- God-like – Able to change inputs and outputs
- Intuitive – Able to predict a sequence of outputs with missing inputs.
- Intelligent – Able to recognize the pattern of inputs even with missing inputs.
- Sentient – Able to recognize a sequence of inputs.
- Algorithmic – Able to activate the correct outputs in the correct sequence for a given input in the correct sequence.
- Logical – Able to activate the correct outputs for a given input.
- Moron – Unable to activate the correct outputs in the correct sequence for a given input.
- Idiot – Unable to activate the correct outputs for a given input.
- Alive – Able to respond to inputs.
- Lifeforms – Able to modify the inputs and create outputs.
- Exists – Has inputs and outputs.
- Nonexistent – Has zero inputs and outputs.
- God-like – God, Q, etc..
- Intuitive – Any smart woman, mothers, grandmas..
- Intelligent – Any above average human.
- Sentient – Common household pets: dogs, cats, etc..
- Algorithmic – Computers, smartphones, etc..
- Logical – calculators? complex machines?
- Moron – G.W.B.
- Idiot – D.J.T.
- Alive – animals, insects
- Lifeforms – bacteria, viruses
- Exists – I dunno.. sand, rocks maybe? Heheh.
- Nonexistent – Nothing unreal exists, according to Spock.
Just some things I was thinking about one day.
Decided to post it to get any constructive feedback.
FYI, this scale is not fully fleshed out or set in stone.
Also, some things can belong to multiple descriptions. 🙂
From my old blog, http://ai-brain.blogspot.com/2012/12/scale-of-intelligence-levels.html
Imagine people in Europe during the time of the Bubonic plague.
On one side, people with a strong rational fear of rats.
On the other, a bunch of morons in red hats waiving around their pet rats and talking about freedom..
Trumps say many things out loud that I too have also thought. The thoughts that float into my awareness, are considered for a brief moment, and then discarded as illogical, irrational, inane, incorrect, crazy, senseless, absurd, sophistic, unreasonable, and unscientific..
What refutes science:
What doesn’t refute science:
Your favorite politician.
Your half-baked opinion after watching two YouTube videos.
“A lot of time mainstream science agrees with stuff ten years later.”
[She was talking about “Alternative Medicines” and to avoid something scientifically-valid if you “follow the money!”.]
No. No, we do not. We follow verifiable facts and conclusions from following the Scientific Method.
If it is unverifiable, it is discarded. For everything verifiable, it is added to our collective knowledge which helps further new discoveries and new ideas.
Many discoveries and research are made from plants, animals, insects, previous research & science, etc.. along with all other sources.
We don’t discard something because someone “made money” from a discovery or research. The money does not invalidate the Science or research done. The two are intertwined, yes. But the Science is not ‘defined’ by the money (or the source of).
The Scientific Method is a powerful tool to aid in our understanding of the Universe and how it works.
But.. Does it really have any limitations?
If there currently is a limitation, then it is most likely from a lack (or misunderstanding) of knowledge gathered, the other tools used to gather information, a lack of imagination to conceptualize a new idea, and/or [usually] the failure to follow the Scientific Method (i.e. “Jumping to a Conclusion”).
These would all be flaws on the human side.. not in the methodology itself.