> 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.
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.