What does it mean to be very intelligent?

[Grayman]

It doesn't mean much to be very intelligent because in the end, you die.

But the fruits of your intelligence can live on.

 

[onesteptwostep]

It doesn't mean much to be very intelligent because in the end, you die.

But the fruits of your intelligence can live on.

Well, if it survives, or that you make a successful religion out of it

 

[WALKYRIA]

What does it mean to be very intelligent?
Honnestly I don't know any more.. there are so many definitions by now.
I've been aquainted with very smart people for the past 10 years and the funniest thing i've realized is that they come in all shape. At the highest end of giftedness, the only thing pretty consistent is isolation and loneliness. Besides that, most intelligent people don't seem to perform at the height of what society expects for them( they end up having masters, phds, engeneers, doctors degree...etc) ans end up having different types of occupations depending on the make up of their intelligence.
Knowing all that and having a deeper understanding of what high intelligence and giftedness represents now( basically just a more efficient brain to make it simple) and having been surrounded by mostly *gifted people*( medical school, phd, engeneers..etc); I no longer romanticize it as much as I used to it in the past.

These days I'm more interested in the intangibles of intelligence such as wisdom, spirituality, creativity, insight, vision, intuition.... basically all those things that in addition to intelligence can really make a change. Intelligence alone is just not sufficient and don't impress me very much to be honnest unless it's real and profound( not saying IQ type of intelligence lacks that but it's usually surface level).


So in other words being ( very) intelligent is cool but not as big of a deal as our society is making it seem.

 

[Black Rose]

Intelligence alone is just not sufficient and don't impress me very much to be honnest unless it's real and profound( not saying IQ type of intelligence lacks that but it's usually surface level).

So in other words being ( very) intelligent is cool but not as big of a deal as our society is making it seem.

At the highest end of giftedness, the only thing pretty consistent is isolation and loneliness. Besides that, most intelligent people don't seem to perform at the height of what society expects for them

Basing things on what society thinks is not something we should use as a reference point for what is important or interesting. Basic Society does not understand what intelligence is to make such judgments or assessments.

I made a scale that Hado did not like:

at certain ranges of IQ people don't do so well:

100 - 120 : do well at normal tasks

120 - 130 : feels like a middle child

130 - 145 : most successful (can do stuff and have peers)

145 - 160 : lack of social belonging (can't find peers)

160 and above : get over social stuff and focus on intellectual stuff

 

[Black Rose]

It doesn't mean much to be very intelligent because in the end, you die.

But the fruits of your intelligence can live on.

Well, if it survives, or that you make a successful religion out of it

Most records still exist:

When compiled together they will give people avatars like them that can still learn and generate new things in the way they once did.

It does not need to be based on people doing it themselves.

People will remember what happened and the computers will cross-correlate the missing data from the past. The past will be recreated by what is known now and the constraints placed on that knowledge by physics.

That will not be a complicated process, it will just be an elaborated back hash table.

 

[Black Rose]

There is no spot in the brain where we can mark a fine line of what people can do because most of what can be done is in the subconscious. Very little of what we do in the brain can be detected, so at best, we measure intelligence via performance tests. When it comes to intelligence two things are important. Learning and Multitasking.

We absorb information and or think about multiple things at the same time.

This involves long-term and short-term memory.


Intelligence in MBTI terms:

Judgment: Decision making
Perception: Understanding

Ti - distinction of fine-line ideas
Te - causal relation of event drive actions
Fi - autonomy of one's value structure
Fe - classifying of others' motivations

Ni - inhabiting concepts
Ne - concept generation
Si - self-awareness
Se - high fidelity

 

[Grayman]

There is no spot in the brain where we can mark a fine line of what people can do because most of what can be done is in the subconscious. Very little of what we do in the brain can be detected, so at best, we measure intelligence via performance tests. When it comes to intelligence two things are important. Learning and Multitasking.

We absorb information and or think about multiple things at the same time.

This involves long-term and short-term memory.


Intelligence in MBTI terms:

Judgment: Decision making
Perception: Understanding

Ti - distinction of fine-line ideas
Te - causal relation of event drive actions
Fi - autonomy of one's value structure
Fe - classifying of others' motivations

Ni - inhabiting concepts
Ne - concept generation
Si - self-awareness
Se - high fidelity

Most of m skills are in being able to feel and picture things so that I can solve physical problems in the world, in my head. I suck at multi-tasking and learning data. I get a intuitive and fundamental understanding of things but lack the ability to remember details.

For example, I can never remember road names and barely remember landmarks but can find my way almost perfectly driving a route by feeling. It feels familiar or right.

Another example is picturing an electrical circuit and the flow of electrons in my head and then doing experiments in my head to determine where provlem exists in real life.

I don't know. I think the problem with your idea is that it assumes the brain process is the same for everyone so you are trying to measure that process. But most people just want to know, when looking atbIQ, is if they are generally better functioning and in a practical way.

 

[Black Rose]

I don't know. I think the problem with your idea is that it assumes the brain process is the same for everyone so you are trying to measure that process. But most people just want to know, when looking atbIQ, is if they are generally better functioning and in a practical way.

If it is not the same for everyone, what is the map of how it works in multiple ways?

If intelligence is quantified then that simply means it does more or less with respect to what the problem is. So in your case, you specialized and cannot learn anything new. But you can have a huge amount of things happening at the same time in your head.

less intelligence = less things happening in the head
more intelligence = more things happening in the head

but learning is also important because we both need to learn and to think of things in the head.

 

[Black Rose]

If a problem requires you to solve 4 things at the same time and those 4 things are very basic, then most likely anyone can do it.

Wake up from bed, brush your teeth, eat breakfast, and go to work.

Simple.

If it requires 20 different simultaneous complex steps to be taken into consideration then that requires more thought. And not everyone can do it.

Temple Grandin once said: look at what they can do, not what they can't do.

Maybe that is what I am talking about.

 

[Black Rose]

Know where things are in spacetime (attention)

Abstract where they could be and what they will do

take action move them or place them

get a result, think about what to do next

applies to all stuff – ideas and even social

 

[ZenRaiden]

So I would divide intelligence into several function.

First of all the function of adaptation.
Second function of keep track of a goal.
Third a function of awareness.
Fourth function of memory.
Fifth function of thinking.
Sixth function of integrating or synthesizing.

So combinations of these function create intelligence in some sense.
They would be something like baseline units of function of the body and mind, that lead to variety of outcomes.

For instance IQ combines the function of thinking, memory, adaptation.
Thinking like seeing correlations of patterns, seeing logical pattern in random sort of symbols, ability to put 2 and 2 together. Using analysis.

Then its memory, where our minds hold information and use reference of past to correlate it with present.

Then its adaptation, the ability to flex ones mind in certain time span, the ability to throw out ideas that don't work, dead ends, ability to think in correspondence of the information given, using specific limit on how to reason etc.

There is also element of awareness, like correlating 2D image with 3D world, and being able subsequently able to reason out the 2D relations as if they are 3D.

IQ is often correlated with abstracting, but IQ as far as I know does not measure abstracting in synthetic form, creative, things, goal tracking.

Also someone who is fluid in intellect, is going to be adaptive more, compared to more rigid people, who maybe smart, but unable to solve problems in real life that fluid intelligence can.
So someone rigid, but intelligent will score low on timed IQ test, but if you give them lest say enough time, they might solve problems that even fluid intelligent people cannot solve no matter how much time they are given.

So I would say adaptive people can solve many problems in short span of time ergo squeeze more of their IQ in less favorable conditions.

 

[dr froyd]

human intelligence is mostly a cultural concept, and it's applied in haphazard ways depending on circumstances. You can have a math genius who can solve math equations but not being able to reason their way out of a paper bag in real life. Then you have people who are good at scamming and defrauding people but wouldn't know what 2 + 2 is. Human intelligence is a set of abilities that are human; being able to think about abstract and concrete concepts, understanding other humans, having wisdom and self-awareness, being curious (about the right things), etc etc

this is why machines can never be intelligent, almost by definition. They can only be as smart as the rules we program into them. These rules are based on what we humans want to achieve - they reflect our goals and desires. A machine cannot want to achieve anything by itself

 

[Black Rose]

Humans wanting things depends on personality. Making a machine intelligent depends on the same as children depend on their parents. So a machine is just as intelligent as we want it to be like we have in our children.

The math behind child-parent relationships (intelligence transfer) is the same math we can use for humans to machines. Children learn rules, they are not pre-programmed with rules. They are programmed on how to learn via DNA. A pre-structure for machines to learn exists.

 

[Black Rose]

human intelligence is mostly a cultural concept, and it's applied in haphazard ways depending on circumstances.

Human intelligence is a set of abilities that are human; being able to think about abstract and concrete concepts, understanding other humans

Given a set of finite resources, what can be done with those resources?

Humans survived tens of thousands of years with practically nothing, and then tools were invented. When we had them we could make things. But not everyone could use them. It took school and training with most tools to be used generally. But those who could do many things simultaneously in their heads had advantages. They could make tools do things other people could not make them do. They had versatility.

 

[Black Rose]

At the base of animals is dopamine.
Dopamine tells you if something is working or not.
The brain grew around it, to inhibit wrong actions.
Instincts were built-in "right" actions.

So learning is the brain's ability to see the consequences of given actions, And then to extrapolate what they will be in different situations. The brain needs to correlate actions with consequences, correlate situations with other situations and when necessary correct itself in what it has learned.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Humans survived tens of thousands of years with practically nothing

First of all humans and animals have needs, that they can fulfill in nature.
Humans evolved from animals that lived for thousands of years in nature with nothing.
So we are civilized for some 10 000 years.
Humans according to best guess existed for 200 000 years.
Our ancestors emerged 4.2 mil years ago.
So generally our brains were being trained for 4.2 mil years just to get where they are, by trial and error.
That means you need a simulator that can simulate the complexity of natural world for 4.2 mil years to baby an AI to present day human. But you also need to include the body as well, because our brains are only part of sensing and perception.
Our bodies are part of our mind and are part of who we are.
So essentially to simulate a complex AI you need lots of lots of simulation.
If average humanoid had 20 years of life, that would mean you need to multiplay 4.2 mil years times 20 and then account for variety of experiences and DNA evolution.
But since humans were limited by transfer of DNA and mixing, that evolution might be speed up. The trouble and good thing about slow evolution is that slow evolution of species mean, that your DNA had been tested so many times in so many ways, that only those who get to survive get to pass it on, and those who fail don't that it means that even things that are so weird and unlikely for AI get to be part of your DNA so much so that even situations where new things emerge your ancestors might have in some sense experience a variation of something similar.

 

[Black Rose]

So essentially to simulate a complex AI you need lots of lots of simulation.

That is only if we do not know what intelligence is.

If it is a matter of coordination we can simplify the training to get everything working together.

That means we take a top-down approach.

The simulation is not happening in the environment it's happening in the AI

So it simulates what would happen in its cognition.

There is no trial and error except at the lowest level.

Once it learns what its body does it extrapolates that to all domains of possibility.

It then takes a measured approach to all variables involved when asked to do something.

 

[ZenRaiden]

That is only if we do not know what intelligence is.

What is intelligence= smart stuff
What is smart stuff= intelligence
How do we recognize smart and intelligent stuff = by being smart and intelligent
Therefore we know what intelligence is.
How come so many smart people working on AI and we still don't have it.
Some puzzle must be missing.

 

[Black Rose]

How come so many smart people working on AI and we still don't have it.

I am on welfare checks. So why do I not have a private jet? do they exist?

Yes, private jets exist even if I personally am on welfare.

Some puzzle must be missing.

The only barrier is ethics.

When machines have human abilities people will get upset.

Many people understand intelligence and computers well enough to make them.

But they know the consequences if they enter the public domain too soon.

 

[ZenRaiden]

I don't mind AI taking my job, any job I had is not worth the human effort.
Luddites were kind of proven wrong.

I am on welfare checks. So why do I not have a private jet? do they exist?

Yes, private jets exist even if I personally am on welfare.

There is a clear path to getting a private jet. You just never wanted one enough to put in the effort. So I am not sure that stands as argument.
There is specific amount of cash you need to own and run a private jet.
Attaining that amount means you need x amount of it.
There are thousands of people flying in private jets.

Better argument if you want one would be, why people have not yet landed on Mars.
But even that is doable if we put in the effort.
Specifically nothing technology wise is stopping humans from landing on Mars and building a base. We know how to do it, in theory.

So what you seem to be saying there is specific AI theory, out there, but since no one has the effort and focus to do it, we still don't have it.

Also come on, how many people will stop developing an AI just because it takes jobs, such ethical considerations are something I wonder if people are really up to.
We kind of talk about it, but honestly I don't know that it will stop someone from developing AI, that could effectively eliminate many jobs.

 

[Black Rose]

Better argument if you want one would be, why people have not yet landed on Mars.

So what you seem to be saying there is specific AI theory, out there, but since no one has the effort and focus to do it, we still don't have it.

If I try hard I can add and subtract 2-digit numbers.

John Von Neumann could multiply 8-digit numbers together.

The person on the Kurzweil forum said he could do calculus in his head.

That means integration and differentiation. Without pen or paper.

So yes people could make such AI theory if they tried.

But then why give it to people?

How would they use it?

It would be like giving a 7-year-old kid an adult car.

7-year-old kids don't understand insurance maintenance traffic laws or anything else related to adult transportation. But in this analogy, they can vote. They can vote for car plants to be run in old ways and to build monster trucks to run people over in traffic because it is cool. And they can vote to get schools shut down where they teach people to build cars. they can vote for cars to be used in ways they should not. Maybe they vote all cars to be Barbie cars.

That is why most people do not pass high school, because if you give them tests for building computer chips and they never studied computer chips but only simple maths like plot lines and graphs, do you expect them to push the right buttons to make cool chip designs? The computer chip CPU was designed in 1950's by Von Neuman. However, chip design was not taught in schools for a long time. Only is taught today at university and gifted classes.

The best analogy is video games.

Can people make video games? yes.

Can people make the best video games? what is best?

In the past stuff like this:

1995

Today stuff like this:

2024

What does that mean for AI?

It means that AI theory is now doable on machines that are one billion times faster than 1995.

So it is not like going to Mars, it is like computers.

 

[Black Rose]

A.I. Then and Now​

The conference where the term “Artificial Intelligence” was first used was the Dartmouth Conference in 1955. The programming language “LISP” was developed in the 1950’s. In the 1960’s computers were still in development but the biggest A.I. theory was The Perceptron. In the 1970’s the Perception Action model was developed. In the 1980’s Knowledge Systems such as Apple’s Siri were developed. In the 1990’s Working Memory systems such as ACT-OR were developed and could play video games.

2001 to 2009 Temporal Hierarchy Memory was developed.

2010 to 2019 Parallel Systems for GPU’s increased the big data approach.

Today: Virtual Humans are being developed.

 

[ZenRaiden]

John Von Neumann could multiply 8-digit numbers together.

The person on the Kurzweil forum said he could do calculus in his head.

Yes those are fixed skill sets.
Just like throwing knives or reading fast, or doing a back flip.

AI is a complex system, that requires a lot of mental effort.

There were millions of people smart as Von Neuman before none of them figured out flight or levers, or Archimedes screws or Pythagoras theorem.

You are exchanging skills that we know how to do with knowledge we don't have.
IQ is nice, but not enough to solve problems like AI.

Figuring out new things requires time, innovative creative thinking, and trial and error, and maybe keep tracking of all kinds of information and learning lots of skill sets, like setting up experiments, making hypothesis, making the right conclusions, strategies and tactics for procedures and development etc.

So its like saying juggling is equal to being a circus clown.
One is just a skill, the other requires you to jump through 100s of different hoops.

So I don't think having a big brain is enough for AI.
It certainly helps though, but its just not enough to lift few weights to be Olympic athlete, so its not enough to know how to do 8 digits in your head just to be AI expert.

I think people genuinely lack the ability to understand mental effort it takes to develop something.

If IQ made people see behind corners, or IQ made people understand unknowns then IQ would be a sure fire way to develop anything.

But if you look at projects like say NASA development of fighter jets or space craft none of the smart people there would dare say it was easy or doable.

My main point though is you are putting massive emphasis on IQ virtually in every post, like its some magic skills that magically solves things.
I feel like you would do well to find someone as smart and work with them to realize that its really not that big of deal. Its more about how much effort and diligence is put in.

Realistically I can be a dumb mofo, but if I put lets say 40 hours of work into something, a person who has IQ 150 with lets say 10 hours of work will never have equal understanding.
Trouble with IQ is it does help, in as much as knowing things deeper, more abstract and more complex. Which AI is, but its like you think that alone somehow makes things magically happen. It does not.

 

[Black Rose]

Trouble with IQ is it does help, in as much as knowing things deeper, more abstract and more complex. Which AI is, but its like you think that alone somehow makes things magically happen. It does not.

I think you are the one who might be jumping to conclusions about what it takes to do AI - And what IQ is, is not a placeholder for what you think I refer to when I describe "Intelligence".

Ability is not skill, skill is not "General" intelligence.

Fixed skills are not intelligence. Intelligence is autodidactic.

AI is about being able to do more than humans, the smartest autodidact.

I could say that you conclude that magical things just happen but I understand IQ tests better than average and the brain and computers and the history of A.I. - IQ tests are samples of what people can do not the same as the mechanism of how that happens. If we had samples in billions of numbers of billions of things people can do then IQ would make sense in what you refer to as, "not a fixed skill set". but IQ samples only a thousand things made from years ago on paper.

The problem is that you think it takes billions in cash to make an AI. That is true if we say it takes billions of dollars to make one car because it takes an entire economy. But one cheap car cost less than $1,000. Elon Musk sent a car to space for millions of dollars but that is not how cars nor AI is made.

I read books, books on how intelligence works and I read books on the brain. Right now they can simulate one brain in Europe on a supercomputer. But AI is not the same as having the same amount of data as the brain with every connection because quality matters. Any brain can be smart if it is put together the right way.

What matters to AI is how it is structured to change. Brain cells change very slowly and not all of them at the same time, and brains cannot handle a lot of information when solving problems about the outside world.

AI would get things done by thinking about how things work. Trial and error would be mainly corrected by thinking ahead. What are the results of my actions and what should I do to learn the most correct actions? that is called meta-learning.

Top-down approaches work. They work to control agents that understand environments and think ahead. When it comes to humans and AI, how far one can think ahead in any area of thought determines the level of intelligence they have.

 

[scorpiomover]

Trouble with IQ is it does help, in as much as knowing things deeper, more abstract and more complex. Which AI is, but its like you think that alone somehow makes things magically happen. It does not.

I think you are the one who might be jumping to conclusions about what it takes to do AI - And what IQ is, is not a placeholder for what you think I refer to when I describe "Intelligence".

Ability is not skill, skill is not "General" intelligence.

Fixed skills are not intelligence. Intelligence is autodidactic.

AI is about being able to do more than humans, the smartest autodidact.

That might be. But being an autodidact is about seeking out knowledge and learning for oneself, not because one was given a set of data to study. For AIs to become autodidacts, they'd have to start seeking out information on their own, about topics they were never told to study, and using sources that they were never told to study.

That in itself requires either will or a personal interest, which in turn requires the self to choose what to do. So that requires self-awareness and an ability to choose for oneself. I don't know that most people would like AIs to start making their own choices and doing what they want to do.

Further, when you do study for yourself, you cannot guarantee that everything you read will be true or useful. So in order to be an autodidact, you have to start making choices for yourself on what is true and what is false.

AIs seem to be mostly trained on data sets. They are told what to study and learn.

Moreover, it seems that it's very easy for AIs that were set to read social media, to develop extremely racist attitudes. They've also had a habit of giving back answers that seem coherent, but are actually baseless. In other words, they don't seem to filter out the false data.

The main quality going for them is that they can produce text and images that are coherent to your average human. But that quality is absent in many autodidacts.

So it seems that they have the qualities that are not necessary to be an autodidact, and they lack the 2 qualities that is necessary to be an autodidact.

The problem is that you think it takes billions in cash to make an AI. That is true if we say it takes billions of dollars to make one car because it takes an entire economy. But one cheap car cost less than $1,000. Elon Musk sent a car to space for millions of dollars but that is not how cars nor AI is made.

Most of those billions is spent on developing the first car. The rest are copies.

Once someone makes a valid AI, they can copy its hard drive and make lots more, just like cars. So in the case of AIs, it would make more sense if the vast majority of their costs will be due to development costs.

AIs have to be far smarter than cars. So it would make sense that it would cost at least billions, and maybe trillions.

OTOH, it is possible for a plucky engineer to make his own car. Likewise, it's possible for a plucky coder to make his own AI. But that usually requires replacing money will the skill, self-learning, and hard work, perseverance & dedication of those humans involved in making such an AI.

AI would get things done by thinking about how things work. Trial and error would be mainly corrected by thinking ahead. What are the results of my actions and what should I do to learn the most correct actions? that is called meta-learning.

Sure. But it still involves the same sorts of decision-making processes that would be required to learn a subject and practise with it to gain expertise. So if it doesn't have those abilities yet, meta-learning is not likely to make those abilities develop magically.

 

[Black Rose]

So it seems that they have the qualities that are not necessary to be an autodidact, and they lack the 2 qualities that is necessary to be an autodidact.

That is because they cannot test false and true information.

If AI could test things they would be able to know what is true and false.

OTOH, it is possible for a plucky engineer to make his own car. Likewise, it's possible for a plucky coder to make his own AI. But that usually requires replacing money will the skill, self-learning, and hard work, perseverance & dedication of those humans involved in making such an AI.

Highly Smart people do grand engineering projects on their own all the time.

I said AI is not here because of ethics, not technical feasibility.

Society is not ready for AI that thinks for itself.

Sure. But it still involves the same sorts of decision-making processes that would be required to learn a subject and practise with it to gain expertise. So if it doesn't have those abilities yet, meta-learning is not likely to make those abilities develop magically.

magic is not the issue

The issue is that you do not know how it would be done so think it is magic.

Decision-making happens by transfer learning.

First, the AI is taught basic things then it learns what is true and false by experience.

Agent models work this way.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Claim: Smart people can make AI.
Counter Claim: AI is hard to make, being smart is not enough.
Claim: You do not understand the magic of smart and AI, therefore your counter claim is wrong.
If you realize how your claim is outlandish, you can see why people would sort of not take it at face value.
Namely because a) AI is not common technology that we have. b) Plenty people smart people still claim AI does not exist. Especially people working on AI.

 

[Black Rose]

Claim: Smart people can make AI.
Counter Claim: AI is hard to make, being smart is not enough.
Claim: You do not understand the magic of smart and AI, therefore your counter claim is wrong.
If you realize how your claim is outlandish, you can see why people would sort of not take it at face value.
Namely because a) AI is not common technology that we have. b) Plenty people smart people still claim AI does not exist. Especially people working on AI.

I cannot make video games because I am not smart enough.

Therefore I conclude videogames are magic.

Sure you do not have to believe me when I say I understand AI and intelligence.

But you are not taking the time to look at what I said about how it works.

All you do is say: No matter how you explain the "how", I always question it because other people say your "conclusion" is wrong.

So,

BR say: AI works because xyz

You say: people say AI does not work

BR say again: xyz makes AI work

You say: no it is magic because others say it is magic

-

You do not or are not willing to understand my views because other people say my views are wrong. That is unscientific and just stupid.

 

[ZenRaiden]

You do not or are not willing to understand my views because other people say my views are wrong. That is unscientific and just stupid.

No scientific means /you show the thing like AI to work.
Then scientist will say OK so it looks like AI lets test it like AI until we find a way it does not work like an AI thus proving its not an AI.
Then the AI keeps proving scientists it can solve all the AI problems, again and again and again, and then scientist will have to give up and say OK it is AI.

You are currently claiming you developed AI.

 

[Black Rose]

You do not or are not willing to understand my views because other people say my views are wrong. That is unscientific and just stupid.

No scientific means /you show the thing like AI to work.
Then scientist will say OK so it looks like AI lets test it like AI until we find a way it does not work like an AI thus proving its not an AI.
Then the AI keeps proving scientists it can solve all the AI problems, again and again and again, and then scientist will have to give up and say OK it is AI.

You are currently claiming you developed AI.

AI would do what scientists do.

So then we have the theory of how AI would do this.

Building an AI to do science would mean we understand how science works.

Because we understand how science works AI is not impossible.

 

[ZenRaiden]

So then we have the theory of how AI would do this.

We have theories multiple theories, and many untested.

We need a scientific theory, like the one Einstein made, and was proven correct.
So you make AI and then we test it and it works.
Then we can call that AI scientific theory.

So theoretical untested models, are many of AI. We could probably find millions of people claiming that.

I remember reading a adolescent science mag, where the article was about people submitting equations that prove Einstein was wrong. It happens to this day.
SO even today there are people trying to disprove Einstein, tirelessly working overtime writing his equations and finding errors in them.

That is how science works actually.

If somehow tomorrow someone comes with a evolution is not true fact, we will have to abandon evolution theory, and start from scratch.
Say they find that DNA cannot mutate the way we thought it would.
Say the DNA will become corrupt over long time, no matter how hard we try.
Say they find that Darwins finches are really only remotely related and are actually not related. etc.
This actually still might happen.
Science is full of surprises.

 

[Black Rose]

A theory of AI is a theory of Intelligence.

Many people try to disprove Intelligence.

I try and make Intelligence understandable so we can build AI

 

[birdsnestfern]

Howard Gardners intelligences:

Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences

The theory of multiple intelligences suggests eight types of intelligence that people may possess. Learn about Gardner's multiple intelligences and how they're used.

www.verywellmind.com

 

[Black Rose]

So I think I got it.

We can know where things are.

And we can get them to be somewhere else.

It depends on what we want.

Wants lead to decisions and intelligence is the means to it.

In all the ways something can be done,

the minimum path is usually taken.

So it is important to weigh options and implement actions.

This is done with attention and memory.

Thinking ahead to complete tasks.

Intelligence = wants(knowing → doing)