# Can intelligence be referenced?
**URL:** https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/can-intelligence-be-referenced/42631
**Category:** Philosophy
**Created:** [July 26, 2016, 2:15am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/can-intelligence-be-referenced/42631 "2016-07-26T02:15:06Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@shellytrokan](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/shellytrokan)
#### Post date: [July 26, 2016, 2:15am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/can-intelligence-be-referenced/42631/1 "2016-07-26T02:15:06Z")
Is the referenced the same as the intelligent?
---
### Author:  [@One\_Liner](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/One_Liner)
#### Post date: [July 26, 2016, 8:47am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/can-intelligence-be-referenced/42631/2 "2016-07-26T08:47:06Z")
Can consciousness perceive itself or does it perceive that which it possesses?
---
### Author:  [@shellytrokan](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/shellytrokan)
#### Post date: [July 26, 2016, 10:02am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/can-intelligence-be-referenced/42631/3 "2016-07-26T10:02:40Z")
> [@One Liner](#):
>
> Can consciousness perceive itself or does it perceive that which it possesses?
Either question is addressing the scenario of the dragon that bites its own tail.
---
### Author:  [@One\_Liner](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/One_Liner)
#### Post date: [July 26, 2016, 10:47am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/can-intelligence-be-referenced/42631/4 "2016-07-26T10:47:50Z")
So what is the nature of consciousness that may not be able to directly perceive itself?
---
### Author:  [@shellytrokan](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/shellytrokan)
#### Post date: [July 26, 2016, 11:11am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/can-intelligence-be-referenced/42631/5 "2016-07-26T11:11:04Z")
> [@One Liner](#):
>
> So what is the nature of consciousness that may not be able to directly perceive itself?
If consciousness can’t perceive itself, it suggest that the self is one with perception. But the error of this is that the perceived can be the perceiver, and so difference is simultaneously symmetry.
It’s what I’ve said before: the universe is the error of contrast being uniformity.
---
### Author:  [@One\_Liner](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/One_Liner)
#### Post date: [July 26, 2016, 11:31am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/can-intelligence-be-referenced/42631/6 "2016-07-26T11:31:27Z")
I think it suggests that whatever object is being apprehended by consciousness cannot be consciousness itself (a taste bud cannot taste its own nature).
---
### Author:  [@shellytrokan](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/shellytrokan)
#### Post date: [July 26, 2016, 11:53am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/can-intelligence-be-referenced/42631/7 "2016-07-26T11:53:03Z")
> [@One Liner](#):
>
> I think it suggests that whatever object is being apprehended by consciousness cannot be consciousness itself (a taste bud cannot taste its own nature).
Consciousness creates objects. And objects are made for purposes.
What if the purpose is to annihilate another consciousness? Surely then the object being referenced isn’t intelligent?
---
### Author:  [@One\_Liner](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/One_Liner)
#### Post date: [July 26, 2016, 12:10pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/can-intelligence-be-referenced/42631/8 "2016-07-26T12:10:56Z")
I would conclude that consciousness perceives objects and the objects themselves are created by previous causes.
---
### Author:  [@shellytrokan](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/shellytrokan)
#### Post date: [July 26, 2016, 12:13pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/can-intelligence-be-referenced/42631/9 "2016-07-26T12:13:01Z")
> [@One Liner](#):
>
> I would conclude that consciousness perceives objects and the objects themselves are created by previous causes.
What about the link between intelligence and the referenced?
---
### Author:  [@One\_Liner](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/One_Liner)
#### Post date: [July 26, 2016, 8:26pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/can-intelligence-be-referenced/42631/10 "2016-07-26T20:26:09Z")
I think they arise and decay simultaneously in a codependent relationship.
---
### Author:  [@Meno2](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Meno2)
#### Post date: [July 26, 2016, 9:05pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/can-intelligence-be-referenced/42631/11 "2016-07-26T21:05:49Z")
> [@shellytrokan](#):
>
> > [@One Liner](#):
> >
> > I would conclude that consciousness perceives objects and the objects themselves are created by previous causes.
>
> What about the link between intelligence and the referenced?
The most common thread is that there is a direct relationship between reference and intelligence.
---
### Author:  [@shellytrokan](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/shellytrokan)
#### Post date: [July 26, 2016, 11:23pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/can-intelligence-be-referenced/42631/12 "2016-07-26T23:23:53Z")
> [@jerkey](#):
>
> > [@shellytrokan](#):
> >
> > > [@One Liner](#):
> > >
> > > I would conclude that consciousness perceives objects and the objects themselves are created by previous causes.
> >
> > What about the link between intelligence and the referenced?
>
> The most common thread is that there is a direct relationship between reference and intelligence.
To reference requires knowledge (two), and intelligence can mean to not react: a direct relationship between knowledge as a creator and no reaction. In other words, a link between no reaction and no knowledge.
What would you think of this?
---
### Author:  [@Meno2](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Meno2)
#### Post date: [July 27, 2016, 12:44am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/can-intelligence-be-referenced/42631/13 "2016-07-27T00:44:46Z")
Agree with it, a non reactive knowledge tends to negate the referential intelligence, because, the reference becomes non reactive and not creative. Therefore, intelligence can be referenced to be reactive, or reactive for intelligence to be referential.
---
### Author:  [@shellytrokan](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/shellytrokan)
#### Post date: [July 27, 2016, 1:36am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/can-intelligence-be-referenced/42631/14 "2016-07-27T01:36:38Z")
> [@jerkey](#):
>
> Agree with it, a non reactive knowledge tends to negate the referential intelligence, because, the reference becomes non reactive and not creative. Therefore, intelligence can be referenced to be reactive, or reactive for intelligence to be referential.
Is it a violation, if the non reactive intelligence gets referenced as such? I’m interpreting intelligence as not possible of anti (it only has one meaning). And so intelligence isn’t subject to changing states.
By subject to changing states, I mean not that the changing states are a separate force from intelligence, trying to influence its own meaning, but that intelligence isn’t capable of change period.
Intelligence is as it has always been, meaning the practical issue of a life form wanting to become intelligent, because to do so violates the very condition of intelligence (it was never something to become).
What is referentiality, relative to intelligence?
---
### Author:  [@Meno2](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Meno2)
#### Post date: [July 27, 2016, 2:05am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/can-intelligence-be-referenced/42631/15 "2016-07-27T02:05:50Z")
Referentiality is really a secondary process, reactivity is primary. It only seemed as such because the linkage, as You put it, is for reactivity for the most part, self inferential. That is the perfect irony, inference or differentiation is a secondary process as far as the history of cognitive science is said to understand it, because it is a way of looking back, a backward glance by processes of eliminating various significant stages. So it is unspderstood as a secondary process. No one really knows, what primary inference is, so regarding primary referential identification, it is argued backwards. But things argued backwards are inchoate,and unexact. This is why referential ideas are problematic.
---
### Author:  [@One\_Liner](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/One_Liner)
#### Post date: [July 27, 2016, 6:50am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/can-intelligence-be-referenced/42631/16 "2016-07-27T06:50:20Z")
To me, it’s appears that you are adding complexity where complexity is not necessary.
---
### Author:  [@shellytrokan](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/shellytrokan)
#### Post date: [July 27, 2016, 12:37pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/can-intelligence-be-referenced/42631/17 "2016-07-27T12:37:01Z")
> [@jerkey](#):
>
> Referentiality is really a secondary process, reactivity is primary. It only seemed as such because the linkage, as You put it, is for reactivity for the most part, self inferential. That is the perfect irony, inference or differentiation is a secondary process as far as the history of cognitive science is said to understand it, because it is a way of looking back, a backward glance by processes of eliminating various significant stages. So it is unspderstood as a secondary process. No one really knows, what primary inference is, so regarding primary referential identification, it is argued backwards. But things argued backwards are inchoate,and unexact. This is why referential ideas are problematic.
Thank you. I can get the gist of what you mean; the clash of meaning and the knowledge of meaning will always mean no resolution. Inference is inherently division, and so the hope of knowing original cause or identity is pointless.
---
### Author:  [@One\_Liner](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/One_Liner)
#### Post date: [July 27, 2016, 8:25pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/can-intelligence-be-referenced/42631/18 "2016-07-27T20:25:53Z")
Inference is inherently divisional requires inference to understand it.
---
### Author:  [@shellytrokan](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/shellytrokan)
#### Post date: [July 27, 2016, 9:04pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/can-intelligence-be-referenced/42631/19 "2016-07-27T21:04:34Z")
> [@One Liner](#):
>
> Inference is inherently divisional requires inference to understand it.
This is perhaps the problem of conflation; it’s impossible to know one without betraying the meaning of the other.
---
### Author:  [@One\_Liner](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/One_Liner)
#### Post date: [July 28, 2016, 8:00am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/can-intelligence-be-referenced/42631/20 "2016-07-28T08:00:01Z")
Some inferences can result in compounding-conflation and a subsequent betrayal whereas other inferences can result in simplicity and truth.