The Turk!
Sort:
Oof
Don't forget to mention the Loyalty of a rock FOS.
I had a friend who had a pet rock when he was growing up.
My friend told me his rock was very Loyal.
It never back stabbed him. It never talked bad about him. It was easy to talk too.
Five you are honestly the most pretentious person I've talked to in months
Idk man, I'm cool with people trolling if they're trying to be subtle about it.
abrahampenrose
Now, why did you have to bring facts and intelligence to this thread? I was having some great laughs reading FOS compare himself to a rock--successfully, I might add.
Aug 21, 2015
0
#28
That's not "a" rock, it's "The" Rock.
Your average rock is so lazy, it just sits on the ground. If they wanted to do something, they would have done it by now.
Aug 21, 2015
0
#29
The latest defenition I've heard of intelligence is that it is the possibility to solve problems you've never encountered before. Which means, if true, that solving a chess puzzle by a grandmaster isn't a sign of intelligence. A chess puzzle solved by a toddler — or a rock — certainly is.
abrahampenrose wrote:
Intelligence can be defined as an emergent phenomenon. An emergent phenomenon is when a complex property arises from a number of simple entities operating in an environment.
Intelligence is an emergent phenomenon that emerges after a few layers of more and more complex emergent phenomenas.
At the lowest level there are the fundamental particles of the Standard Model of Physics, which are influenced by the 4 fundamental forces (weak, strong, electromagnetic, and gravity).
Then there arises this EP called the atom. And from atoms, molecules. And from molecules, biochemical structures. And from biochemical proteins, self-replicating biochemical sturctures (life). And from that, life that is capable of responding to the environment (simple life, i.e. plants) And from that, life that is intelligently capable of analyzing the environment and making active decisions (i.e. animals)Intelligence is an emergent phenomena that starts appearing at the level of animals and above. As for the silly argument that rocks are smart, they just don't like talking, that's is just a Bertrand's Teapot in Space Fallacy. Or in simpler terms, an Argument From Absence of Evidence. Which is not accepted in court or debate.
The statement which was made was believing a rock has Intelligence.
You said the below statement
"Or in simpler terms, an Argument From Absence of Evidence. Which is not accepted in court or debate. "
However, In court there is something called reasonable doubt!
In debate there is something called counter agrument!
Here is mine!
Many years ago,
People use to believe if they sailed a ship on the ocean to far, They would reach a point in which the ship would fall off the face of the earth.
They believed the world we live on "Earth" was flat.
They believed since the "Earth" was flat a ship would go to far to the edge of Earth and fall off the side into an abyss.
Many people, sailors, scientist, even royality believed in this assumption.
They believed in a false idea based off of no Evidence at all.
It was an assumption. The assumption proved to be incorrect. Evidence later on showed this to be incorrect.
Pictures of earth for example.
However, They lacked the Evidence for them to understand the world was not flat.
^^^^^^^
You are saying, we are making an Argument with the Absence of Evidence.
However, Are you making a false assumption with the Absence of Evidence like the people above?
How can you say conclusively 100% that a rock does not have Intelligence with out any shred of evidence?
melvinbluestone wrote:
DrSpudnik wrote:
If rocks are intelligent, they have little to show for it.
Well, what could rocks do? What do they do that could be interpreted as 'intelligent'?
Let's see..... they orchestrate landslides, they're a key component of volcanic eruptions, and once in a while they fall off cliffs and squash things. Rumour has it that that's how Ambrose Bierce died.
Come to think of it, that's a lot more than I've ever accomplished.......
I could agrue they have superior cordination in there landslides schemes. I believe humans do not have such a cordination.
What if the Landslide is there way of being aggressive.
or
It could be there way of being afriad and showing fear running away in a cordinated fashion like a stampede.
Which is seen in the animal kingdom.
So , when someone says " you are as smart as a box of rocks " thats a compliment now ? ! 
Reb wrote:
So , when someone says " you are as smart as a box of rocks " thats a compliment now ? !
Who says it was ever an insult?
It has been a compliment for years in my book. When was there a change? I didn't even notice it becoming an insult.
Based on FOS's own comments, one can conclude he has the intelligence of a rock.
Aug 21, 2015
0
#37
Fiveofswords wrote:
i swear the internet is a great place for educated people to try to discuss complex topics with high school dropouts. i have already described conciousness as an emergent phenomena. but this is insufficient as a definition. i would agree that natural selection was involved for the intelligence we currently see...but that plus the claim that it happens 'somewhere around animals' is not a reasonable definition at all...but it does logically conclude that ai is impossible since there was not natural selection and computers arent animals. so grats on settling the debate by defining intelligence poorly. by the way logical positivism is the fancy name for the silly teapot thing (they only speak of teapots to help laity understand the theory). but you are confusing the concept. there is a difference between claiming that rocks are intelligent but it is impossible to measure and that intelligence in general is impossible to measure because it has an unquantitative definition.
Have rocks evolved?
Some of my best friends are rocks; some are very gneiss. Of course they've evolved, but prefer the term metamorphosed.
Fiveofswords wrote:
i swear the internet is a great place for educated people to try to discuss complex topics with high school dropouts. i have already described conciousness as an emergent phenomena. but this is insufficient as a definition. i would agree that natural selection was involved for the intelligence we currently see...but that plus the claim that it happens 'somewhere around animals' is not a reasonable definition at all...but it does logically conclude that ai is impossible since there was not natural selection and computers arent animals. so grats on settling the debate by defining intelligence poorly. by the way logical positivism is the fancy name for the silly teapot thing (they only speak of teapots to help laity understand the theory). but you are confusing the concept. there is a difference between claiming that rocks are intelligent but it is impossible to measure and that intelligence in general is impossible to measure because it has an unquantitative definition.
In response to the text in Orange.
I was not using it as a definition more as an example. Which could be inherent in other beings on earth.
In response to the text in Blue.
Are you sure about that?
Natural Selection - the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring.
Environment - the surroundings or conditions in which a person, animal, or plant lives or operates.
The definition of the word Environment only shows person, animal, and plants.
However, They have only added those three because they have no proof of another entity. Now if we was to assume computers were another entity and were on there than imagine the below.
One could agrue computers operate online/ on the internet. I.E that is there environment.
If you had a computer from 1980 vs one from 2015. I would recon the 2015 computer would adapt to their environment alot better than one from 1980.
Which would go against the claim Natural Selection is impossible.
Furthermore, I know what you are thinking. Do computers produce offspring?
Well who is to say they don't produce offspring? How would and individual know what is going on in cyber space?
Furthermore, On a funny side note:
How do you explain computers getting transmitted disease such as "Viruses"
Obviously something went down. We are just totally unaware of it. Completely Oblivious!
You could claim a hacker did it. However, How do you know it wasn't a computer who did it.
You could say humans built computers. However, That really is not a very good assessment. Since humans have also built/created other things which normally would of never been built or created.
For example:
Humans have built/created different plants and animals in laboratorys.
In response to the text in Red.
I would agrue. I explained intellegence very well. I found the niche in the agrument. I exploited it.
Which was my point there is no way to measure.
HAHAHAHAHAHHA I read this whole agruement
#Brilliant.
Yeah you tell him FOS.
Who says a rock has no Intelligence.
Intelligence is defined by the ability to acquire and use knowledge and skills. Can a rock do this?
What if the rock has extremely high Intelligence and is playing Possum.
What if it is pretending to be dumb!
Where is your proof that a rock is dumb!
I would like to see your sources on your opinon that a rock has no intelligence. What an outragious assumption you have made with no facts.
An what about Plants?
Do you believe plants have no Intelligence or sentience?
I seen a plant eat a fly!
How did the plant know the fly was there?
Yeah you think about that one mister!