Printable View
ok if C = 0, and I = (whichever number)Quote:
The definition is Q=IC, not Q=C. Although and what we were discussing a particular case Q=IC,I=1 => Q=1*C, in other words per information.
I * C = (whichever number) * 0 = 0
any number multiplied by 0 = 0
IC = 0
Q = 0
intelligence = 0, braindead people have 0 intelligence
Let me first tell you that knowledge is information, basically you are deriving my equation for a specific purpose. Efficiency. It is debatable whether intelligence is a meassure of efficiency, basically because of terminological misuse, to differentiate intelligence and efficiency intelligence We'll be indexing efficiency intelligence with eff; Qeff.Quote:
But, again, "Knowledge" is a better determining factor of Intellegence than "Information".
Further, to debate whether efficiency intelligence or intelligence should take place in the scientific equation, we have to take into account the uses of these symbols, and in second name them, not the other way around.
My argumentation goes in line with the examples i've provided earlier:
Measurement tools, case to case models, approximations and assumptions are made by the engineer while the general mathematical formula is provided by the scientist. Setting a goal for the analysis is upto the engineers, the results giving bias in their perspective, but a knowledgeable engineer should be able to do an useful application. What is not written in my formula is the application, say for instance a group intelligence analysis about drugs in schools across the country, the goal is clearly how to know how much and in what areas of drugs education funding is needed and what and how education should be perfomed. The issues could be millions, complex cascaded mathematical subsystems which relies on each other, but as long as they are "reasonable" and results are positive, the application is successfull. It's not upto the scientist to battle reality, it's the job of the engineers.
yepQuote:
Originally posted by Osiris
ok if C = 0, and I = (whichever number)
I * C = (whichever number) * 0 = 0
any number multiplied by 0 = 0
IC = 0
Q = 0
intelligence = 0, braindead people have 0 intelligence
Intelligence is the art of baffling people with non sequiturs in a way that they feel too dumb and ashamed to correct you.
Believe me, works every time. :)
oh yes, and never admit that you could possiby be wrong by any stretch of the imagination whatsoever.
Ahhh, the sweet sound of a nail being hit right on the head. :)Quote:
Originally posted by DWillems
Intelligence is the art of baffling people with non sequiturs in a way that they feel too dumb and ashamed to correct you.
Believe me, works every time. :)
Exactly my point!Quote:
Originally posted by NotLKH
Hmm.
Perhaps there is No such thing as "Intelligence"?
Asking How intelliegent are you is meaningless?
Kedamn you take the typical view that intelligence is an inherent ability to take in, comprehend and process information.
Usually in a way that promotes success no matter what the task.
And you reckon you can measure the difference among individuals.
But why not any ability to even simply survive can be considered intelligent. I.e An immune system that survives is more intelligent than 1 that doesnt.
What about my observation about his "frictionless" "information" transfer, and how that relates to the striving of the educated man towards the Instinctual use of Knowledge?Quote:
Originally posted by Beacon
Exactly my point!
Asking How intelliegent are you is meaningless?
Or, His viewpoint {Which, BTW, the dictionary supports,} that Knowledge = Information?
I fell Knowledge is diff than Information. Imagine this scenario:
Someone, thru observation only, call him Mr. PiltDown. {Lets use him in any thought experiment from now on, requiring an individual not acquanted with our current educational process.}
So, Mr. Piltdown, thru many years of amazed observation, has seen Lightning and Heard Thunder. His Information is, Sometimes it Lightnings without Thunder, Sometimes It thunders without lightning. Sometimes, even both occurs within moments of each other.
So. That is information.
Knowledge is "They aren't seperate phenomena. When One occurs, the other Usually must occur. I might not observe both phenomena generally simultaniously because of some reason or another, but both are aspects of the same event. They are not individual events in and of themselves."
So, I want to say Knowledge is a form of Processed information. {BTW, Don't use the word "Processed" Around K. He thinks thats a distortion of a thing.}
In actuallity, I want to view Knowledge as "Effective Rational Information", which I previously have described.
But, to reiterate, {from a previous post}
:
So, As used in the above statement, "Knowledge" is "Effective
Rational Infromation", ie.. If the "Rational Information" Generates
a Thought Process that effectively produces expected results,
then the conciousness has "Knowledge" of something.
:End Quote.
Of course, what is Rational Information?
That would be physical, non-delusionally derived information. IE, lets keep Metaphysical beings and there benevalence out of this discussion.
{j4u, stay in your own thread please! We'll come looking when we're truly ready! :D :D }
So, what do you think?
-BTW, I'm cooked!:D
"{j4u, stay in your own thread please! We'll come looking when we're truly ready! } "
Whats that supposed to mean?
Wait i'll go get an actual experiment that was conducted and it's results by 2 matheticians that proves that "How inteligent are you?"
Is meaningless.
None of this crapping on about what if's!
Ok the experiment conducted by 2 mathematicians from Imperial College in London.
This is from New Scientist 17/11:
Ok as i've mentioned the pitted some neural networks or minibrains against each other in a game in which they had to choose one of 2 groups to join. To win they had to join the least popular group.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A memory of previous rounds turned out to be an important factor in the game.
When the minibrains all remebered the results of an equal number of previous rounds, they tended to make the same choice - and so did extremely badly. None of the agents managed even a 50% success rate-which would be expected through chance alone.
But if an agent with a memory of 3 previous rounds was pitted against lots of agents able to remeber 2 rounds, it achieved a astonishingly high success rate of over 98%. In some combinations, however, minibrains with supposedly better memories did worse than simplier ones.
Bak and Wakeling say these findings show that it's impossible to predict how well a minibrain will do without knowing which individuals it will be competing against, and argue that the same is true of any intelligent bieng.
Linda Gottfredson, a cognitive psychologist at the University of Delaware says that Bak and Wakeling "have not become aquainted with the century of eveidence that says people carry around with them differences in thier capabilities to behave intelligently regardless of the circumstances. She points out that people who do well on one type of mental test tend to do well on them all.
Linda argues that "intelligence" is the ability to "take in", comprehend and process information.
But bak and wakeling go further and say that any ability to survive can be considered intelligence!"
No, Knowledge is your definition, "is a" relationship, not equivalent.Quote:
Or, His viewpoint {Which, BTW, the dictionary supports,} that Knowledge = Information?
I suppose you meant NotLKHQuote:
Originally posted by Beacon
Kedamn you take the typical view that intelligence is an inherent ability to take in, comprehend and process information.
Perhaps but you seem to be straying down the same grey line of thinking!
Basically they're syaing that it's impossible to know/predict how intelligent someone is without knowing what there up against.
Or what to compare them to.
That's not the plan, or should i say my plan. Intelligence is a product of both information and consciousness, picking the right perspective is the engineer's job, not the subject. Otherways I don't see any use of it.
Hmmm.
Kedaman believes, which seems to be the common viewpoint,
that knowledge = information.
Unfortunately, I have a different perspective derived from a personal affliction.
Lets say I see something that, from the information My self receives, that the thing is red. I do not, at this point, "Know" the thing is red, until I somehow verify that information to my satisfaction. This is due to being color-blind between certain light shades of green and red.
So, one way of verifying that information would be by questioning others as to what color they see. If I can be certain I don't question color-blind people, then I would receive verification of the information. Unfortunately, I have, whats that stat, a 10 percent chance of being misled {isn't it 10 % of a population colorblind? something like that.}
Now, with the kind of CB that I have, if I see a single object thats a light shade of red, I can't tell you whether its red or green. Ditto with a single light-green object. BUT, place them side by side and, VOILA, No problem! I CAN tell the difference between the two if I perform a side by side comparison.
So, the verification system that I am most satisfied with, is by doing an actual comparison of a questionable color with a color chart. Well, I don't have to go that far, All I need is an object of the other shade next to the object I'm color questioning. I don't need to know which color either is BEFORE the comparison, I just need them side by side, and THEN I can see which is which.
Similarly with any bit of information. I don't take Information at face value, I need to verify it before I can call it true knowledge. AND the verification method MUST BE something that I can trust.
Somehow, the Verification system must itself be something that I verified would or should be reliable. Which is really the truly fun part of any problem analysis, developing a reliable method that should be used to solve the problem.
-Lou
Well, "knowledge is information" is not the same thing as "knowledge = information", in the same sense "an elpephant is an animal" using logical notation: "knowledge => information"
Besides i'm just clarifying your argument, not starting one.
Next I'm a non believer, I don't need faith to work with formulas. I understand your viewpoints well but this isn't a philosophical discussion, it's not that we're searching for a truth, we're explaining a phenomena.
"Lets say I see something that, from the information My self receives, that the thing is red. I do not, at this point, "Know" the thing is red, until I somehow verify that information to my satisfaction. This is due to being color-blind between certain light shades of green and red. "
So it has everything to do with your environment?
Say everything was red but you didnt have anything to compare it to you wouldnt "know" would you!
"That's not the plan, or should i say my plan. Intelligence is a product of both information and consciousness, picking the right perspective is the engineer's job, not the subject. Otherways I don't see any use of it."
You've lost me again kedaman???
Beacon,
Are you just randomly quoting, or do you really beleive everyone in this thread, outside of you, is kedaman?
btw,
Quote: So it has everything to do with your environment?
Say everything was red but you didnt have anything to compare it to you wouldnt "know" would you!
Information, outside of that which you gather when you are trying to understand yourself, ONLY COMES FROM the environment.
And, again, I need a verification process that I can rely on. If there is no way to verify the verification process, then I'd have to just take information at face value.
So, BTW, Your girlfriend is going out with your best friend, and they're playing you for a fool.
Trust me!
:D
-Lou
How do you know?????Quote:
Originally posted by NotLKH
So, BTW, Your girlfriend is going out with your best friend, and they're playing you for a fool.
Trust me!
:D
-Lou
I had a dream about roughly the same thing last night but it was a mate she doesnt know!
Anyway doesnt matter she's my ex-girlfriend now! Long story!
Basically the dream means i'm worried that "the *****" will get togther with my mate not the one in my dream another one.
But i doubt it!
Yes i'm randomly quoting whatever a read i'll quote if i have a question/answer/point.
But kedaman once was saying we are all in his minds matrix so you never know!
"Information, outside of that which you gather when you are trying to understand yourself, ONLY COMES FROM the environment. "
So your agreeing with me then!
Did I ever disagree?
BTW, if you've stated that, perchance you can cite chapter and verse?
-Lou
Of what??Quote:
Originally posted by NotLKH
Did I ever disagree?
BTW, if you've stated that, perchance you can cite chapter and verse?
-Lou
:confused:
Answer me lou how'd you know about "the *****"???
Well, first of all, Many girls break up with guys, and most of them don't deserve to be called "*****".Quote:
Originally posted by Beacon
How do you know?????
I had a dream about roughly the same thing last night but it was a mate she doesnt know!
Anyway doesnt matter she's my ex-girlfriend now! Long story!
Basically the dream means i'm worried that "the *****" will get togther with my mate not the one in my dream another one.
But i doubt it!
....
Sometimes, or most times when theres a breakup, there is a very good reason why the Guy and Girl shouldn't be together to begin with. It just so happens that TPTB Passes this info to the girl, and leaves it to her to inform the guy, in her own style.
Us guys are similar to a DeskLamp. We're fully functional, Heck, She picked us out even, but more often than not, She finds one that she wants more. Hell, we're easily discardable, they ALL know that!
Yes, we're reluctant to say three words, then the ultimate 4 more, BUT THEY are the ones who break up the duo, More often than not. THATS WHY WERE SO RELUCTANT!!!
Srew em. She is a *****.
OOPS, sorry, getting carried away. Bring women up in the middle of a discussion of intelligence. What a mistake!!!
:D :D :D
-Lou
You said:Quote:
Originally posted by Beacon
Of what??
:confused:
Therefore, I'm Asking you what you said that makes you think I said something that made you say that you thought I said something that agrees with you.Quote:
So your agreeing with me then!
So, did you? and if so, please point it out, so I know I said something that agrees with what you say I said that you say agrees with something you said.
:D
-Lou
Well, lets just say its a coincidence.Quote:
Originally posted by Beacon
Answer me lou how'd you know about "the *****"???
:D
'Course, perchance, it could be kedamans "frictionless" information transfer at play!
:D
{'Course, 1 more possibility. But I doubt it.}
Apart from the last few posts :D this thread merely demonstrates the lack of correlation between perceived intelligence and communicative skills (ie the art of making sense). :rolleyes:
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah
Weird conincidence coz she had a friend called louise a.k.a lou!:p
"Well, first of all, Many girls break up with guys, and most of them don't deserve to be called "*****". "
Trust me she does!
I'm not bitter about it i wouldnt sink to that level(i have to call her "the *****" because i know 2 girls with the same name and when talking about her i need a distinction so..) but i think she may have been a bit tapped in the head i gave her enough chances but it wasnt meant to be.
Just weird why you would bring that up??
Trying to insult me hey?
AGREEMENT:
""Information, outside of that which you gather when you are trying to understand yourself, ONLY COMES FROM the environment. "
Yeah well i wish Britney would stop sending my brain naked pictures!:pQuote:
Originally posted by NotLKH
'Course, perchance, it could be kedamans "frictionless" information transfer at play!
:D
{'Course, 1 more possibility. But I doubt it.}
Sorry, I thought you were trying to disagree with me, so I replied, and included in my reply was a comment on verification of information, and so I thought that a good display of information without verification was in order. So, the Girlfreind angle seemed the best way to display the Intelligence behind unverified information. Seems it worked!:DQuote:
Originally posted by NotLKH
Beacon,
Are you just randomly quoting, or do you really beleive everyone in this thread, outside of you, is kedaman?
btw,
Quote: So it has everything to do with your environment?
Say everything was red but you didnt have anything to compare it to you wouldnt "know" would you!
Information, outside of that which you gather when you are trying to understand yourself, ONLY COMES FROM the environment.
And, again, I need a verification process that I can rely on. If there is no way to verify the verification process, then I'd have to just take information at face value.
So, BTW, Your girlfriend is going out with your best friend, and they're playing you for a fool.
Trust me!
:D
-Lou
Sort of. Except It turns out you didn't need to verify it.
So, Really, We're stil stuck with Knowledge (Wants to say =, K likes "Is",} = information.
"So, the Girlfreind angle seemed the best way to display the Intelligence behind unverified information. Seems it worked!"
Me no comprehend??
It didnt happen but i dont see how this proves anything??
OK. Well, if you read thru, it seems that I disagree with myself.Quote:
Originally posted by NotLKH
....So, the Girlfreind angle seemed the best way to display the Intelligence behind unverified information. Seems it worked!:D
Sort of. Except It turns out you didn't need to verify it.
So, Really, We're stil stuck with Knowledge (Wants to say =, K likes "Is",} = information.
Which, I sort of meant.
Kedaman says Knowledge IS information. So, I gave you Information about your girlfreind cheating behind your back, with your best freind. If Knowledge IS information, then that would have been something you would have accepted. Which, you DID say, in so many words, "How did I know that?"
BUT, I say some things in a way to get a negative response.
When I said from "Sort Of" onword, I was displaying Kedamans eq "Knowledge is Information". You should have jumped all over that. In reality, you displayed that you put the info that I provided thru a verification process, and concluded that, in essence, it couldn't be you're best friend, it was a blok she never even met before.{from your dream}. So, Knowlege <> Information, but knowledge = Information after verification.
But, that doesn't matter. After all, we're not after the truth,
we're just explaining a phenomena.
{BTW, Hey, Keda! Thats Plural, and the Singular, phenomenon, requires an occurance, circumstance, or fact that is perceptable by the senses. Which sense perceives intelligence?}
:D
-Lou
:confused:Quote:
Originally posted by NotLKH
But, that doesn't matter. After all, we're not after the truth,
we're just explaining a phenomena.
{BTW, Hey, Keda! Thats Plural, and the Singular, phenomenon, requires an occurance, circumstance, or fact that is perceptable by the senses. Which sense perceives intelligence?}
:D
-Lou
If you are, I was refferring to something that Kedaman said.
Reread from a couple of keda posts ago, if you're lost.
:D
"When I said from "Sort Of" onword, I was displaying Kedamans eq "Knowledge is Information". You should have jumped all over that. In reality, you displayed that you put the info that I provided thru a verification process, and concluded that, in essence, it couldn't be you're best friend, it was a blok she never even met before.{from your dream}. So, Knowlege <> Information, but knowledge = Information after verification. "
1) I was more wrapped up in the co-incidence of the girlfriend thing.
2) She didnt cheat on me exactly per say! But thats for me to know! I did say how'd you know becausse it was a strange co-incidence that we broke up i had a dream and you said something i dreamt about thats all.
3) The dream she was with an old friend of mine she doesnt know. But what the dream was telling me is that i was worried that even though we are broken up i'd hate to see her with a friend of mine and it showed me which friend it could be(indirectly, not the one in the dream). But it reassured me that it wouldnt ever happen so i shouldnt worry about it!
How do i know this? See here
Knowledge = Information
Information = Environment
What u say?
I give up i'm lost!:confused: :confused:
But i'll be back when i can understand what the hell kedaman is saying!
For a person who doesnt naturally speak english you use might big words!
Well, I'm not a brit, if thats what you mean, but as a US American, I'll let you know our words can be pretty voluminous, even when they aren't real words!Quote:
Originally posted by Beacon
I give up i'm lost!:confused: :confused:
................For a person who doesnt naturally speak english you use might big words!
:D
Now, don't interupt me. I'm on a google search for "nude art model", in the images.
Got some info to find!!!
:D
Ok. Just switched to "topless girl"
:D
Hey, Beacon. Whats your Email?
I got a nice one here.
I won't post the www here, don't want to kill the thread.
-Lou
Aaaaaaahahaha
click on da email button!
aaaaahahahaa
You should see the thread over on pctsonline.com
How'd we get onto naked women?
hehehe
who cares!
"For a person who doesnt naturally speak english you use might big words!"
I meant keda's natural language but meant both of you using complex sentences!:)
Hmmmm. You don't sseem to have an email button.
Help?
Hmm i do now!
I changed my environment using the information gathered by viewing my environment making me more knowledgable!:p ;)