If you can’t define it you cannot say where it is present or not.

forlorn_mammoth 20 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"...

	▲	qsera 6 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I think it is useless as a definition, so not even a poor one. But here you go, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47918103

▲

sublinear 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_(mathematics)