[welferkj]

Unfortunately for the intelligence denial crowd, introspection and learning capability is something we can measure, as opposed to the vibes-based discourse you prefer to engage in. 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. Again, your definition, not mine.

[dartos]

My definition (again, as a layman on the subject of intelligence philosophy), but your incorrect analysis.

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

[exe34]

> 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]

> 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]

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

Thanks for playing.

[dartos]

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]

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

[dartos]

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

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

[exe34]

you just like your assumptions to go unchallenged. goodbye!