (wow).

If a scale/spectrum of intelligence exists, then an absolute level of intelligence exists - a point in which intelligence reaches it's peak (some call it - omniscience, personified as the concept of God, ergo, God exists).

The atheist will have to then take the other option: that this apex does not exist, that intelligence simply goes on forever - which means, theoretically, the human race can be reduced to a species of fumbling retards compared to a species X with insurmountably levels of intellect.

The atheist will have to apply this logic to stupidity - so you have a creature X that is infinitely stupid.


What do you think? Can somebody give a refutation to it?


So someone made a claim of this on the internet? That in itself shows something.

They made the claim why should I try to refute it. I say they are wrong. I want to see evidence of the claim they made. I am not going to even entertain this idea unless there is more than a persons opinion. I have plenty of those already and can form them quite readily. There are assumptions made in teh statement that require some sort of empirical evidence to hold even a drop of water?

How does the person making this claim know there is a "cap" on intelligence or a peak? Would not a peak indicate that once that organism has reached its apex that it would decline? If there is a "god" that fits this definition out there isn't he then by the basic explanation getting less intelligent because he/she has already peaked in their ability? Maybe that is a better excuse that christians could use...my god is currently in decline so I can't answer any of those questions today. Please get back to me once he has had some time to rest.


I am not even sure why an intelligent person would converse about this particular topic along those lines. Seems childlike in the basis of that explanation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2013, 09:12 AM
RE: Intelligent Apex Argument
true, that is an answer for me about why superiority is not attached to intelligence, why is it else totally

so only superiority is true, individual existence freedom

bc only individual freedom should b able to exist by inventing itself differently constantly, since superior while possibly achieve it positive can restart it too and stay if it is ruined
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2013, 09:42 AM
RE: Intelligent Apex Argument
(16-09-2013 07:10 AM)absols Wrote:  u r dreaming with this community thinking...tooo funny

u r going down communly

[Image: jocEgHv.gif]

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2013, 11:25 AM
RE: Intelligent Apex Argument
(16-09-2013 03:01 AM)Mike Wrote:  Someone ask this on a forum. Here it is :

We are intelligent as a species in relation to other species. Species that make us look smart when we're next to them; animals, insects etc. But some people seem to think, regardless of these creatures, we tip the scales of intellect, that we're somewhat at the higher end of the spectrum. Even to the point where we've taken up the authority to dictate what can and cannot exist (wow).

If a scale/spectrum of intelligence exists, then an absolute level of intelligence exists - a point in which intelligence reaches it's peak (some call it - omniscience, personified as the concept of God, ergo, God exists).

The atheist will have to then take the other option: that this apex does not exist, that intelligence simply goes on forever - which means, theoretically, the human race can be reduced to a species of fumbling retards compared to a species X with insurmountably levels of intellect.

The atheist will have to apply this logic to stupidity - so you have a creature X that is infinitely stupid.


What do you think? Can somebody give a refutation to it?

....

Okay. FIRST problem with all of this. We don't actually have a working definition for "intelligence", but the naive, undefined notion of it we have is arbitrarily biased towards "Humans smart, animals dumb". When they walk out into traffic, they're dumb, but when they demonstrate some feat that we could never pull off (such as, say, navigating ten thousand miles of migration from the air by dead reckoning, with no maps and no notes), they have instincts. The closest thing we have for a test of "is it intelligent?" is the Turing test for artificial intelligence. Which -- brace yourselves -- basically amounts to the test subject being able to act like a human. Nevermind that the "smart" activities -- doing math, playing chess -- are proving far easier to program than walking across a room and not tripping over anything.

This is why making arguments that hinge on our notion of intelligence IS NOT VERY INTELLIGENT.

Second problem: Arguer is all but assuming that this intelligence can be mapped to a 1-dimensional scale. WITH NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER. Further proof that philosophers should leave math to the mathematicians. (I swear if I hear 1+1=2 put forward as an absolute truth just one... more... time... Lamo ) After that, lots of mathematical quibbles that are really just icing on the stupidity pie. (Not cake. Pie. Why wouldn't they put the icing on the cake instead? Reread what type of pie it is.)

But the big kicker is this. Having improperly identified some notion of maximal intelligence, they automatically assume that God exists and that this is God. With. No. Basis. What. So. Ever. There's no thought going into that. Lots of thought put into trying to spin it and scrape together something that might pass cursory examination as a justification, but it's clear that this was something they decided on before they even rubbed two neurons together. Decide, THEN reason.

(Yes, I know it takes more than two neurons to even randomly decide on something. Hypobole.)

(Actually, icing on pumpkin pie sounds awesome.)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2013, 12:46 PM
RE: Intelligent Apex Argument
On the question of higher intelligence...

Could there be greater biological intelligences in the universe or could we engineer greater biological intelligence? Yes, I'm sure that we could unlock savant like mathematical/spacial abilities and the like, and I'm sure that a more 'civilized' race might consider us stupid for our recklessness (but that is a function of culture/collective intelligence and not individual intelligence IMO).

The problem is that barring some really extreme ecosystems/organisms there is no way to develop a greater level of intellect than we already possess by natural selection, once intellect reaches the point of civilization (or relatively easy survival in the case of solitary organisms) the only way to push it further is via artificial selection, genetic engineering or computerization. In other words once you have solved for the micro-processor and/or DNA the only limiting factor would be ambition/resources (calories or wattage) and once a species passes that threshold native intellect should mean little.

There must not only be a physical limit on intelligence (calculations per second or neuron density) but a limit to usefulness as well at some point raw brain power will be limited by sensory input/instrumentation, by our ability to manipulate the environment, etc.

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: