I’m still not ready for that. I’m building up from a few universals right now, not so much focused on quantum mechanics just yet. My goal is searching for flaws, which is what I usually do. This allows me to be in a strong skeptical position to analyze whatever whole theories come out that try to explain it all and see what holds and is good and what fails due to hand waving. Hand-waving can be difficult to spot so I try to keep a distanced approach.

I’m still not ready for that. I’m building up from a few universals right now, not so much focused on quantum mechanics just yet.

My goal is searching for flaws, which is what I usually do. This allows me to be in a strong skeptical position to analyze whatever whole theories come out that try to explain it all and see what holds and is good and what fails due to hand waving.

Hand-waving can be difficult to spot so I try to keep a distanced approach.

====

Our capacity for sense-making is overwhelmingly powerful and also easily misled. A truth can be constructed out of correlations of almost any sort and universals are a particular temptation.

=======

For intelligence, the model that I’ve chosen, after a lot of avoiding it, returning to it, avoiding it again, going back to it again over a few years time, is http://www.danko-nikolic.com/practopoiesis/

For my way of thinking, it’s the correct approach, or as correct as I’ve seen. I simply couldn’t find a flaw in it and I tried.

Maybe it’s the lack of common acceptance that explains lack of criticisms, but I find that, at least in a broad view of “what is intelligence?” and “how does intelligence form?” it hits the right notes for me.

——