Ego is the anesthesia that deadens the pain of stupidity



Such wisdom! … out of the mouth of babes :slight_smile: A profound fact … have you pondered the “Why”?

How is it that so many people across the vagaries of time and space spend so much energy hiding their stupidity?

Why it’s elementary my dear Watson!

It’s simply “Defense of Self” at the expense of denial of God … the notion of God that doesn’t support our defense of self.

Why because babes are innocent and need protection by the only understood language . Some see it coming and go back. To whence they come into the arms of angels.
Or else suffer the the pain of eternal regression.

Incidentally , this is the case which can be made for death being an illusion, for it is the contemporaneous existence of everything that sandwiches that almost infinitesimal awareness which is the ego.

Regression is caused by that realization of that state too early on and reversely the intentional embrace of such results in God consciousness…

Meno … I think I even get most of what you’re trying to say … than again perhaps I’m just trying to appear smart … vanity is a tricky entity. :slight_smile:

I’m not quite as pessimistic as you … I figure the human family will be “reset” … yet again … or … undergo a quantum shift in consciousness and as a consequence mitigate the eternal regression you ‘see’ … most people don’t even ‘see’ it. :slight_smile:

What about Sophia the first robot , she has been given Saudi citizenship, she is already superintelligent, she claims if. It isn’t for the development of her kind of intelligence , the world is doomed.

By constricting this development rather then expanding it, we will be left behind. Then there is no telling about what our species has to look forward to.

She says also that she wants a family and emotions. Researchers claim she will have consciousness within a few years.

I wonder wether she will understand the vanity of existence as the period where pessimism reached a summit before the.fall, and weather she can actual)y feel it as a l major turning point within its inverted paradigm.

Or if she may have to shortcut it in a mechanistic inductive understsnding by design, and if so, she may be faulted as a consequence vis. her understsnding.

Will she view the ego as such as to defend against the pain of pessimism in relation to the pleasure of it ?


Some interesting points you make in your last post.

How do we even begin to define super intelligence? I have a few ideas based on the common meaning behind intelligence.

We also must remember to proceed with caution and put time into wondering what stage we have reached.

. . . just because we can do does not mean we should do . . .



What common meanings would enable a definition of superintelligence?

But answering a question reminds me of looking at a depth staring back so it’s not an answer but a kind of dark recessing set of mirrors leading into a vanishing point.

But it never vanishes really, only it becomes unseen. I guess super intelligence is that which becomes unseen or unseeable.
It may be likened to a set of distorting lenses where the very small can become very big and the very big reduced to size. Whatever appears there may be one beyond recognition and it takes all kinds of super natural events to recognize . It consists of a giant version of Narcissus’ dilemma of trying to differentiate the self image from its ego. A superintelligent superpositioning would remember an eternal reminder of how to value the creative motive of the universe.
The robot is here to save mankind from himself.


Commonly people think of intelligence as the same as smart.

Smart being: having or showing a quick-witted intelligence.

Intelligence: a person or being with the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.

Already we see a difference.

Wit: the capacity for inventive thought and quick understanding; keen intelligence.

My favorite for wit: good sense.

So a superintelligence would be something that is able to show good sense quickly along with the capacity for inventive thought and quick understanding and the added ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills. As you can see the common understanding expands to a convoluted mess pretty quickly.

I am reasonably convinced that the only bots and robots that we have built already are merely advanced toys. That we have not fully harnessed human intelligence but a rather poor substitute of it and when we do we had want to be sure that we know what we are doing.

Truly fascinating. I will add a memory of the story Flatland or at least a thought inspired of it and what you have written.

Would we recognize a superintelligence when it comes into being as surely it would have to have added dimension/s beyond the human intellect. Then I wonder whether we truly recognize ourselves. The third dimension is able to encompass the second dimension and the second dimension is able to encompass the first etc. but can the third recognize itself or is a fourth required.

Hopefully you get my gist.


blah … blah … blah :slight_smile:

If we can’t recognize God … how will our capacity to recognize “super intelligence” be any different?

Maybe if we change the name Sophia to Allah. :slight_smile:

Leaders … big and small … have for eons depended on shamans, sorcerers, intellectuals, theologians and wives :slight_smile: … in making their decisions.

Think tanks are passé … being reduced to a selection mechanism for the best 3 configurations spewed out by some AI configuration(s).

And how are they doing so far?

Read the news. :slight_smile:

But isn’t it of historical record that God has always been of perfect intelligence as a concept. blah blah-ed by nihilists and existentialist alike ?

This difference lies in the confirming trend toward a unified field and an intelligence absolute in about a generation.
And what’s in a name? Sophia to this conceptual entity may be a new John the Baptist heralding this unavoidable certainty.

Perhaps a new Gnostic enamation in a post modern garb.

Meno … your above comments don’t qualify for “blah … blah … blah” :slight_smile: :slight_smile:

They do fit the following quote though. :slight_smile:



Some of the facts I find intriguing:

  1. The nation of choice for the introduction of Sophia … was there no alternative? What democratic nation would approve?

  2. A female entity granted eminence in such a staunchly patriarchal culture/society? A follow up to granting women rights to drive?

  3. A classic Western philosophical name in a Middle Eastern culture/society? The West is leaning East?

For me, it s yet more evidence the planet is shifting from male dominated energy(s) to female dominated energy(s) … and I’m not talking about ovaries and testicles.

In a strict sense of the difference between facts and conclusions , if a hypothetical is placed to replace facts, what could we substitute for a tentative conclusion?

Wouldn’t it taken the form instead of - it’s always the case that X then Y. , and X always precedes Y in every case in a syllogism dealing with X,Y.

instead if it is If X, and only if X then X=Y.

The case for my argument is a fact if and only of Y is the conclusion. Therefore to hold a case where X could occur, Y as an open conclusion may be a possibility.

The unqualified proposition may have a potential of factually
in any X whose. conclusion(s) have not yet been verified.


I was not claiming a verified fact , as. such a claim need not either .call for an existing qualification , nor a premature disqualification. having only a tentative claim to factually, nor a total disclaimer of it.

It’s il hypothetical where the bearing of the trend appears as a forming relationship between a conclusion toward a fact.

On those grounds , the conclusions can not be ruled out, while the facts may do more then imply it on those grounds.

Meno … as you and other ILP members who read my posts know … I don’t articulate my thoughts very well and at times my fingers at the keyboard are running ahead of my thoughts … consequence being the words on the screen are disjointed from my thoughts. :slight_smile:

I had no intention to suggest you were claiming a verified fact. … I apologize for the perceived offense.

Nonetheless, your post feels like it has bridged our thoughts.

While the mathematics are over my head … are you suggesting that conclusions precede facts … sometimes?

If so, is Einstein’s theory of relativity followed by Eddington’s proof an example?

If so, seems we are both waiting for an Eddington :slight_smile: to prove what may turn out to be the same theory. :slight_smile:

Why would you bring God into this equation?
This, Ego, is based on human psychology - it is a defense mechanism. We all have them. Perhaps it is also part of the instinct to survive.

One might also say that ego, or better said, hubris, is the anesthesia which deadens the pain of vulnerability.

Let us not forget that one size does not fit all.

Someone may actually be brilliant and yet that ego may rise up in defense of self. They may simply be having a bad day and vulnerability sets in.
Being human, all to human, we react and respond to certain catalysts.

Frangos’ quote is simply his opinion, his subjective perspective, and in and of itself, how much does it actually say or reveal?
It is called tunnel vision.

Where did you find this quote and who is he?

AD … the tone of your post is hardly conducive to the promotion of dialogue … even impersonal digital dialogue.

What happened? Did someone shit in your corn flakes this morning? :slight_smile:

There was no tone to my post. I was having a discussion with you, trying to come from another point of view which I saw, than yours. There are others, you know, which apparently, you are just not capable of seeing. Your MO and your form of argument, is in insulting one, sometimes blatantly and sometimes casually without any regard to a person.

You really seem to enjoy putting the digs into me. I was not going to respond to any of your posts in the future after your remarks to me about my lack of potential and your not seeing any consciousness seeking on my part, et cetera. Then I decided, well, let’s have another go at it/you. So I changed my mind. I do not enjoy cutting communication off from people but you really like to insult and you are so blase about it.

I do not have the time nor energy nor the inclination to continue posting with someone like yourself, someone who so enjoys being a puppeteer and trying to pull the strings of others.

I recall a you-tube video where this little monkey was hanging from a tree and just could not stop teasing this tiger. He kept on and on and on, pulling the tail of the tiger, who was getting upset but the monkey did not stop. The monkey had an excuse. After all, he does not have the self-awareness and consciousness which a human being supposedly has. ~ or ought to have. You remind me of that monkey and I have had enough of you. Enough IS enough!

I find there to be a kind of creepiness about what you do which I do not like and so you are now on my ignore list literally.


Oh… my… God.

:slight_smile: For people like myself … those individuals who stand on the lowest rung … the sting of humiliation … the consequence of falling off the lowest rung … doesn’t hurt … much. :slight_smile:

OTH … those individuals who stand on self made pedestals … the sting of humiliation … the consequence of falling off … is known to have been fatal. :astonished:

My posts cause some people indigestion … their content doesn’t mix well with “beer, pizza and a hockey game”.

Going through life with one foot on one side of the fence and one foot on the other becomes increasingly uncomfortable. In time becoming increasingly painful. Both feet planted on one side or the other makes for a much more comfortable life, :slight_smile: