MetabolicTrash
Member
The idea of "building intelligence" has always sounded a bit awry to me. We aren't like computers -- we don't use some sort of file system to arrange and remember where every file is or etc. "Training the brain" makes it sound like some want to express the brain's potential as if it were a suboptimal computer system that hadn't "arranged itself" to employ the correct methods of data recall, memory, etc.
I don't think the mind is much like a digital computer in modern day -- nothing convinces me of so. If the mind is not like a computer much, why would teaching then be employed as if our minds are blank state I/O systems or such? Or like we have our own fetch/decode/execute (writeback?) system like the paradigm of a computer system?
What also brings up an interesting topic of intelligence are IQ tests. What is really being measured? There's no solid evidence that a more "intelligent" person's brain "works better" than a less intelligent persons in a way that's immediately obvious in any large scale, duplicable matter of significance or application.
If an IQ test determines the score you get on the test -- and the ability to take the test well is then inferred to be a marker of one's "smarts" you could say -- then it becomes clear that these tools to measure your intelligence really only measure your ability to take a test, not prove you're somehow smarter or more mentally superior for some reason. Taking it even deeper it would seem that the same basis on determining IQ and its rigidity stand to accompany or strengthen ideas related to genetic determinism and genes determining our limits -- or as Peat has said, "Hitlerian," as he compared it to geneticist or gene science models supposedly predictive of human capability, intelligence, ability to change, etc.
After all, Google something like, "Can I be doctor low IQ?" or such and see what kind of answers you'll find. It would seem people capture a "range" of measures someone illustrates on a test and then uses that narrow window to place limitations on individuals. Ironic since nowadays you have the endless stand for freedom, rights, and the ability to do as we please in the form of protests, social groups and etc. -- but at the same time we can only do what our IQ or genes limits us to funnily enough.
The idea of "building" is like putting something atop something else. How do you build a building? You do it in "steps," right? But where is the evidence that we must build our "intelligence" via steps? What foundation must we trust or think to when constructing of the idea of "layered" or "leveled" comprehension, as if we're "building our intelligence up" or such?
Nobody ever stopped someone from starting at level 4 in a game and winning it, forgetting 1 altogether.
Teaching and the whole myriad of study seems crafted around the idea that we learn like computers -- adding more files/info which then compliments programs that read/write to them and build larger "data banks" out of smaller, limited configurations or sets of tools/programs available that make up our mind and its different parts accessible by this form of learning. I think you can simply think of it as like machine learning -- an attempt to make a computer software and/or hardware operate as if it had the fundamental uniqueness of the human mind to it. The idea is that the computer is taught to think like a human, although detailing further shows this as impossible likely since it is limited to fetch-decode-execute and its assortment of rigid, logical steps and I/O functions/opcodes/sequencing circuity.
I think it might say a lot that machine learning is an attempt to think like a human without considering the inverse. If a machine is believed to one day "think like a human" then why not ask a human to think like a machine first? I'd imagine that would be seen as humorous in ways -- asking a human to try and "align their thinking" to that of a machine. In your first impression -- or even if you tried it now -- you'd immediately find that it's impossible in a sense. How can we think like we have limited functions and operations that are all mapped out, rigidly defined, and then perfectly fixed opcodes/etc.? If you can't make your mind work like a computer (literally), what chance does the computer have at working like a mind? It all goes back to the basic structural differences and how they just can't seem to align or cross boundaries.
A machine never "learns" anything -- everything it can do is taught at the very moment it is finishing the developing/wafering/whatever phase (when the chips are microetched before shipping out to retail or such). The machine and its functions can vary and are always seemingly different/unique from a visual perspective (like an output device), but the "knowledge" a machine has is always numerically and/or statistically "fixed" in that every operation it can do and every which way it can be done is known in a functional/operational standpoint. The computer can "remember" and "execute," but its very structural system makes it clear that it never "learns" anything really -- it just employs instructions in different ways. Machines do not "evolve" -- they are just made faster and given more efficient circuitry/design. A machine is never really made "smarter" -- only faster (for the most part). Everything you can do on a Pentium "dinosaur computer" (logically) you can also do on an i9 super-souped/overclocked/multi-GPU/GPGPU/DDR5 16+ GB/whatever version or name or so forth. Things like different buses/integrated everything/SIMD stuff only amplifies the same limits they already are rendered down to at their basic functional capacity. In fact, nothing has truly "evolved" from the basic structural paradigm of the machine since before you've ever even likely seen one and possibly far before that.
Since what we can take from this is that a computer has a "fixed" intelligence, which again draws us back to determinism -- associating human minds with a computer's "knowledge ability" or similar understanding, which is arguably "determined" and "fixed" at least from the scope of the computer system. If a computer "evolved" it would need to learn a new instruction without one specifically given to it in a fixed way -- but as we know no computer ever really evolves or acquires intelligence/capability/"grows" from the nature of its origin unaltered from a creative paradigm/structural base system.
Really, no "thought" is stored -- where is it? Neurons or cells or atoms or particles (like almost anything) can be thought of as the "blueprint" to which everything functions either in a "free state" or a more "specialized system" like the workings inside my or your body; or the rigidity of the "intelligent computer."
In a way you can think of us as a more "unabridged" form of a detailed system of sorts like the computer. The computer is probably more the exact opposite -- it can't "branch out" and change without a system of creative influence in some other "realm" that can first-hand alter and change its own potential. We have been shown much more uniqueness that no machine ever will likely show as of the current instruction cycle/execution system computers use -- things like regrowing parts, maintaining structure/integrity but expanding potential/means and etc. Machines may retain structure by way of their "intelligent" design form, but they never will likely grow beyond just that -- what confines they are "born" in to when created. We humans have no known "confines" -- or if we do usually evidence sooner or later shows these previously believed "confines" keep expanding. In the older days many, many years ago we possibly thought of each and everyone as "magic beings" with special properties, but those of which we cannot change -- until we learned how they actually change always and continue doing so (both endogenously and exogenously, or internally and externally). We have been seen to many times go "beyond" any previous limitations science has imposed time and time ago, time and time again. It's like we're adaptable and changeable beyond any fixed ideology of a pipeline, system or particular structure. In a way you can even think of nature, the outdoors, and other beings as factors that "alter" our paradigm, foundation, being and overall structure much like the engineer alters the computer or etc., only likely a more methodical and deliberate way for the latter.
The mind/body can expand outside of any "genetic confines" -- so there's probably no reason to liken ability (or lack thereof) to genetics or determinism but to past experiences shaping our present and then future potentials. You do not "build intelligence" -- you build the mind and intelligence follows seamlessly.
Intelligent isn't formed -- it's just the brain properly "actuated" more so in the optimal state of mind and health. What we imagine as "intelligence" might even fall back to the computer paradigm -- remembering files, info, etc. But I don't think the mind really "remembers" anything like that -- recall is just a past experience re-lived inside the mind's functionality. You are re-living memories -- not "recalling" them from some specific place in my mind. The mind can expand and alter itself to that of any accommodation of structure, shape, memory and feeling associated with such things in seemingly endless ways you can't map out like a computer's RAM, frontal bus, sequencing circuity/electrical engineering "steps."
The heart beat is like a vacuum -- imagine your structural modality that is unchanged in any devastating way (your physiology/biochemistry) from any collision of various factors that negatively and/or positively alter a system over time (both can impact you negatively though from the scope of bodily decay/death). Living forever is a way of adopting the means of an unshaken organism and its system of perfection in living from its environment and/or other systems which ultimately wears on it. You do not die from old age -- you die from a failure of optimal life encouragement between your perfect existence "plane" and the colliding of others -- think like the computer system and the brain system which do not overlap but thus can influence each other (the computer can destroy the human -- EMF, blue light, stresses, etc. -- and the human can destroy the computer by shaking its structural perfection or other factors too). When your chemistry and physiology and structure "fails" it's not an innate failure usually I don't think -- it's a structural overlap failure by way of systematic destruction or incompatibility/imperfection long term. We are too connected to the "outer" plane of ourselves which affects us (stresses, bacteria, foods, environments, desires, wants, needs, memories, roles, etc.). The more we associate ourselves with the environment and external "planes" or systems -- no matter how "protective" of tools we employ to spare ourselves -- the more we will guarantee a limited existence I think. But the idea here is that it's a catch 22 -- you live to be in your environment and you need it to live -- but the very same thing is what kills you. We need to find a way to transcend the need for the environmental properties while also being a part of some new kind of environmental system that only compliments us -- either that or our internal system must be modified to never be shaken by external factors (or internal ones if applicable) to any devastating degrees of impact.
There are many already discussed reasons and theories and etc. on why intelligence may not be there or why the minds of some may be "far behind" in some ways. But anyway you look it at it becomes clear pretty quickly that nobody's mind is comparable to a computer system when you really look at the variance in people and the structures of the computer, along with the larger scale approach of both the limitations imposed/created and/or not shown to function as tightly between different beings or things of matter or being, functions or "realities" across the spectrum of experience and existence.
The "wing head" system is my idea that everyone has their own system apart from its main bio-supporting system, shaken or otherwise. I'm sure some have supposed this idea here before -- possibly haidut or such. The idea here is that other systems -- electric fields -- or things which affect or overlap with our biology -- can be what has a large impact on both our structure, means or lack thereof. The "wing head" is used as such because it's like a reference to Mario the titular Nintendo character -- different properties change his system, but they overlap with what he is overall. I think some problems are that some people are confined in some ways either energetically or something else that prevents them from growth or change much -- think like someone who didn't grow tall or grew too tall or etc. Something was amiss and that very thing that affected you either positively or negatively (subjective, I know) from one point is the same one that might continue to do so far along in life -- like an energetic "grudge" almost if you want to look at it that way. We need to further look in to this possibly, but I think bioelectrics is probably the right direction here since it encompasses not just the biology/physiological aspect of us ("plane" or structure) but the outside system and its overlap with us and how we can adjust them to compliment one another better, among other things. You can think of everything as a plane or "structure" that overlaps creating woes and wins and all in-between.
Inter-systemic/structural or inter-planar/dimensional modality, balance, and desire all flowing to shape the consensus of it all.
I don't think the mind is much like a digital computer in modern day -- nothing convinces me of so. If the mind is not like a computer much, why would teaching then be employed as if our minds are blank state I/O systems or such? Or like we have our own fetch/decode/execute (writeback?) system like the paradigm of a computer system?
What also brings up an interesting topic of intelligence are IQ tests. What is really being measured? There's no solid evidence that a more "intelligent" person's brain "works better" than a less intelligent persons in a way that's immediately obvious in any large scale, duplicable matter of significance or application.
If an IQ test determines the score you get on the test -- and the ability to take the test well is then inferred to be a marker of one's "smarts" you could say -- then it becomes clear that these tools to measure your intelligence really only measure your ability to take a test, not prove you're somehow smarter or more mentally superior for some reason. Taking it even deeper it would seem that the same basis on determining IQ and its rigidity stand to accompany or strengthen ideas related to genetic determinism and genes determining our limits -- or as Peat has said, "Hitlerian," as he compared it to geneticist or gene science models supposedly predictive of human capability, intelligence, ability to change, etc.
After all, Google something like, "Can I be doctor low IQ?" or such and see what kind of answers you'll find. It would seem people capture a "range" of measures someone illustrates on a test and then uses that narrow window to place limitations on individuals. Ironic since nowadays you have the endless stand for freedom, rights, and the ability to do as we please in the form of protests, social groups and etc. -- but at the same time we can only do what our IQ or genes limits us to funnily enough.
The idea of "building" is like putting something atop something else. How do you build a building? You do it in "steps," right? But where is the evidence that we must build our "intelligence" via steps? What foundation must we trust or think to when constructing of the idea of "layered" or "leveled" comprehension, as if we're "building our intelligence up" or such?
Nobody ever stopped someone from starting at level 4 in a game and winning it, forgetting 1 altogether.
Teaching and the whole myriad of study seems crafted around the idea that we learn like computers -- adding more files/info which then compliments programs that read/write to them and build larger "data banks" out of smaller, limited configurations or sets of tools/programs available that make up our mind and its different parts accessible by this form of learning. I think you can simply think of it as like machine learning -- an attempt to make a computer software and/or hardware operate as if it had the fundamental uniqueness of the human mind to it. The idea is that the computer is taught to think like a human, although detailing further shows this as impossible likely since it is limited to fetch-decode-execute and its assortment of rigid, logical steps and I/O functions/opcodes/sequencing circuity.
I think it might say a lot that machine learning is an attempt to think like a human without considering the inverse. If a machine is believed to one day "think like a human" then why not ask a human to think like a machine first? I'd imagine that would be seen as humorous in ways -- asking a human to try and "align their thinking" to that of a machine. In your first impression -- or even if you tried it now -- you'd immediately find that it's impossible in a sense. How can we think like we have limited functions and operations that are all mapped out, rigidly defined, and then perfectly fixed opcodes/etc.? If you can't make your mind work like a computer (literally), what chance does the computer have at working like a mind? It all goes back to the basic structural differences and how they just can't seem to align or cross boundaries.
A machine never "learns" anything -- everything it can do is taught at the very moment it is finishing the developing/wafering/whatever phase (when the chips are microetched before shipping out to retail or such). The machine and its functions can vary and are always seemingly different/unique from a visual perspective (like an output device), but the "knowledge" a machine has is always numerically and/or statistically "fixed" in that every operation it can do and every which way it can be done is known in a functional/operational standpoint. The computer can "remember" and "execute," but its very structural system makes it clear that it never "learns" anything really -- it just employs instructions in different ways. Machines do not "evolve" -- they are just made faster and given more efficient circuitry/design. A machine is never really made "smarter" -- only faster (for the most part). Everything you can do on a Pentium "dinosaur computer" (logically) you can also do on an i9 super-souped/overclocked/multi-GPU/GPGPU/DDR5 16+ GB/whatever version or name or so forth. Things like different buses/integrated everything/SIMD stuff only amplifies the same limits they already are rendered down to at their basic functional capacity. In fact, nothing has truly "evolved" from the basic structural paradigm of the machine since before you've ever even likely seen one and possibly far before that.
Since what we can take from this is that a computer has a "fixed" intelligence, which again draws us back to determinism -- associating human minds with a computer's "knowledge ability" or similar understanding, which is arguably "determined" and "fixed" at least from the scope of the computer system. If a computer "evolved" it would need to learn a new instruction without one specifically given to it in a fixed way -- but as we know no computer ever really evolves or acquires intelligence/capability/"grows" from the nature of its origin unaltered from a creative paradigm/structural base system.
Really, no "thought" is stored -- where is it? Neurons or cells or atoms or particles (like almost anything) can be thought of as the "blueprint" to which everything functions either in a "free state" or a more "specialized system" like the workings inside my or your body; or the rigidity of the "intelligent computer."
In a way you can think of us as a more "unabridged" form of a detailed system of sorts like the computer. The computer is probably more the exact opposite -- it can't "branch out" and change without a system of creative influence in some other "realm" that can first-hand alter and change its own potential. We have been shown much more uniqueness that no machine ever will likely show as of the current instruction cycle/execution system computers use -- things like regrowing parts, maintaining structure/integrity but expanding potential/means and etc. Machines may retain structure by way of their "intelligent" design form, but they never will likely grow beyond just that -- what confines they are "born" in to when created. We humans have no known "confines" -- or if we do usually evidence sooner or later shows these previously believed "confines" keep expanding. In the older days many, many years ago we possibly thought of each and everyone as "magic beings" with special properties, but those of which we cannot change -- until we learned how they actually change always and continue doing so (both endogenously and exogenously, or internally and externally). We have been seen to many times go "beyond" any previous limitations science has imposed time and time ago, time and time again. It's like we're adaptable and changeable beyond any fixed ideology of a pipeline, system or particular structure. In a way you can even think of nature, the outdoors, and other beings as factors that "alter" our paradigm, foundation, being and overall structure much like the engineer alters the computer or etc., only likely a more methodical and deliberate way for the latter.
The mind/body can expand outside of any "genetic confines" -- so there's probably no reason to liken ability (or lack thereof) to genetics or determinism but to past experiences shaping our present and then future potentials. You do not "build intelligence" -- you build the mind and intelligence follows seamlessly.
Intelligent isn't formed -- it's just the brain properly "actuated" more so in the optimal state of mind and health. What we imagine as "intelligence" might even fall back to the computer paradigm -- remembering files, info, etc. But I don't think the mind really "remembers" anything like that -- recall is just a past experience re-lived inside the mind's functionality. You are re-living memories -- not "recalling" them from some specific place in my mind. The mind can expand and alter itself to that of any accommodation of structure, shape, memory and feeling associated with such things in seemingly endless ways you can't map out like a computer's RAM, frontal bus, sequencing circuity/electrical engineering "steps."
The heart beat is like a vacuum -- imagine your structural modality that is unchanged in any devastating way (your physiology/biochemistry) from any collision of various factors that negatively and/or positively alter a system over time (both can impact you negatively though from the scope of bodily decay/death). Living forever is a way of adopting the means of an unshaken organism and its system of perfection in living from its environment and/or other systems which ultimately wears on it. You do not die from old age -- you die from a failure of optimal life encouragement between your perfect existence "plane" and the colliding of others -- think like the computer system and the brain system which do not overlap but thus can influence each other (the computer can destroy the human -- EMF, blue light, stresses, etc. -- and the human can destroy the computer by shaking its structural perfection or other factors too). When your chemistry and physiology and structure "fails" it's not an innate failure usually I don't think -- it's a structural overlap failure by way of systematic destruction or incompatibility/imperfection long term. We are too connected to the "outer" plane of ourselves which affects us (stresses, bacteria, foods, environments, desires, wants, needs, memories, roles, etc.). The more we associate ourselves with the environment and external "planes" or systems -- no matter how "protective" of tools we employ to spare ourselves -- the more we will guarantee a limited existence I think. But the idea here is that it's a catch 22 -- you live to be in your environment and you need it to live -- but the very same thing is what kills you. We need to find a way to transcend the need for the environmental properties while also being a part of some new kind of environmental system that only compliments us -- either that or our internal system must be modified to never be shaken by external factors (or internal ones if applicable) to any devastating degrees of impact.
There are many already discussed reasons and theories and etc. on why intelligence may not be there or why the minds of some may be "far behind" in some ways. But anyway you look it at it becomes clear pretty quickly that nobody's mind is comparable to a computer system when you really look at the variance in people and the structures of the computer, along with the larger scale approach of both the limitations imposed/created and/or not shown to function as tightly between different beings or things of matter or being, functions or "realities" across the spectrum of experience and existence.
The "wing head" system is my idea that everyone has their own system apart from its main bio-supporting system, shaken or otherwise. I'm sure some have supposed this idea here before -- possibly haidut or such. The idea here is that other systems -- electric fields -- or things which affect or overlap with our biology -- can be what has a large impact on both our structure, means or lack thereof. The "wing head" is used as such because it's like a reference to Mario the titular Nintendo character -- different properties change his system, but they overlap with what he is overall. I think some problems are that some people are confined in some ways either energetically or something else that prevents them from growth or change much -- think like someone who didn't grow tall or grew too tall or etc. Something was amiss and that very thing that affected you either positively or negatively (subjective, I know) from one point is the same one that might continue to do so far along in life -- like an energetic "grudge" almost if you want to look at it that way. We need to further look in to this possibly, but I think bioelectrics is probably the right direction here since it encompasses not just the biology/physiological aspect of us ("plane" or structure) but the outside system and its overlap with us and how we can adjust them to compliment one another better, among other things. You can think of everything as a plane or "structure" that overlaps creating woes and wins and all in-between.
Inter-systemic/structural or inter-planar/dimensional modality, balance, and desire all flowing to shape the consensus of it all.
Last edited:
