[simoncion]

> I think context is the primary primitive property of intelligent systems in general?

What do you mean by 'context' in this context? As written, I believe that I could knock down your claim by pointing out that there exist humans who would do catastrophically poorly at a task that other humans would excel at, even if both humans have been fully informed of all of the same context.

[simoncion]

To clarify what I'm thinking here by analogy...

Imagine that someone said:

> I think wood is the primary primitive property of sawmills in general.

An obvious observation would be that it is dreadfully difficult to produce the expected product of a sawmill without tools to cut or sand or otherwise shape the wood into the desired shapes.

One might also notice that while a sawmill with no wood to work on will not produce any output, a sawmill with wood but without woodworking tools is vanishingly unlikely to produce any output... and any it does manage to produce is not going to be good enough for any real industrial purpose.

[neom]

My perspective ("context as primary primitive") was about context as the foundational prerequisite of intelligent performance. I'm discussing a scenario with the minimum conditions for any intelligent action, whether small scale or large scale. At risk of talking past each other due to nuance methinks and I'm a bit lazy to think it through properly but... I think there is something in saw vs sawmill? Like a scale thing? Either way I wasn't trying to be profound or anything, I was just saying I think context abilities is likely the first prerequisite for any minimally intelligent thing (maybe I shouldn't have used the word system in my original comment).