Actual Intellect and wisdom, versus that which is false

[Sholl]

^Sure is a catchy title, no?

I made this thread for two reasons.

One, I wanted to get things moving, if only a little, here on the forum.

Two, I wanted to retest the waters outside the intro forum.

Three, this is a question I've been wracking my mind over for quite some time.

Three reasons.

Anyway, the question at hand: It may seem difficult to believe, but I have been called smart several times. Wise too. However, when I ask the person claiming such drivel to back up their claims with evidence of this alleged wisdom, or intellect, or whathaveyou, they stutter around a bit, or tell me to prove I'm not.

I know me. I get mediocre grades, and know that deep down, beneath it all, I really am just sorta' average. What I do know, however, is the written and spoken language, and how to manipulate it in my favor.

This is not intelligence, however. This is but a skill, just as the ability to manipulate a needle and thread is a skill, and the ability to cook a very good meal is a skill.

So I ask, collective community of dragnix.net, how can an outsider discern between a fake intelligence propped up by the gift of gab, and an actual, intelligent person?

[Forgotten Dragon's Ire]

I would say that the mere pondering of whether or not you are intelligent shows intelligence. You see the very way you go about dissecting each answer is in itself proving your intelligence. Gift of language skills may be able to mask someones intelligence a tad but not to the degree you are suggesting. If you say you get average grades so you are thereby not all that intelligent you are doing yourself an injustice because grades are not the only indicator of intelligence and ofttimes it is not the best. Intelligence is your ability to comprehend ideas and by trying to break down the thoughts of you being intelligent and going at it in the manner you are talking about, which seems very Socratic to me, must mean you have intelligence.


Anyone can maneuver a thread, maneuvering a thread well takes intelligence to find the most efficient way.

[Sholl]

If you say you get average grades so you are thereby not all that intelligent you are doing yourself an injustice because grades are not the only indicator of intelligence and ofttimes it is not the best

I'll agree with this.

Intelligence is your ability to comprehend ideas and by trying to break down the thoughts of you being intelligent and going at it in the manner you are talking about, which seems very Socratic to me, must mean you have intelligence.

But disagree with this. If a person, skilled in the ways of the written word, were able to know the intricacies of each word, the subtle meanings and syntaxes the words carried, could someone of average intelligence be perceived as having a great intellect? An intelligent person may have the knowledge, but the communicability of the intelligent person may not be as grand as the word-smith, so in some cases, could the word smith not be seen as being the smarter of the two?

I'm not claiming to be smart, but in the same breath, I'm not claiming to be dumb, either.

[vampirehunter42]

Ah, the age old question of "What is intelligence" and "What is wisdom."


Well Merriam-Webster says, on intelligence:

(1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : reason; also : the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests)

So, it is about how well you are able to think and the ability to apply known ideas to help with unknown ones. And the ability to adapt to new problems. I helps you think out side the box. With the sewing example above, while you can teach a chimp to sew with a needle and thread, and maybe follow a line. Intelligence is the ability to come up with new ways to sew and how to deal with problems that may occur while doing so.

And Merriam-Webster on wisdoms:

a : accumulated philosophic or scientific learning : knowledge
b : ability to discern inner qualities and relationships : insight
c : good sense : judgment
d : generally accepted belief

While, intelligence covers how well you can think through things. Wisdom is more the facts and how well you use them. Using the sewing example again. Wisdom allows you to look at a finished item and discern things about it. Like what type of stitch was used, what type of quality it is, if there was a price on it would it be worth that price and things like that.


But the main problem with both intelligence and wisdom, is they are almost set for person to person. But being strong in either is the ability to step outside the static line of thinking and throw new ideas at the problems that you face. Though, most of your life you only scratch the surface of this ability. And as far what this does for skills. Yes, many people have a skill. But few people can make a work of art.

[Sholl]

Intelligence is the ability to come up with new ways to sew and how to deal with problems that may occur while doing so.

But could a robot not conceivably be built to find new ways, if programmed with a set of 'laws' regarding aesthetics, efficiency, and design?

Like what type of stitch was used, what type of quality it is, if there was a price on it would it be worth that price and things like that.

Similarly, could a computer not also be capable of discerning these qualities, if preprogrammed to do so?

And if these new masters of metal and circuitry are capable of preforming the functions of wisdom and knowledge, then what value do they hold?

And as far what this does for skills. Yes, many people have a skill. But few people can make a work of art.

Erm, I dunno how much faith I put in art. Not anymore.

If you ever get a chance, see the documentary 'Exit Through the Gift Shop'. It's about street art, and some fantastic examples of art are created. Then MBW (Mr. Brain Wash) hires four people to create 'art' assembly line style, and MBW advertises the bejesus out of his gallery, and MBW is hailed as a genius, when really, he rushed along some patterns, threw them up on walls, called it art at the top of his lungs, and because of this, it was hailed as art.

So if we can percieve art so freely (for surely these people saw his work, and wanted to call it art, even though it lacked the soulful creation usually associated with art), could a computer not design art? Art is perception of design, and as long as we provide the passive role of perceivers, then we can project the idea of art anywhere, thusly eliminating the active role of creation given to us by artists.

If that's the case, this knowledge, and wisdom, and culture we have seems easily replaceable by machines. If so, then why does it feel so wrong to us?

[vampirehunter42]

Oh, you are talking AI.

And no, current technology does not have the ability to do that. For example Project Planet Hunters. They are currently having to go through a huge number of light curves of stars trying to find if any may have a planet. They thought of using a computer program to run through them and find them but the programing of that task would be near imposable.

To quote them

Computers are great at many things, but some tasks that are easy for humans are still extremely difficult for a computer. For instance, a small child can effortlessly tell hundreds of human faces apart, while computers still struggle with this seemingly basic task. Humans also have the capacity to recognize if something is odd or unexpected. So when scientists are faced with the task of analyzing complex data, the human brain is often better at sorting through it than a computer.

A "robotic mind" is not able to face new tasks unless programmed to do so. Computers do not "think" they just "do". As the quote says, while a task may seem "simple" to us. A robot would be unable to do it.

And I am talking about real art. Not pop art that only stays trendy for a couple of years, if that. Then dies off to the junk piles they resemble. True art can stand the test of time, and can still enjoyed by most anyone. Just because an elephant can sell a painting for $25,000, that does not mean it was a great work of art. A bunch of macaroni glued to printer paper may not be great art, but may stay on the refrigerator for years. Art is a time tested thing, and the world now days moves too quickly to allow that to happen. Yea, a "known artist" can yell at the top of his lungs, 'This is great art'. But that does not make it so. Some sheep will follow his words, but many others will just laugh at the statement. Did the documentary show those people? Or did they just edit the people who saw junk as junk? You can build a program to make art. But will it stand the test of time?

And yea a robot band like The Trons, can play awesome music. But that does not mean they are intelligent.

[Sholl]

I could argue that human minds are nothing but a collection of laws reacting to outside stimuli. Granted, there are many, many laws, and they are far too complex to even begin mimicking with robot-technology, but still, this could be the case.

My point with that documentary is people will find art anywhere. Art, I am beginning to believe, is all formed in the one perceiving the piece, and not the creator. All a machine needs to do is take a picture, and based on the activity of the photo (is the area loud? Is there a lot of movement?), in conjunction with pre-programmed notions of 'art' (just as we know, to some degree, what makes sense artistically), add color, or tint the photo, or any number of pre-programmed techniques.

Also, cool planet-hunters site.

[vampirehunter42]

Maybe "art" is the wrong word. If you are calling a 1st grader's macaroni picture "art" I need to use another word. I am thinking more the line of a masterpiece or a "work of art". And things like that can be found everywhere. There is a step from the common made item and a master crafted item. A computer may be able to reproduce art but it will not be able to create art. Maybe as the "infinite monkey theorem" goes, given an infinite number of monkeys and an infinite amount of time they will reproduce Shakespeare. That is not intelligence it is showing that given enough random chance anything can be reproduced as "art".

As far as the "documentary" I think I'll wait for it to be shown as either real or a mocumenatry before I use it as a reference. And I think this may be confusing finding beauty in an object and seeing it as art. I see the Saturn 5 rocket as a beautiful machine and one of the great builds of man. But I would not call it art.

[Sholl]

Maybe "art" is the wrong word. If you are calling a 1st grader's macaroni picture "art" I need to use another word.

I'm using art in reference to man's ability to find art anywhere.

Minimalist art:

http://becomingminimalist.files.wordpre ... canvas.jpg
http://www.artrocker.com/files/imagecac ... lism_0.jpg
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/825000/im ... ian300.jpg
http://www.wiggz.com/images/paintings/m ... inting.jpg

Even staring at a gray wall, man can see art, since art, in my opinion, is nothing more than the external turned inward. And since there is always an inward, and that makes a piece 'deep' or 'thought provoking', the external, in my opinion, is less important.

People will always think, and what I'm getting at is any thought or imagined fantasy we have is both deeply personal, and nonreplicable on any physical level. This is the reason artists always come out as perfectionists. No matter how hard they work on a piece, it will never match what they 'see'.

The viewer of art is in a similar boat. However, whereas our current pieces of art try to use patterns and shapes and colors to inspire some thought, in my mind, it is easily mimicked by a computer.

Brighter colors are happier
Darker colors are sadder
Smooth lines feel relaxed
jagged lines feel tense,

and so on, and so forth. I could literally fill a page with 'laws' of art, basic principles we all, on some level understand to be 'correct' when viewing some piece of aesthetic.

So if machines were meant to fill a gallery full of 'bad feeling' pieces of art, what type of lines would they 'know' to use? What type of colors?

The reason we like art is because it helps us think. But art, physical art, is a lot like Viagra, in that you may not need it to get the job done, but it does help.

The point of that mockumentary was not to devalue art, as much as it was to illustrate that man's capabilities to see art anywhere are all alive and well. I have literally stared at a section of carpet, thought of it as 'art', and instantly the weave of the fibers showed the intricacies of life, the subtle pattern demonstrated the fragility of existence, and the small part of the whole, to me, showed how small we are in the grand scheme of things.

The only difference in my mind, though, is that rather than being paraded around as art, it's helping to keep my floor comfortable, and typically does not fulfill the function of art.

That's my opinion. Art is no individual piece of canvas or clay, but rather the effect the exterior has on the individual.

[vampirehunter42]

Well, I agree on that use of the word. Just look at the crummy movies they keep shoveling out each year. But the problem with that thinking is most people are "sheep", and will see something as art because they are told so. Or just because it is trendy at the time.

But I call that finding beauty in all things. And in that there is no need for outside "skill" to make it so. When people go to the grand canyon, most will agree it is an amazing site. But will get the same feeling when they see the St. Louis Arch. We like to see things both natural and man made that we "like". But I don't call everything that does so "true art".

True art is not made to be liked. It is made so the artist can get these feelings out of his head. Real artist never really sat down and said, "I am going to make a masterpiece today". They are normally forgotten people who were only able to get maybe one out of a hundred pieces what they wanted to do. They will "sell out" on a number of works just so they can get ends to meet, but will keep their true works set aside to keep working on. For example Da Vinci worked on the Mona Lisa for many years, and still may not have finished it in his mind. While a machine can make a copy of the Mona Lisa, that does not mean it made true art.

I guess my thought is that, in the past, maybe one out of a thousand known pieces of "art" could be called "true art". But with the ease of publishing things and showing what you can put out these days. That number has dropped a lot. And I agree it is the fault of the computer this is so. Computers have taken the time and effort out of creating art. Mostly by speeding our lookout of life. And desensitized us with a huge number of regular (yet still good) art pieces.

But I do have to agree "art" is just a blanket term. And everyones blanket is a different size. Other than thinking of art as a Kingdom. I try to think of it as a Family or Genus. So only a small part of things people call art, I'll feel are "true art".

And the point of any mockumentery is to overplay the theme of the movie. Why else would it have been funny? They have some true bits to it but are over done to make a point. Much like This is Spinal Tap. A fun ribbing of the ageing rock world.

[Sholl]

Well, I agree on that use of the word. Just look at the crummy movies they keep shoveling out each year. But the problem with that thinking is most people are "sheep", and will see something as art because they are told so. Or just because it is trendy at the time.

I like giving people more credit. After all, they invented Pizza Rolls.

True art is not made to be liked. It is made so the artist can get these feelings out of his head. Real artist never really sat down and said, "I am going to make a masterpiece today". They are normally forgotten people who were only able to get maybe one out of a hundred pieces what they wanted to do. They will "sell out" on a number of works just so they can get ends to meet, but will keep their true works set aside to keep working on. For example Da Vinci worked on the Mona Lisa for many years, and still may not have finished it in his mind. While a machine can make a copy of the Mona Lisa, that does not mean it made true art.

I disagree. I think art is a distorted reflection of nature, ourselves, philosophy, or some combination of the three.

Though we have humans in charge of it now, I could easily see a time where machines can make art. All a mechanical brain needs are basic rules of human emotion, and how to incite it.

Consider the popular 10 minute-ish spray pain masterpieces. These are beautiful works, but are they art?

What if the artist painstakingly added each mountain boulder, each river drop, each star...Would it be art?

Most of the popular artists were, in fact, very good at art, and because they had the skill, they could churn out many, many more masterpieces than you or I. However, is a lifetime's work on a mediocre painting equivalent to, or greater than, the masterpieces of the artistic greats?

I guess my thought is that, in the past, maybe one out of a thousand known pieces of "art" could be called "true art". But with the ease of publishing things and showing what you can put out these days. That number has dropped a lot. And I agree it is the fault of the computer this is so. Computers have taken the time and effort out of creating art. Mostly by speeding our lookout of life. And desensitized us with a huge number of regular (yet still good) art pieces

See, I'm of the opposite mind. I believe computers have enhanced our culture of art, by allowing anyone, anywhere, to share anything they wish. Because of this, they can get art tips or suggestions, and are even able to go back and tweak the original piece, without risking losing the value of their original piece by creating two save documents.

And the point of any mockumentery is to overplay the theme of the movie. Why else would it have been funny? They have some true bits to it but are over done to make a point. Much like This is Spinal Tap. A fun ribbing of the ageing rock world.

Right, but would the reactions of the people surprise you? Let's replace the possibly-fictional character 'Mr. Brainwash' with Andy Warhol. Some see an amazing pop-artist. I see copy+paste, in addition to variations of the original's color.

[vampirehunter42]

See, I'm of the opposite mind. I believe computers have enhanced our culture of art, by allowing anyone, anywhere, to share anything they wish. Because of this, they can get art tips or suggestions, and are even able to go back and tweak the original piece, without risking losing the value of their original piece by creating two save documents.

Oddly, that is my argument on why computers are ruining art. The problem is information overload. While they may get some good tips on getting something better, they are just as likely to get bad tips. Bringing a sameness to things people work on. And why would you need tips from others when you are creating your artwork. Your artwork is something personal, and the great true artworks of the world have that in common.

So I am not really talking the aesthetic view of art, that is something taught in grade school. I am talking about an artist putting their sole into whatever they are working on. There is more to art than circles and boxes, and that is something that is not taught. It is something that a person just has in their mind, and is able to put that something out for others to experience.

Though the more I go on. The more I prove you right on everyone has their own view on art. I have a narrow code on what is 'true art' to me. You seem to have a wider view to what is art. And oddly, you feel that most if not all art is worthless due to that.

Though I will agree that a computer program can create art. But I also will agree that you can teach a chimp to create art. And teaching the chimp would be a lot easier than making the program. So does that make the chimp more intelligent than a computer? But this delves into the ground of self aware. Something AI has yet to attain, and has only be somewhat seen in animals.

[Sholl]

Oddly, that is my argument on why computers are ruining art. The problem is information overload. While they may get some good tips on getting something better, they are just as likely to get bad tips. Bringing a sameness to things people work on. And why would you need tips from others when you are creating your artwork. Your artwork is something personal, and the great true artworks of the world have that in common.

I would say information overload is not so bad with art, as it is with obtaining actual knowledge (knowledge pertinent to the 'real world'). We do lose a frame of reference on art, because back when art was traditional, there were few pieces that came to fruition, and because of this, everyone knew of them.

Now I agree that art, as a means of therapy, originate from ourselves in a fit of passion, and that yes, it can be deeply personal, but to create something for the purpose of being aesthetically pleasing, I believe, the artist would benefit from criticism. I believe the artist will use his or her best judgment to gauge whether or not the criticism is valuable, and the artist will surely seek out critics within his or her art genre (realists will seek help from realists, impressionists will seek out impressionists, etc.)

No matter how much tweaking they get from the outside, the artist will always have his or her individual style, his or her individual creations, individual color schemata, tone, etc.

So I am not really talking the aesthetic view of art, that is something taught in grade school. I am talking about an artist putting their sole into whatever they are working on. There is more to art than circles and boxes, and that is something that is not taught. It is something that a person just has in their mind, and is able to put that something out for others to experience.

Ah, now we are using the word art to define two different terms. I was speaking from the aesthetic point of view, where you were speaking from the therapeutic point of view. As a person who arts frequently to relieve stress, I must say, no amount of robotic influence will replace this piece of therapy.

Though I will agree that a computer program can create art. But I also will agree that you can teach a chimp to create art. And teaching the chimp would be a lot easier than making the program. So does that make the chimp more intelligent than a computer? But this delves into the ground of self aware. Something AI has yet to attain, and has only be somewhat seen in animals.

True, but self aware has little to do with aesthetics. Just give the program the 'know' of basic art rules (those we learn in elementary school, before we become fully self aware).

So, in conclusion, art as a form of aesthetics can be given to machines, but art, as a function of passion, will always belong to man.

[zerince]

ok i read some of this and skipped the rest too mutch to read befour i reply

ok my though of intelegances is seeing the differnce (applying wisdom or knowlagde if you will)

were as wisdom is accumulated knowladge gained through the process of trying stuff a dif way which you already know (prior knowladge)

so they go hand in hand try something enof times and you start to see something (intelegence allows you to see it and make a choice)then it is transformed into knowladge A.K.A. wisdom which allows you to remember it and use it agin in the futer also i have a saying

A smart man may beable to see anothers faults, but only a wise man can see his own

basicly it means sure you can see anyone ealse faults but if you are truly wise you will look at your own faults and try to fix them ( yess a little off-topic but i think it fits)(if none of this makes sense it's because most wise people are a bit crazy) and if it make alot of sense you too are wise

point proven.

[Sholl]

Ah, but if a computer were equipped with some sort of algorithm which, if attempting a difficult task, logged successful 'hits' and unsuccessful 'misses', understood each hit and miss with relation to relevancy of the given task, and understood what led to unsuccessful misses, it could, in theory, replicate knowledge and wisdom.

basicly it means sure you can see anyone ealse faults but if you are truly wise you will look at your own faults and try to fix them ( yess a little off-topic but i think it fits)(if none of this makes sense it's because most wise people are a bit crazy) and if it make alot of sense you too are wise

point proven.

No offense, and perhaps you did not mean it to be taken this way, but please do not assume your own wisdom. It's not you personally, but I believe wisdom is not something that one can 'self diagnose'.

If you did not mean it in this manner, then I apologize, I probably misread. It's late, and I've been sick as of late.