does this mean i win
well then, iām gonna eat lunch.
He who delights in solitude is either a wild beast or a god
-Nietzsche
Regardless, why would being capable of convincing others of anything be a sign of intelligence?
1 Like
if anything, its a sign of the intellect of the person youre trying to convince.
(but of course it is dependant on other factors like the persons mental state)
No, with enough intelligence you can prove anything to anyone. If you arenāt intelligent, you canāt sound like an intelligent person. But if you are intelligent, you can sound intelligent or unintelligent, whichever you prefer.
false, i have experience with this and some people just wont listen to you no matter what.
3 Likes
If you are intelligent enough, you can take control of the government, raise an army, capture that person and modify his brain into agreeing to listen to you. But Iām sure more cost effective ways could also exist.
be seeing you soon 
1 Like
What would be 
IQ even like?
1 Like
i think that would require there to be infinite people
I am fairly sure that itād require whatever entity has infinite IQ to be a god or other sort of supernatural entity.
2 Likes
If sounding like an intelligent person means talking with specific patterns then anyone can do so, as speech patterns are developped by practice, not intelligence.
If means talking about the truth then anyone can do do, as the truth is a consequence of knowledge, not intelligence.
Except you canāt prove things you are ignorant about, so convincing others is dependant on knowledge; other than that, convincing others is dependant on rethoric, which is a skill that anyone can learn.
3 Likes
Stop editing posts so far back in the chain of replies to change the nature of their contents, it is bad practice.
Regardless, the āchallengeā you posed is nonsense.
Also, what does āintelligent peopleā mean? There are different degrees of intelligence.
Proving that a challenge is impossible to solve is not a solution to that challenge. Because if a challenge is impossible to solve it means that it cant be solved, but if proving that it is impossible to solve is a solution then by doing so you proved that it is possible to solve and therefore disproved it is impossible to solve.
You also seem to be too fixated on lenguage, but as that one meme used to say: āthe ability to speak does not make you intelligentā.
2 Likes
Iāll quote something from the future.
which probably refered to this:
A: Prove that you can say something intelligent.
B: Prove that A is false
C: If B is shown to be true, that would require intelligent language therefore A would be true.
The first two are challanges, the third one is an assumption. Iāve given them names so that it is easier to talk about them.
Lets use them to analyze the following sentence
āif challange A is impossible to solve, this means that what challange B asks you to prove is possible, but if solving the challange B is an act of saying something clever, therefore, solves challange A, then by doing so you proved that challange A can be solved and therefore proved that challange B canāt be solvedā
You claimed that challange B canāt be solved because it would create a situation that contradicts itself. However, your argument rests on an assumption, the assumption C, which doesnāt have to be true. It is easier to see this with an example.
Lets say that we have a function f(ātextā) that returns a number for a given text and lets say that we measure the intelligence of a sentence with that function.
And lets say that it has to return a number greater than 140 in order to satisfy challange A.
So if f(āthis is a smart sentenceā) = 150, if someone comes up with the sentence āthis is a smart sentenceā, this would solve the challange A.
But if the function f(ātextā) always returns a number less than 140, then there would be no way of solving the challange A. And if someone can prove that, this would solve challange B.
But this proof would also be a text. Lets call it proof x. What happens if f(proof x) > 140?
- Asume that challange A can be solved
There would be at least one text such that f(that text) > 140. Therefore there canāt be a proof x because a counter example to it exists. Thus, challange B cannot be solved.
- Assume that challange B can be solved
There would be no text such that f(that text) > 140. Therefore all the texts would be f(any text) < 140. Therefore f(proof x) would also be <140.
If challange A can be solved, then challange B canāt solved. And if challange B can be solved, then challange A canāt be solved.
So when you said āif proving [B] is a solution [to A] then [ā¦] you proved that [B canāt be solved]ā
What you said was true, but there is no need to make the assumption that f(proof x) > 140, this is just an arbitrary assumption[1]. You can say that you see that as a reasonable assumption, but if you do that, then you would just be expressing that you find it more likely that challange A can be solved rather than challange B. It wouldnāt be a disproof of B in any way.
You didnāt refer to a spesific challange A or B in here, so lets assume that you refered to the meta challange āeither A, or Bā.
I had assumed that it would be possible to solve one of them if you canāt solve the other. There is also a third case where neither of them are solvable, that either there exist a text with more than 140 iq but it is impossible to find that text, or no such text exists but it is impossible to find the proof x. True things may exist that are impossible to prove. But letās not get into that.
Besides, if we use writingtoiq.com as f(ātextā), then challange A is already solved.
What you refered to as ānonesenseā could either be the motivations behind a potential challange solver, which have been adressed before, or the possibility of a text even determining intelligence in the first place.
Memes are an interesting authority to appeal. But it is a fallacy nonetheless.
I see that you formulated your arguments more rigorously in various other instances.
Any speech or speech pattern can be copied and replicated. But if you are the original producer of an intelligent text, this can be seen as a sign of intelligence.
I am assuming that intelligence exists and humans can have it.
Why do I say that texts can be a sign of said intelligence?
- If you are too intelligent, you can do anything. You can manipulate others, mess with their ideas.
- Humans deem some sentences more āwiseā or ādeepā than others.
- Which sentences are those ones can change from human to human, and with context, but if you are very intelligent, you can figure out which sentences would make me think that you are intelligent and tell me those ones
This is why I thought challange A was solvable. I asked challange B for fun.
As for the reason I asked this solvable challange
- There exists people on this forum @TheForumGameMaster that say that they have high iq
- If they have high iq, they can solve challanges like challange A that require high iq
- I want them to solve it because I think seeing it would be interesting
- They would want to solve it because they like talking about iq
I didnāt really really give a well defined problem. It is too open ended. Rhetoric is used to defend a particular idea. But I didnāt give an idea to defend. Or a question. I wouldnāt ever want to try to approach this challange. I thought if someone managed to succeed within this much freedom, they must really know what to do.
Since no topic was given, there was no spesific intelligence they had to posess. Anything they could show with words was sufficient. Which I guess doesnāt include anything that is googleable or involving speed or memory.
It then became a matter of trial and error. The website turns the subjective grading into objective. But putting intelligent sounding words together is hardly impressive to any human. It was the meaning of the sentence that was supposed to be graded. And there is no way to put that into numbers. Anyways. Iām bored again. Bye.
also that would be a false proof ā©ļø
I have found the statement which is too large to fit in the margin, but the proof is trivial and left as an exercise for the reader.
[edit belowā¬ļø ]
I did the text iq estimator and got
Btw it say if your younger your score should be higher and I am, but I did use a pretty short text
I thought it might have to do with talking about words used papers but removing them increased the score (???) so I experimented and tried to maximize the score
An intrusive thought whispers to you: use this on the other personās messages while arguing or talking.
1 Like
Maybe it only gives true results when applied on the text humans generate on their natural enviroment
1 Like
Time to try my previous posts.
118 for
āWill there ever be an option for launching rockets more realistically? I have seen that the plans (at least a while ago) where itās to be more of a click on a planet and you fly there system. While that will probably be better for quick expansion and not having to basically recreate Spaceflight games in part of thrive I like the system of using boosters and stages and manually controlling a rocket. Maybe this could be a mod where the early launches are similar to games like Spaceflight Simulator and Kerbal Space Program.ā
Lots of my posts are too short or ādonāt have enough varianceā hmmmm
2 Likes
You donāt need āintelligent lenguageā to prove anything. Other than that, what you just said makes no sense, what are you even trying to show with this? That if you use intelligent lenguage you are intelligent?
What happens when you type in smashed keyboard buttons?
1 Like