LastThursday

Maybe the insight is that complexity is not absolute, but depends on how you think about the object? You're right in saying that the arrangement of materials matters in terms of complexity. That's spatial complexity. In a machine the arrangement can change over time, so that's temporal complexity. For any machine what matters is its degrees of freedom or if it's a discrete system then the number of different states it can be in. A clockwork has effectively two degrees of freedom: the position of its minute hand, and its hour hand. You could argue that it has more degrees of freedom, because it can be moved and rotated in space: but that isn't inherent to its function, we "throw away" the complexity of its position and orientation in space, and "narrow down" to just two parameters, hours and minutes. Hours and minutes are artificial constructions and so don't necessarily have anything to do with day and night. But a clockwork does encapsulate the idea of "time", and that is quite an abstract, conscious idea. Does a pebble have more complexity than a clockwork? It will have spatial complexity of its elements, due to its formation history. It has no temporal complexity, because it pretty much doesn't change over time. Likewise, it has degrees of freedom of movement, so it makes for a more complex projectile than a tree. In some sense a clockwork is less complex than a pebble, because you don't use it as a projectile, and it has fewer degrees of freedom in its function. As I say it's all a matter of perspective.

Being on here is no different from a moth being attracted to a light bulb. I don't mean it as a put down, but rather that the nature of people is to be attracted to other people. Once you accept that, then any elaboration or over analysis becomes moot. The paradox is clear: And yet, here you are. The deeper point is that the mind and body are naturally attracted to a lot of things, human things. Notice them, accept them, and let them take their natural course.

I see you're going to be a tough nut to crack. Let me see now... Did you know a coconut is not a nut?

8.5749 milli-furlongs. Don't @ me I'm British.

I'll bite. Did you know scorpions are related to spiders?

Interesting question. I'm struck by the idea of self-assembly and copying. A shell, leaf and a brain assemble themselves from matter over time, they grow. A pebble or stone is ground down from bigger lumps. All leaves, shells and brains of a particular type are similar, stones are randomly sized and shaped. A clockwork doesn't assemble itself and is more like a stone. But it does get assembled by something that is self-assembled (a person), so you could call it an epiphenomenon of nature. Its complexity is way less than even a shell, although, you could also call a shell an epiphenomenon. But, there could potentially be many identical copies of a clockwork. A stone could have a complex mix of constituents, but the arrangement is not orderly. I'm guessing a clockwork is mostly brass or steel, possibly ruby for bearings, maybe gold for trim, and quartz for glass; maybe that's fewer ingredients than a stone or pebble?

What is reality? Imagine a block of cheese. Imagine something carves that cheese into different shapes. Reality is the cheese, the shapes, the carving strokes, the tool that carves, and the intelligence that decides where to carve.

You are, and I'm saying that your idea is too simplistic. You have intelligencies not intelligence, and everyone has a different mix. Forget IQ, it's wrong.

The thing is, intelligence is not just one thing on a sliding scale. It is multiple things. I could be intelligent at Chess but stupid at cooking. It's not even clear if skill equals intelligence, I could be skilful at tic-tac-toe but is that really intelligence? Is just having knowledge equal to intelligence, am I intelligent if I know all the capital cities? You are right though that most people probably overestimate their own abilities. But even saying that is problematic. I can measure my skill in Chess fairly easily, but how do I measure my skill in cooking: how do I know how much ability I have in something? You can only know by comparison and measurement, but life's too short to be measuring everything all the time. Most people don't know their own level in anything, you can't blame them.

No... sameness and difference are different. Great video BTW.

A "person" is just a label, as such you will always be more than any label can describe. Said differently, what you "are" is a bunch of labels: but that's just language. Names drift on water Reflecting the full moon

@trenton that's too negative. The issue is one of relativity, stupidity is completely relative (to you). The forum is full of stupid people yes, but also full of not stupid people, relative to you. However, if the wisdom or intelligence is too high, then it's hard to grasp and may even seem stupid. You're not on your own then, but you do have to seek out the intelligence that fits your own. But it's no different in real life, you can only accept and understand new things only from your current viewpoint.

@Samuel this is true to the extent that if you work it takes up a large amount of your waking hours. You'll spend 8 hours sleeping, 8 hours working, and the rest in doing whatever. So, if you can align your work to your values/purpose to increase LOC then it's win win, but mostly that doesn't happen. What does happen is that work pays the bills and that enables you to do what you want with the remaining time you have left. It's more indirect than you're stating. Nearly all jobs are to do with making money primarily, and that means persuading others to part with their cash.

The root cause of friction is a mismatch of worldviews. To break it down, what typically happens in this situation is: You reinforce your worldview with words or violence - they may do likewise Their arguments are persuasive and you change your worldview Your arguments are persuasive and they change their worldview You avoid each other That's politics in a nutshell. The hardest paths are 2 and 3. But nearly never will you change worldviews through reason alone. People hold on to worldviews primarily through upbringing, religion, identity, emotion. Basically, people's worldviews are not built through reason, but through experience. Breaking through that is a hard ask. Intelligence and education hardly comes into it.

A good way to start is to not underestimate your own stupidity. What I mean by that is that tomorrow, in a week, a month, a year, you'll look back and cringe at certain things you did and said and believed about yourself. Look inward first before you look outward, there is the greatest learning.