Corey Hammer

There are two ways of looking at this...

1) Intelligence requires consciousness...that in fact may be the case, but you still have to make that argument. I could imagine species in which intelligence arose, but not consciousness (at least not in the way we understand it). Because I lack an external frame of reference, I can't even guess at the behaviors (covert & overt) of such a species.

2) Consciousness does not require intelligence....this may also be the case. In fact, I believe it to be so.

Let me ask you a question, how much of your daily behavior is performed consciously?

Quote:

Quote: Since you're making the case that this is so, you get to be the one who does the digging for it. Not me. Have fun. (You lose me here again, you cannot argue, try to see my point, say whatever you wish to say without finding common ground. By your statement you have indicated your unwillingness to move to common ground, on your behalf. In this light it becomes futile to try to communicate with you, in other words, I think you are arguing in bad faith)

*sigh*

No, I've stated that I'm not going to prove YOUR case for you. You made a statement about how your definition fits in with the scientific definition provided by previous research. Well guess what, Sophie...you get to go track down those definitions and compare and contrast. You made the argument; you go prove it.

Corey Hammer

Sophie,

I just looked at your profile. Are you a native English-speaker?

Corey Hammer

I'm guessing you are not a native English-speaker. I'm guessing that French is your first language, and you learned English later.

By common terms, I mean put your writing into commonly-accepted words and phrases to describe the phenomena. That means not using words and phrases in novel and obscure ways that serve to confuse (e.g., planetary system-that's an astronomical term, not a psychological one), and then not offering an in-depth explanation of that use.

On another note, you use far to many passive verbs and to many "is" relationships. At the same time, you offer no arguments (logical or empirical) as to why your view is correct.

Quite frankly, your writing does not communicate very well. Fortunately, practice makes perfect.

sophie

My native language is neither English or French, it is humanity. I speak the language of humanity. Can you understand this?

Corey, your advice applies to you, not to me. I do not need to communicate with 100% of the world, I would be foolish to attempt such a task, but you seem willing to continue along such a path.

If you cannot see my cases or how they are tautlogically sound then that is your loss because I see no gain in explaining to you. We are not of the same.

Wyz_sub10

This thread better go somewhere or start making sense to someone, or else it will find a new home. The last few posts have added nothing to the OP, and it seems to be developing into a conversation about semantics or who's resonsibility it is to do what.

Wyz_sub10,
EoG mod

sophie

Wyz_sub10,

I completely agree, any pratical suggestions?

Wyz_sub10

Let's revisit your opening comment from the OP:

It would seem to me that definitions for "genetic intelligence", and supporting evidence for those definitions are the most relevent to the question.

A suggestion was made to use "common terms". I'm certainly not here to adjucate whether a specific term is appropriate or not, but I would suggest that for the benefit of all reading this thread and wishing to participate that the terminology used be idenitifiable in mainstream literature.

(or, if new trerms are to be introduced by anyone, they should be well-defined so that everyone is dealing from the the deck)

Wyz_sub10,
EoG mod

sophie

Wyz_sub10,

I fully well agree again. (I have a few comments of my own.)

Then again decks can become heaps which can quickly vanish to zero if one party tries too hard to play advocate of the devil. Even for some the mere twisting of words from devils advocate to advocate of the devil can be trying for some.

If I ever appeal to the laypersons common sense and I am certain the connotation is well founded but it is not properly phrased according to some, then I will defind my right to say it without further explaination. The reason I say this is because there has to be a minimum level of understanding.

Further to this, all this talk amoung professionals about cross-discipline correllations and even the mere thought of searching for NCCs (neural correlates of consciousness) implies new meaning to language usage. My point is all those professionals who say cross-dressing is good but appeal to founded language when speaking out of the language should clearly check their logic, perhaps even check it twice. Including all those who wish to want