Member 2163
13 entries
93323 views

 RSS
Contributor to project:
Polytopia
Alexander Kruel (M, 35)
Gütersloh, DE
Immortal since Mar 10, 2009
Uplinks: 0, Generation 3

XiXiDu Info
Transhumanist, atheist, vegetarian who's interested in science fiction, science, philosophy, math, language, consciousness, reality...
  • Affiliated
  •  /  
  • Invited
  •  /  
  • Descended
  • XiXiDu’s favorites
    From Wildcat
    Look Honey, how beautiful...
    From Wildcat
    Presentation to the Titan...
    From BenRayfield
    No Math Intuition
    From Wildcat
    Polytopia as Rhizomatic...
    From Wildcat
    Gilles Deleuze, Francis...
    Recently commented on
    From XiXiDu
    Knowing beyond science and...
    From XiXiDu
    Are you a waste of space?
    From XiXiDu
    Mathematics as a way of...
    From XiXiDu
    Our fundamental dependency...
    From Wildcat
    Hybrid futures, Knowmads...
    XiXiDu’s project
    Polytopia
    The human species is rapidly and indisputably moving towards the technological singularity. The cadence of the flow of information and innovation in...
    Now playing SpaceCollective
    Where forward thinking terrestrials share ideas and information about the state of the species, their planet and the universe, living the lives of science fiction. Introduction
    Featuring Powers of Ten by Charles and Ray Eames, based on an idea by Kees Boeke.
    From XiXiDu's personal cargo

    Our fundamental dependency on unintelligent processes
    Whatever intelligence is, it can't be intelligent all the way down. It's just dumb stuff at the bottom.
    Andy Clark

    I believe we act based on a fundamental reliance on gut feelings. What we do is merely following 'the line of least resistance'.

    Those who restrain desire, do so because theirs is weak enough to be restrained.
    — William Blake

    Intelligence is not a proactive approach but simply trial and error allowed for by the mostly large error tolerance of our existence. What you learn you'll have to apply by relying on prior knowledge, even if it is in the form of advanced algorithms. You can only hope to be lucky to learn enough in-time to avoid fatal failure. Since no possible system can use advanced heuristics to tackle, or even evaluate, every stimulus that is either part of its internal structure or the environment in which it is embedded. For example, at what point are you going to make use of statistical methods? You won't even be able to evaluate the importance of all data to be able to judge when to apply more rigorous tools. You can only be a passive observer who's waiting for new data by experience. And until new data arrives, rely on prior knowledge.

    The bottom line is that even the acts of applying advanced heuristics, evaluating further or simply to gather new knowledge, are ultimately executed by purely non-intelligent processes. After all, you don't decide how to think either? Thus I don't believe that intelligence exists, beyond the ability to learn, acquire knowledge and apply it.

    You might object that intelligence is an emergent phenomena. You might say, intelligence exists on a higher level. That the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. But why then do we ask and care about motives? Motivation is always an underlying cause of conduct, which itself is in turn based on desire and so forth. Thus asking people for their motives, why they do what they do, is always an inquiry of underlying causes. It is asking for the summands, for the terms of the greater whole. Seriously considering the concept of emergence would imply to take actions as given, as part of an emergent pattern that is the universe. Thus, if you don't expect a differing answer to that, that it simply was intelligent to do so, why do you ask?

    Sat, Apr 3, 2010  Permanent link

      RSS for this post
    8 comments
      Promote (3)
      
      Add to favorites
    Create synapse
     
    Comments:


    johnrod     Sat, Apr 3, 2010  Permanent link
    Reading the two most recent posts together invoked paradox. Perhaps there is a kind of bond due to another hidden factor in addition to previous cargo items, design or evolution. Thanks.
    XiXiDu     Sat, Apr 3, 2010  Permanent link
    Not sure what you mean, but non of my posts are supposed to be connected. Neither does what I write necessarily reflect my opinion. They are rather NOT so well-thought-out musings and problems that haunt my mind.
    johnrod     Sat, Apr 3, 2010  Permanent link
    They are certainly well-written and would invite discussion among others, if not themselves, sort of like blogging between Euclid and Hippocrates. Thanks.
    XiXiDu     Sat, Apr 3, 2010  Permanent link
    Thank you :-)
    XiXiDu     Mon, Jun 28, 2010  Permanent link
    These individual differences in unconscious processing correlated with academic performance on a wide range of subjects, from foreign language to math. In other words, students who did better on the seemingly mindless implicit learning task were also better at conjugating French verbs, even when controlling for the effect of "psychometric intelligence". This clearly demonstrates that much of our intellectual variation has nothing do with the intellectual skills we measure and valorize. Instead, our intelligence is deeply influenced by all sorts of subliminal talents that we can't control, influence or directly access.
    The many measures we use to assess our innate mental skills.
    Infinitas     Wed, Jun 30, 2010  Permanent link
    I'm not sure if I'm sure I understand what you are trying to say but nonetheless...

    I don't think that gut feelings are unintelligent. Rather, they are what I like to think of as fate guiding us— intuition. Other organisms don't make decisions. They live by the way of natural, innate tendencies. Because of evolution, humans have developed the ability to think. The way we were before this, is the way that animals currently exist. Their natural tendencies are to just be. So in attaining the ability to think, regardless of the fact that we don't decide how to think, we have developed an ego that usually unknowingly causes us to transcend, in our minds and actions, the way of all other life, the path of natural selection. This is our free will acting, not against the natural way, but supplementing it. (I like to visualize it as a straight line verses a sine curve or some fluctuating wave/cycle) Our "intelligence" has caused us to make something that was simple, significantly more complex.

    I guess what I am trying to say is that an innate way of living exists whether or not we see or understand it. Our minds of today have evolved from these past natural instincts. The processes of natural selection within our mind and body still occur and exist, regardless, for example, of our close relationship with growing technology. Our body and minds will adapt and evolve in the same fundamental ways, but perhaps at a different rate and in a different way than if we never had computers.

    Your "unintelligent processes" = my "natural instincts/selection"
    XiXiDu     Fri, Jul 2, 2010  Permanent link
    In the July 2 is­sue of the re­search jour­nal Sci­ence, Ruud Cus­ters and Henk Aarts of Utrecht Uni­vers­ity in The Neth­er­lands dis­cuss re­search sug­gest­ing our sub­con­scious thoughts can ma­ni­pu­late our goals and mo­tiva­t­ions much more than sci­en­tists have ev­er im­ag­ined.

    “Although it is of­ten tak­en for granted that goal pur­suit orig­i­nates in con­scious de­ci­sions, it can al­so arise from un­con­scious sources,” the pair wrote.

    Re­cent find­ings show that the hu­man brain is of­ten steps ahead of its own­er, Cus­ters and Aarts ex­plained: the brain pre­pares the ac­tion well be­fore any con­scious thoughts in­struct it to do so.
    From brain science, new questions about free will
    XiXiDu     Wed, Aug 11, 2010  Permanent link
    Brainless slime mould makes decisions like humans
     
          Cancel