| |
| ▲ | forlorn_mammoth 18 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | yeah! Just like gravity, which we all know is, uh, umm, uh, hold on a second, Wait, I meant light, yeah, photons! It's photons all the way down! And what are photons you ask? shit, no more questions. Got to go. | |
| ▲ | qsera 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | That is not true. We can detect the presence of a thing by the observation of something it causes. That does not imply we have a good definition of the thing. At that point, we can only define it as something that causes this observation. And that is not very useful. | | |
| ▲ | horsawlarway an hour ago | parent [-] | | We might both agree its a poor definition, but at least it's a poor definition that's observable and neutral. That's useful in regards to this conversation. Where as the other answer is simply "I can't say, but it's not [this]" and that isn't useful at all. It's simply opinion, which is literally the worst definition around. Personally, I don't define intelligence as "whatever qsera acknowledges as intelligence with no qualifying context"... | | |
| |
| ▲ | sublinear 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_(mathematics) |
|
