Harrot

Okay, so your misunderstanding stems from the fact that you've never noticed that when we talk about a “why question” in physics, scientists are of course talking about a “how question”. Why does heat flow from hot to cold? Why is the density of water lower in its solid state than in its liquid state? Why is the sun's corona so hot? Why can an airplane fly? Etc. You see, these are all questions of why, and scientists don't react in this way: “There's the word ‘why’, it's once again a metaphysical question and physics doesn't deal with it”. That would be a poor excuse to hide the fact that we don't know the answer, don't you think? Now that we know that the question “why is c invariant” is a scientific question, not a metaphysical one, does anyone have a hypothesis to explain this fact? Probably, but the question isn't “what would happen if c wasn't invariant”, but “why is c invariant”, and I'll translate it for you into a clearer sentence. Old version: “How does nature make c invariant?" Modern variant: “What's the phenomenology behind it?" As with heat flow, ice density, the way an airplane can fly, electrical charges, etc., for which we now know there's something going on behind the curtain that we can describe further. Because if you were to stick to the other way of looking at things, to the question: “Why is water less dense in its solid state?”, you'd have the same answer: “there would be a plethora of unsolvable physical paradoxes, and the universe wouldn't have evolved” and I'm sure you understand that this isn't the right way to do physics. Of course, if you assert something that isn't observed, it would make the world incoherent soon or later, but this reasoning says nothing about the phenomena we do indeed observe. It would be simpler to say, “That's because things are the way they are” and that was the answer before the invention of the scientific method, but I don't think it's very useful when we want to use the force of nature, like for space travel and so on.

To be more precise, the mathematical explanation is well known: C is invariant. But it's not the physical explanation: the physical explanation answer the question "why is c invariant", and it's only when someone can explain why c is invariant that he can claim that something is physically shrinking or not. To do otherwise is mere speculation. So what is the phenomenology that would enable us to transform this principle (c is invariant) into a physical necessity?

I almost forgot. You can have "bubbles of nothing" in physic. https://www.vice.com/en/article/physicists-are-studying-mysterious-bubbles-of-nothing-that-eat-spacetime/

I think the trend is more in the other direction. As time goes by, it becomes more and more likely that life could be a very common phenomenon, but of course nothing is proven. The discovery of probiotic molecules already formed in space, for example, is a point that has changed our opinion on the probability of the appearance of life. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/astronomy-and-space-sciences/articles/10.3389/fspas.2022.843766/full Of course, not all environmental conditions apply, but some scientists now believe that we may have over-restricted the requirements for life to appear and that the Earth model may be just one of the possibilities, arguing that if extremophilic species exist, life could be more diverse than we think. https://asm.org/articles/2023/march/how-extremophiles-push-the-limits-of-life Some even think that life could be the standard fate of molecules when placed in a particular type of environment: As with life forms, there could be a Darwinian process using trial and selection of the arrangement of molecules. https://www.iflscience.com/life-inevitable-consequence-physics-43007

The what? The "elites" ? I'm glad to see it finally makes sense to you too. In fact, the elites have assumed nothing of the sort. I think that you simply confuse what they say to your attention with what they actually do. And this is much more obvious when it comes to equality between men and women when you remember that UK monarchy was ruled by a woman just recently. Social class is usually the only factor that determines the value of others. Have you noticed that there are queens and that wealthy families marry each other even if they have different ethnic origins, and have done so since time immemorial ? Here some short examples. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/spotlight/6-royal-marriages-that-went-beyond-race/photostory/77480652.cms

First point : Vacuum is not nothingness. Vacuum is when we start with matter (also energy as known in physic, like EM waves is considered part of "matter") , then we move the matter elsewhere : Remain => vacuum. Of course, we tried the best we could, we never reached the 0 "matter" state. Achieving some strong vacuum, it fill itself again with the so named "virtual particles". This virtual matter can be transformed in real matter by spending some corresponding energy. So there is no creation at all, there is still TRANSFORMATION. Nothingness on the other hand is the concept that specity that there is nothing... with perfection. Nothing AT ALL. No matter, no spirit, nada. In fact, we dont know anything about something that could be a "creation" within the domain of physic. We erroneously mention "creation" confusing it with "transformation", per example when we speak about nucleosynthesis in the stars and at the era of the big bang but we never ever seen creation in progress.... elsewhere than those coming from man's mind. Artistic creation is real. Theoritical inventivity is creation. Everything that comes from the WILL is creation. So yes, one can states that logic exclude ITSELF the possibility that something appeear from nothingness but will permit it. Logos is as such the incarnation of the creation of the will within the material world as Mythos could be seen as the idea proposed by the will before creation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos

You see? This is the result of elites who for decades claimed that “Oh no! There's no difference between blacks and whites”. When it comes to facts, even idiots can observe the counterpart. As for the reason, as you mentioned, not everyone comes to the right conclusion, so why not say the right thing from the start instead using the wrong arguments? “Poor people are more likely to do tricky things, let's end poverty!” Of course, it's political. Getting the poor to fight against themselves using reasons such as gender, ethnicity or religion is a cheap way for the elites to carry on.

So you mean that there is also a second bus taking only care of the heart disease of the men ? But you miss the point : WHY are there some special operation relativ ro women hearth care ? Shouldnt the men and the women not be threated equaly ? "They could also mention some more specific declaration like" : is important to understand the sentence i wrote after that. Then the link is the one you provided yourself : https://newsroom.heart.org/news/women-found-to-be-at-higher-risk-for-heart-failure-and-heart-attack-death-than-men

Maybe it's because they are here distorting reality. The reality is that in every country, women have a lower risk of dying from a heart attack. Therefore, to exclude men, wich are half of the population, from the healthcare project is just medical nonsense. It is very obvious that the argument you mentioned is simply used to manipulate opinion. Reality : https://gh.bmj.com/content/2/2/e000298 Fiction : https://newsroom.heart.org/news/women-found-to-be-at-higher-risk-for-heart-failure-and-heart-attack-death-than-men They could also mention some more specific declaration like within five years after their first severe heart attack "they had when their husband already had some heart attack." I hope you understand the difference. So yes, excluding half the people from health care because they want to save lives is a bad reason. "They" want to save MORE women's lives, NOT ALL lives, by using the time they spend prescribing to explain to poor women who live much longer than men and therefore die more often of heart disease, that they are at a disadvantage compared to men? I hope you understand that this is unethical. It's true that women have particularities when it comes to diagnosis, but there are also many men who are not diagnosed at all, so why focus their action on women? Why not just focus on the elderly or the poor? They're even more concerned. More generaly, i think pointing out that it's wrong to have differences between men and women and to treat men and women differently is a kind of paradox. The best thing would be not to stress anything at all, to do just things in accordance with reality, without advertising, as normal doctors already do. You can't clear the difference when you talk about it all the time, which becomes an obsession. As with racism, young people who aren't told every day that there's a difference between black and white they shouldn't take into account don't notice the difference for themselves. You know what's a bad way of not thinking about something? It's to think that you shouldn't think about it.

Faith is not belief. Belief is the opposite of faith. Faith is a state you obtain by using your “will”: it is therefore obtained when you are “active”. Belief is a state you obtain by using your “observation”: it is therefore obtained when you are passive. When we talk about willpower, we're talking more precisely about “free will”, because “willpower” is either “free will” or ... it isn't. There is no will that is not free, so we can continue to say “will” instead of “free will” to simplify the explanation, but you must understand “free will”. Will goes hand in hand with “being”. Being” is what distinguishes each person as an individual. You can transform yourself, lose a leg, become Alzheimer, your being remains: it's “YOU” and everything that happens concerns you, applies to “you”. You can't sell it, you can't deny it, and nothing can destroy it... it's eternal. It's immaterial. So “you” are supposed to have a “will” for eternity, because God is the creator of it and because of his perfection his creation is not corruptible. God created man in his own image: So a "being" eq an "entity where things happen to him", which is immaterial and has a will. It looks so obvious that we can experiment the world as an individual... but it is not : It is supernatural, it gets over the materiality of the nature. The will of this creature is conceived to be independent of the will of its creator, which is perhaps why we added the word “free” to the term “will” to better understand what it is. Therefore, unlike things that have no will, we can “disobey”, and in doing so, we contradict the will of our Creator but we have been created to permit us to do so. If your will is compatible with God's will, then faith leads to real action in this world. What, then, is God's will ? (the part of his will that concerns us, of course, not all his will, which could be whatever he wants, since he is “transcendent”) You can know it as soon as you experience faith, because then something happens. At that moment it happens that you understand, you don't understand, you think it's natural or you think it's supernatural. All these things can happen. Of course, it's when things seeems to be supernatural that it gives you the most information. So faith doesn't give you supernatural power, it reveals God's will. That's the minimal theory. There's much much more to say of course, like "what is man ?", but in my opinion it is not a good thing to let it know to anyone when it comes to achieve God's will. So let keep it simple : Faith is not belief.

Is framing issues in terms of "men and women" necessary in the 21st century? Yes, it is.... if you want to explain why you care more about women than others. If you want to win the election you need to create a controversy you can highlight. It's pure marketing. Are there differences between men and women? Of course, and that's why we have gynecologists and andrologists who specialize in men's and women's health. We also have special medicine for children, and it's well known that you can't operate on a child as you would on an adult, so hospitals have specialized departments for them, The same goes for the elderly and the young, and so on. But do we need to affirm these facts everywhere? Let's take an example : in some countries, it has become very difficult for everyone to have access to doctors. That's why associations travel around the country in buses so that women can consult a cardologist. So only women are helped, not men.... Isn't it weird to exclude another category, not because they have not the same anatomy, but just because they are of the wrong gender ? So this is not a medical issue, but a political one.

In the past, I was like everyone else, trying to figure out how to define things like life, intelligence, freedom and so on. Today, I know the answer with certainty. The principle is as follows: If there's a word whose meaning everyone knows, but there's no definition other than: I define it this way because at least we need a common definition, but there's no real reason to admit it, then... there's a high probability that the word belongs to the category of words related to feeling. We feel life, so we have a word for that kind of feeling: alive. So “alive” is nothing other than that....a feeling. “And what about the concept of 'truly' alive? “I reply: “The what? It would be a very big coincidence if, for a word that comes from a feeling we have using our naked eyes (because yes, the word life is an old word), thus an erroneous conception of the living things around us, there was also a real concept behind what would exist in the world. Other misconceptions include “animals”, a kind of animate living beings, but of course this isn't always the case. After classifying living beings (yes, we can! Arbitrary classification works well in some cases and for some reasons), some scientists thought they could distinguish those that are “animate”, i.e. “in motion”, from the others. But we now know that there are species that contradict this rule. Some animals don't move, and some non-animals do. The reasoning above can be applied to many other notions. I particularly like it when it comes to defining the term “random”, leading to the conclusion that random is very likely a feary tale. Now that we know (or at least it's very likely) that “life” is just a feeling, we can of course try to find out why we feel that way. After all, the thing we have in front of us “looks” like life, and yes, the way nature created it is not the same as the way we would use if we wanted to manufacture it in a factory. Therefore, “what looks alive” and “what is created by nature” have something in common, of course, at least because the “mechanics” have the same origin for all the “living” things nature has created. Are viruses alive? No more or less than a cell, but because they come from cells (yes, cells create them), they can be considered to have the same origin as life: created by nature and related to things we consider living because that's how we feel about them. They are related to life forms and we can even speculate (I had a teacher who believed this) that they are a kind of “spore”. Are mushroom spores alive? Yes, no, but they obviously come from living cells... that's just my feeling on the subject.

Diversity is an evolutionary advantage... or not. In biology, the great principles expressed in words are not so great. The reality is much more subtle: here, for example, too much diversity will be a handicap, particularly when the environment remains unchanged, depending on the quantity of individuals that can be lost in the reproductive chain, depending on the loss of resources per lost individual, depending on the growth rate of individuals, depending on the resources available, depending on extraspecific competition, depending on the ability to survive with low diversity, depending on the reproductive method, depending on the migration of alleles from the population, etc. There is therefore no answer that can be given solely on the basis of diversity. The complexity of interactions makes long-term calculations virtually impossible, even with simple life forms. With humans, it gets trickier because there's also feedback on biology through technology, the social part and civilization, which add even more complexity. There was a time when strange peoples were simply killed because they were too different, sometimes they simply made others jealous,... but is this an advantage when it comes to having children? Isn't the biological ability to have more children more effective at duplicating certain genetic traits than being neurodivergent?

Science need INTERSUBJECTIVITY and CONCEPTUAL REPRESENTATIONS that are SHARED using some complex langage and that can be VERIFIED using EXPERIENCE. If not, this is just "having the same opinion about something". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersubjective_verifiability

To say "something has a purpose" we need to say that there is "a will" involved. Purpose with no intention, so no will, is not a purpose : It remains a fact. In the case of a hammer, because if "someone" is a human and because human do things because of their will, someone who designed the hammer did it obviously by some purpose. Per example, an idiot can design a hammer of 100lbs to test the genuflexion reflex of some patient or to kill flies. He did it by purpose. Is it the best or even the suitable way relativ to the goal ? So is the FACT that it can be used in some situation or not, apply to the purpose it was intented for ? There is no obligation between the fact and the purpose. Purpose come from imagination, and the facts come from reality. You can name "hammer" a piece of wood found in the forest : You imagine his purpose unlike you dident designed the real hammer. We can't say that science is useless for human procreation. It's not true to say that knowing more is useless. Knowing more (and that's what science does) gives you the possibility of doing more, knowing less takes away the possibility of doing more: That's a fact. The right question is: Are we using science to do more in the area of procreating human life? The answer is: Without scientific progress, there would certainly not be 10 billion human beings on Earth. General question: Is the aim of science to help mankind? There is no answer to this question. Science is a fact, and the reason why it is developed and used has nothing to do with any fundamental property of science: It depends on the people involved. So, people can do something one day and do something else another day, making “science” (the application of knowledge) beneficial to a certain field.

That's some other odd thing with SR. Einstein tried to figure out what it would look like for someone riding a photon like a horse. This leed him to invent SR and then SR states that this is not even possible to think that way. This is quantum thinking : Here we got the link we are searching along between quantum physic and relativity ! Thats a [true - not true] state ! Something we know since around 1931 is : Photon has spin 1 https://www.nature.com/articles/128870a0 Consequently, we can't say that the photon doesn't experience time itself. Of course, to say whether something is experiencing time or not, we'd have to define what time is. As this point is unresolved, or better still, can be defined in (too) many ways, there is no clear answer. Local time, or relative time, the many possibilities even make the question unclear. For some, time IS the change of something, so if nothing “happens”, the thing we call “time”, because it's equivalent here to the thing “something is different when we measure it twice”, is not time in an "experience" point of view. We can even say that the difference between two states of “IT” can be expressed by a kind of energy, “action”. This is a coherent point of view: there's action, so there's change, so there's time. Here, I often hear it said: photons can't be measured twice! The concept of time is therefore unsuitable for photons, because interaction with a photon destroys it. This is not true: you can measure the effect when it appears (the movement of the atom that emitted it) AND you can measure the effect when it disappears. So if you consider “IT” as the whole: “IT” interacting twice with the environment by exchange of action, IT.... is experiencing time. Of course, if you think of “IT” as the thing that contains quanta... as soon as “IT” interacts, “IT” is no more. So what's left is the wave between the events that appear and disappear, with a virtual photon that nobody can prove exists. I think this is interesting; it behaves as if, when we exclude creation and destruction as part of the photon, the photon seen as a wave (EM intensity changes during... time) reminds us that the photon experiences time, relative to the external environment. We must therefore consider 2 types of “IT” thing, that of particles, and that of waves. A : The particle one says that there is a creation and destruction event of the "IT" particle (relative to the environment) that should allows us to consider that the photon is experiencing time (seen as a change in the thing “IT”). B : The wave one says that there is a change of the “IT” wave within the trajectory (relative to the environment), the definition of “IT” excluding creation and destruction as part of “IT”. C : The theory of the wave and the particle says that the photon “is” the thing that begins as a particle when it is created, behaves as a wave when it moves and ends as a particle. This speculation doesn't allow us to draw simple conclusions. In this case, perhaps we should consider “the photon thing” as something that doesn't exist without the presence of the environment. Which is to say that every property in physics (and therefore even presence... which is considered in contrary real without interaction, as we see in mainframe physics), is the conjunction of an interaction. In this particular point of view, perhaps photon doesent experiment time, because there could be virtual photons, so change without time.

You perform a data regression, but the people from whom the data comes explicitly say you can't do it. https://data.unccd.int/countries-affected-by-drought?epoch=e5

What's more, the proposal to eliminate “less human” undesirables, in the sense of “less good”, suffers from the bias of thinking that the “standard human” is good, and that only some of them contradict this behavior. In fact, when you look at the whole history of mankind, it's exactly the opposite: a violent, self-centered, xenophobic being that ravages everything it can. Only Christians (and some other minority) argues for a different kind of behavior that defines what a good man is. So, if the proposal is to use the Christian definition of the good man, in order to legitimize the murder of the “bad man”, this contradicts the Christian rules, which say exactly the opposite: Love your enemy, let the other kill you, and so on: Because real life is elsewhere, not on earth. But if the proposal is to use the evolutionary definition, i.e. the “good man” definition of material life, which says that “the best” remains in the end, we have nothing new. Animals fight for life and compete, leading in some cases to intraspecific killing. Here the proposal is to extend this behavior at a much larger scale... loosing probably a lot of genetic diversity because behaviour is probably not only linked to education. However, I see a difference with the natural process: here you are proposing a selection that could be called “intelligent design” and the “god” who would do the designing would be ... you. Sounds frightening for the survival of humanity. Joking aside: look at what intelligent human design has come up with :

The problem with the reasoning : Being a good human consist of being so or so, therefore i need to kill the others, is that doing so i pretend that i can or other peoples can kill me because i am so or so or he is so or so. Of course it can not have a beneficial effect on society to kill poeples this way because poeple know each other, love each other and have famillly relationship that are independant of the reason we would need to kill each other. I you kill my father because he think the wrong way, i am not happy and say : Oh yes, now we have a fine society !

A very good local treatment was experimented around 2021, which could be widely used in the future for a large kind of viruses if as efficient as it looks like, is to use “false” cells, such as vesicles. In this way, the virus attaches itself to the vesicle, opens its envelope and sends its genetic material into the vesicle, thus becoming harmless, reducing the virus load. Side effects are actually studied, because nothing is simple in biology, and it's obviously not possible to fill the body with vesicles to save the patient. It's easy to kill the virus, but harder not to kill the patient at the same time. https://presse.curie.fr/covid-19-early-results-of-a-large-scale-study-on-the-immune-response-against-sars-cov-2-conducted-with-the-help-of-institut-curie-staff/?lang=en

Yes it is wrong to use words instead of others or we end up loosing some concepts. It is not because lot of people is doing a mistakes that it become right to do so. Therefore i try here to explain that faith is not belief. The two words are not here for aesthetic purpose, they really mean something else. You see, here per example (i show it just here for some reference purpose, not for proselitism) it is said that faith is... faith and that this is not a question of quantity. Saying that you could have "as little faith as a mustard seed", so little as nothing, is to be understand as "you can have as small faith as it could be", faith is faith, so only THE FACT FAITH is required, with no consideration of any quantity, to do the biggest thing that could be done (like here moving a mountain). It is straightforward to understand, isn't it ?

I dont think faith is something that can be more or less. There is no value to faith between some kind of limits; this would be "belief", not "faith". Because, in my opinion, faith is a fact, not a skill. There IS faith when "Someone want something related to God's will <=> it occur." It occur or it does not occur, there is no quantity involved. The fact is or it is not. Or course if someone want too much or too less of something, it can happens that it does not occur, but it is not because it can't, due to the "weakness" of the faith, (like some Jedi trying to bend reality to his will 😄) , but it is because it is not related to God's will. God want it more or less and the faith need to correspond to his will, thats all. So "faith" is some kind of "being an actor in the name of God".

This is also why you can call it "a movement", no ?🙃 In fact, in a general sense, christians are peoples who try to follow the teaching of Jesus Christ, so the name "christians". The first adepts of Jesus dident call themselves "christians" ( they were jews at first place that believed that Jesus was THE saver who was already anounced by the jews. And yes, only the "now called christians" believe that Jesus was the one that was announced. The other jews are actually stil waiting to their saver to appear and continue the old tradition (so they are still jews). So yes, and it is not a joke, the things peoples have to do to be christians can change over time, because christians need to attein some goals, like poverty, non condemning, etc : They just have to follow what Jesus said using parables on the mountain, and how to do so can change over time... because world and mind change over time too, of course. Now, why is it confusing and Jesus speaking lead to various interpretation over time ? Jesus has answered this to his disciples : https://www.biblestudytools.com/bible-study/topical-studies/why-did-jesus-teach-using-parables.html It is confused by purpose.... for those who can't understand. This is based on some sort of special logic, more powerful than the one we use on Earth, working in two directions, the cause and the effect are not ordered in time. So it is said that God is not one-eyed.

Biology research. Because the only AGI model that actually work worldwide and within a lot of species is made of cells. In fact, and i only give you my opinion here, the intelligence provided by biological network is probably primary only a side effect of some other more profund behavior. Like the feather was at the first place used to do temperature regulation leading to flight. Here the brain was at the first place used to connect actor to sensor without "overheating", leading to complex prediction ability. The prediction ability that makes "the brain" (of all kind) effectiv within "mental tasks", is initialy the mean the cells have found, at organization level, to reduce the flow of current from sensor to actor. Unless the simple computional model of the neural network, the biological network is working fully parallel. The cells have to be seen as agents working together, sending current to ...counteract the sensor current. Per example, you get a current coming from sensor every 1 second. The brain cells organize themselves to create a counter current every 1 second, so as to stop the current entering the brain by sensors (or other group of cells)... or it would heat (in fact it would accumulate charges too much and this would kill the cells or at least hinder the sending of the sensor) Therefore, when the sensor stop to send the current, the brain send the same current, but this time it is not counteracted, so it act as "a surprise" => A "new Knowledge" is the ability to identify à disrupture in standard condition., and a "knowledge" is the structure itself that permit to cancel the disrupture in standard condition. Knowledge is structual. The brain notice a change in the "pattern", the normal behavior of the sensor (or other group of cells) and this is how "it knows" that somenthing NEW occur. Then the cells LEARN again (organize themselves to send current) to counteract the new pattern of current, and so on, leading to electroneutrality. This is why you have WAVES of current in the brain (alpha, beta,gamma etc) and nothing of that kind in the computational model of neural network. The thermoregulation or more generaly speaking the homeostais is the key in both cases because it gives an évolutionary advantage to have steady temperature and steady current flow. So the mental ability is a side effect of the homeostasis using the brain cell...like the flight is a side effect of the homeostasis using the feather. [QUOTE ]Thermoregulation is a homeostatic process that maintains a steady internal body temperature despite changes in external conditions. Maintaining a body temperature within a tight range (between 36.5 to 37.5°C) allows for the enzymes and immune responses of the body to maintain proper functionality.[10]30 juil. 2023 [/QUOTE] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK507838/ The brain try to maintain homeostasis DESPITE of changes in EXTERNAL conditions (... and internally of course too because the brain is big) And this is what we call intelligence at a cellular level => the ability to maintain the structure DESPITE of "external agression." Some kind of proof of this is that, if the brain can not recognize a pattern from his external sensors (internally it is already organised, so the information coming from it has necesserally a pattern unless illness), ... because there is no pattern at all (behavior tests have been done with cats per example)...then it faces what we call stress, This kind of stress is deadly, leading to brain damage at cellular level, and also to every other organs connected to the brain. High level being, like humans, have of course developped some behavior to reduce somewhat the effect of such random "blank noise" but the effect has to be taken seriously. Per example one possibility to evacuate the current that has not be internally counteracted, is to send it to the actors without delay, therfore the laughting, using musculatur near the brain is some good way to do it. Nervous laugthing when stressed or even when "surprised" by something new and unattended (what we call a joke), is common in human behavior. Evacuating the current by this ways in the meantime the brain organize itself is very efficient.

Every unresolved question when explored by unsuccesfull researchers seem to be complex. You know you have the solution when everything become clear. Here, you have to understand where the word "Intelligence" come from. When a human walk on some others feet, most of them say something that can be interpreted like : "I feel pain". This happens for anyone in every civilisation. So, "ouch" , "aie", "aoua" or any word you like for it, refer to the pain you endure in some situation. But what is pain ??? Yeah... you begin to understand why i talk about that... "Pain is of course complex and contains unresolved issues and activ research." The really funny thing is : We have a word handy, but nobody is really able to define it , so why did we even invent it ??? What the heck ?!! Is it a joke ? (that was my first tought when i ran into this contradiction.) But if you try to understand further, you discover that there are many other words (the problemn is not only for intelligence), related to distinct concepts that lead to never ending discussions And this happens since man can discuss about that (philosopher like to discuss a lot). So, trying to find out what those concepts have in common reveal the rason why .. YOU CAN NOT GIVE A MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION OF INTELLIGENCE. Because intelligence, belong to the category of words that reflect the SENSATION, like pain, mightiness, liberty, beauty, etc. And when you discuss these notions, nobody can ever demonstrate you that he has the right definition. There is no formal definition for a SENSATION. INTELLIGENCE refer to some kind of FEELING that human people have (ordinary) in common, but at least they have a feeling that is specific to it, and that distinguish it from the feeling they have when they feel beauty, per example. So, when you are facing something, you can FEEL that it is INTELLIGENT without making any calculation or reasoning. Some other peoples can feel it too, ... or not, dépending on their own feeling, that it is intelligent or not. Now, why do you have the feeling that something is "intelligent" ? This is the real question that need to be answered, and to be clear, this is relativ to oneself. So, no one is intelligent by himself, he is considered intelligent using arbitrary convention that other peoples have created in common... because they have similar feeling about that. Probably the things only some of us can do and most can not, give use the feeling that the one that can do it is intelligent. This work also when we say that someone is strong i supppose.