My definition (again, as a layman on the subject of intelligence philosophy), bu...

exe34 · 2024-10-07T16:17:20 1728317840

> I guess I just think more highly of my fellow humans.

As an article of faith, yes. But I don't see what this adds to the discussion.

dartos · 2024-10-07T16:37:48 1728319068

> If that's what you've picked for your threshold of "intelligence", you've reduced the majority of the bell curve's left side to soulless automatons

I disagree with this statement, which is the crux of their argument against my definition of intelligence.

I don’t think any credible survey of the intelligence or lack of a large enough population exists (due to there not being a common binary measure of intelligence), so it’s an issue you kind of need to take on faith.

ImHereToVote · 2024-10-07T16:44:00 1728319440

>so it’s an issue you kind of need to take on faith.

Thanks for playing.

dartos · 2024-10-07T16:51:56 1728319916

It cuts both ways… you need to believe that most humans aren’t actually intelligent as we don’t have any data that suggests that most humans aren’t.

exe34 · 2024-10-07T18:26:17 1728325577

you have no data that suggests I can't fly either.

dartos · 2024-10-07T23:45:59 1728344759

… but… we do have data that proves that humans can’t just fly?

I think… I’m done talking with you now.

exe34 · 2024-10-08T06:22:33 1728368553

you just like your assumptions to go unchallenged. goodbye!