sophie

If I were to propose the idea that intelligence is based on operations on information and there are apriori operations in the strictist sense natural to us, along with operations we consciously apply which may or may not have been derived from the apriori source of operations, would we be able to communicate the operations we find most useful in life or operations we constantly use and as such they belong to our bag of tricks we utilise because of their success portfolio.

The trademark of an operation is its association with memory implying the operation is known along with the operation's application with other memories and the result of the operation. The change derived from the operation is its effect where its result is its effect.

For those interested in trying to find out which operations seem to be the apriori operations we can compile a list of operations which can be debated as valid operations of intelligence and then from this list wave our magic wand and arrest the apriori ones.

The result of this exercise is not to actually discover the natural intelligence of the human, but to share the knowledge of successful operations with the rest of the world leading to common knowledge of a highly pratical model in intelligence.

If you wish to share - share.

This debate may have a few strands going at a time.
(1) Debate strand on this philosophy of intelligence.
(2) Debate strand on single ideas of intelligent operations.
(3) Other debate strands.

My first thoughts include the operation corresponding to
"not" or "absence" or "exclude" and the operation "join".

Thanks in the millions

Witt

sophie:
For those interested in trying to find out which operations seem to be the apriori operations we can compile a list of operations which can be debated as valid operations of intelligence and then from this list wave our magic wand and arrest the apriori ones.

The result of this exercise is not to actually discover the natural intelligence of the human, but to share the knowledge of successful operations with the rest of the world leading to common knowledge of a highly pratical model in intelligence.
----------------------------


Hi sophie,

Your thoughts are interesting, though difficult to me.
Your sentences are complex, could you simplify your meanings?

sophie: My first thoughts include the operation corresponding to
"not" or "absence" or "exclude" and the operation "join".

If I interpret your 'intelligence' as 'logic' then...
you are asking about 'apriori' logical operators..is that correct?

If yes, then:
Russell used 'not (~)' and 'or (v)' as his primitive (undefined) operators.
Frege used 'not (~)' and 'implies (->).
Pierce used 'nor (/)' as primitive.
Sheffer used 'nand (|) as primitive
Wittgenstein used '~ExP, as an extension of Pierce and Sheffer.

I am not convinced that these logical operators are intuitive.
Can abstract concepts be genetically transmitted, I don't think so, do you?

Witt

sophie

In a simple sense there are two levels of extraction. Extracting from us humans those concepts we find useful in showing our intelligence gives us a showing of intelligence in society. Through an abstraction of this show of intellect or through reason we can try to deduce those operations which should be native to the brain. I mean these operations are provided by genetic unravelling to babies.

To take your examples from logic from a purely provisional point of view the or operation has an implication of simultaneity. We cannot choose from two things without them being seperate and simultaneous. The not operator as I have been thinking about it is non-trivial, which led me to believe it is more of an exclusion principle. I mean this in the sense that not is implied if B is excluded from a previously extant AB, leaving Anot(B). To return to the or operator which can be seen as part of a seperation principle which in turn the notting of something is directly related to seperating the thing to be notted from the rest.

As I noted or has to have a number of primed suspects ready and waiting to be choosen.

So far am I clear in what I am trying to achieve? We can further debate the fundamentals of logical provision.

Witt

sophie:
In a simple sense there are two levels of extraction. Extracting from us humans those concepts we find useful in showing our intelligence gives us a showing of intelligence in society. Through an abstraction of this show of intellect or through reason we can try to deduce those operations which should be native to the brain. I mean these operations are provided by genetic unravelling to babies.

I don't agree. Babies do not understand the stroke function (|) 'nand', at all.

Perceptability, via their senses, is their best understanding, imo.

What genetic facts make you think so?

sophie:
To take your examples from logic from a purely provisional point of view the or operation has an implication of simultaneity. We cannot choose from two things without them being seperate and simultaneous.

I don't see any sense of 'simultaneity' in logic, its domain is timeless..whithin the context of mind.

To 'see' from another mind's perspective is indeed a challenge.

sophie:
The not operator as I have been thinking about it is non-trivial, which led me to believe it is more of an exclusion principle. I mean this in the sense that not is implied if B is excluded from a previously extant AB, leaving Anot(B). To return to the or operator which can be seen as part of a seperation principle which in turn the notting of something is directly related to seperating the thing to be notted from the rest.

Negation does separate the thing from the notted, I agree.

sophie: As I noted or has to have a number of primed suspects ready and waiting to be choosen.

Of course, we 'apriori' select that which we admit as entities, in order to dicuss within a 'universe of discourse'.

sophie: So far am I clear in what I am trying to achieve? We can further debate the fundamentals of logical provision.

Your view of clarity is the issue.
Clarity, in general, is at issue, when considering other minds.

Witt

John Page

Extracting or distilling the rules of logic may give it the appearance of timelessness (through reliable repeatability), but IMO logic operates on an instance by instance basis.

For example: It is always true that a true proposition is not false. Now, to determine the veracity of this statement one needs to have the axioms/rules to be applied and a system through which to apply them to the proposition.

In conclusion, something is (definitely known to be) true when the system of logic is applied. However, imputing that the proposition is eternally or timelessly true (within the context of mind) is not an assertion of the epistemic status. By analogy, when I am looking at a tree directly I perceive that the tree exists - when I look away I can say with a high degree of reliability that the tree is still there. Somebody might have chopped it down!

Apart from this IMHO major point, I agree with your response.

Cheers, John

sophie

Witt : I don't agree. Babies do not understand the stroke function (|) 'nand', at all.

Sophie : As perhaps they don't. What I intend to find are the natural functions babies posess which eventually end up assisting nand functions towards success. The genetic facts are not currently available only reason has guarenteed access.

Biff

As confusing as this seems to be, and as unfamiliar as I am with what "nand" is, I have a question.

By operations, sophie, are you speaking strictly about logic symbols? I got the impression that when you were describing "operations", you were using the term in a Piagetian-like sense. That is, operations are cognitive/reasoning processes that take place within a mind, often involving mentally manipulating the environment to solve problems.

Are you then asking how we can talk about the formation of these operations, i.e., do they arise through experience or through genetic unfolding?

Forgive me if I've completely missed the point.

Biff

sophie

Biff,

I literally mean all operations which when used tend to help its user exhibit some form of intelligence.

Its like seperating the clean clothes from the dirty clothes, seperating cooked food from uncooked food. It seems to me this operation of seperation is linked to various human acts.

Seperating comes in various forms including exclusion, throwing out, ignoring, forcing apart, dividing, subtracting, losing, and thwarting to name a few.

The logical form of seperation as I have come to understand it is 'not'.

I am trying to find a few basic operations which should literally sound like gibberish to some. Most of us should otherwise comprehend.

sophie

This is more of a report on the state of my thoughts concerning ‘seperating’ as an intelligent method.

We had previously agreed the logical operator ‘not’ could be processed by excluding or seperating out, the undesirable elements. If I was to follow the idea of seperating being ideal intelligence, I would have to point out that at times seperating or excluding certain key elements, apparent or not, is not an example of intelligent behaviour.

Seperating as an operation-in-itself seems a likely canidate when describing our ability to identify objects received via a light source. Seperating a singer’s voice from the rest of a song also tautologically implies an operation of seperating.

What can we imagine must come with seperating. What necessary conditions are instrumental to seperating AfromB? Let me assume an operation ‘Osep’ which has an input and produces two outputs. Therefore, true(Osep), true(Osep(X)), true(true(X1),true(X2)).X->X,Osep(X)->X1&X2.

Having seperated AfromB into X1 and X2, the next defining move of intelligence is how X1 and X2 are used to move to a goal state. From this simple act of seperating (if your imagination is clear and expansive) one can imagine what other simple little processes are necessary to supply the qualifier ‘intelligent’ when the actions eventually become evident.

John Page

But in the mind/brain:
1. The results of the operation Osep can be made publicly available through the distribution of the stimulus from the axon, not just keyholed through a couple of variables X1 and X2. I feel the von Neumann architecture analogy (input/process/output) is appropriate at the cellular level but breaks down above that because of the vast network process that the brain's cells present.
2. Your Osep result is implied as binary, whereas the mind admits of probabilities and possibilities with no PoMo certainty. I think we should look for "degree of fit" approximations.

Cheers, John