Intelligence?

This is a Sunday Temy blog and y'all know what that means, right? Nah, me neither, but we can be fairly sure it'll be a rambling, diarrhea-of-the-keyboard, stream-of-consciousness, kind of thing, hopefully with at least a gem or two if you're willing to dig deep enough. Before I get too far afield or into the quicksand... I was having an IM chat with a friend earlier and I mentioned how sometimes I get frustrated writing blogs because you can explain all day, every day - theoretically - to righties why socialism is a good thing (according to Einstein) and to lefties why there should not be such restrictive gun laws and non of them ever seem to get it...any more that explaining to religious folk why atheism is true doesn't result in hoards of former Christians, Muslims, Jews, et al, wanting to know more.

She mentioned how a friend had posted on FB comparing FB to an asylum and we users as patients. She told her FB is much better than asylum cuz if you poke someone or write on walls in asylum you get put in isolation. (I look around me and think, in my case, the analogy may be more apt.) She allowed as to how it might be a case of the lunatics running the asylum and I averred I had a disquieting notion maybe only the lunatics have the brains to run an asylum. Which brings us back around, just to the left of the quicksand, in mentioning that Hitler (or at least the regime) had some good ideas, though for absurd reasons. In case you might possibly be a newbie to this blogging thing, there ain't many ways to get verbally crucified quicker by some lefties than saying Hitler had a good idea, or liking yer Rebel flag or defending the right keep and bear arms. Not many ways to avoid that kind of crucification (smarter Christians don't like the term "crucifiction") from righties if you mention you are an atheist or think socialism should rule the day. So...just why is it you can explain 'X' and back it up with science, empirical facts, etc. and it almost never seems to change anyone's mind?

For example, I have often asked believers in God or gods what would convince them no such thing(s) exist and, surprisingly often, an honest answer to that pops up: "Nothing". On the other hand, you'd have to look a while (though it can be done) to find an atheist who would answer that there is "nothing" that could convince them that a God or gods exist. The usual answer is that credible evidence would do it. For the majority of god believers, "evidence" seems to have about as much value as a fresh can of smegma to the question. Others though, have an evidence bent and typically use bent evidence to support the claims.

My friend Jordan Se. (an appellative he assigns himself to mean 'self-educated') claims to be a former atheist who now describes himself as a 'fundamentalist libertarian Christian', leans heavily on 'evidence' and has read (and debated) extensively the works of many atheist and religious scholars. When pressed, he insists that the resurrection is the single most compelling piece of evidence he sees that God exists and is real. To people who take such arguments seriously, on either side, this basic position is sometimes known as LLL or "liar, lunatic or Lord", popularized in Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. Although the 'LLL' is an amazingly weak argument, logically speaking, if given only those three possibilities, which do you pick? For most atheists the obvious answer will apply equally well to the biblical Jesus and David Koresh... either or both 'liar and lunatic'? For most Christians the obvious!? answer is Lord. A big question is just what is it in the brains that causes the difference between these 'choices'? How many understand that there are other possible choices besides these three? Maybe there was no Jesus, maybe there were many Jesuses, maybe alien beings used extremely advanced technology to resurrect Jesus, etc.

Define intelligence. If you check that link you see that ain't easy and if you simply look around you you see it's damn close to impossible. What does it mean to be intelligent? Can non-humans be intelligent? What about Watson, the computer that beat not one but two of the best players Jeopardy ever had? Could YOU beat either of those guys in Jeopardy? I'm assuming you're honest enough to say no...does, that mean Watson is more intelligent than you? But then, could Watson understand the nuances of the sentence "I shot an elephant wearing my pajamas", or what such a sentence even exists?

What's the difference between "the real world" and...anything else? The externally verifiable or objective world and the purely sensed internal or subjective world? The "everyday" world of human existence or the subatomic or quantum world? Why do most people think "spirits" can and do exist, while millions of others think they cannot? How far within the "common consensus" does a thing have to be, in order to be accepted as true? If you put all the people in the world who genuinely believe the earth is flat (or seriously question it) on one side of the scale and all other people on the other side, which weighs more? If you put all the people in the world who genuinely believe in anything "supernatural" on one side and all the people who say that's ridiculous on the other, which weighs more? Which is more likely to be right? Is 'number of believers' a factor in whether or not a thing is true? How can you determine what should or should not be considered as "evidence" for a thing?

Some people consider a statement to be profound, while others, say, "Huh?" Example: "Everyone dies alone." Profound or not? If we mean that all people who die are alone when they do, obviously that is not true. Tens of thousands died at virtually the same instant in Hiroshima. If we mean that no one else can have your experience of dying...so what? No one else can have your experience of getting a haircut...or eating supper. No one can experience what it's like for YOU to get a haircut or can eat YOUR supper. Is this profound?

Most ants lay down invisible hormone (scent) trails to lead other ants to the food source. Other ants "interpret" this trail and get to the food. How does this differ from saying, "A train 'interprets' the track it is on and gets to its destination"? Could either the ants or the trains suddenly decide, "Screw the trail (or track), I'll go where I please"? If society has laid down 'tracks' on which you must run, to what degree do you personally have the capacity to refuse to run on them? What might happen if a "rogue" ant (or train) went his own way? What might happen to you if you did? Is it more "intelligent" to follow the path or break away and try to make your own path?

Who is smarter, Mr. Spock or Mr. Data? Which is the superior being? Why? If you were going to be someone else, would you rather be one of them... or Q? When Captain Kirk said at Mr. Spock's funeral, "Of my friend, I can only say this...of all the souls I have encountered in my travels, his was the most...Human", was he being racist? Xenophobic? Disrespectful? Would Watson know the answer?

Ima have a sammich now.

TRB

P.S. Never mind Watson, are you smarter than the girl on "The Young Turks"?