I wonder in what ways the “engineering of intelligence” recursively shapes, and to some extent prescribes the most probable developmental vectors of, our definition of human intelligence. We may find ourselves several years from now seeking the inflection points and procedural saliences that explain why it is that our core assumptions and concepts of intelligence in human and machine have become what they (by then) are.

Intelligence is in (and foundationally is) a state of constant flux and self-invention – asserting teleological endpoints and achievements or benchmarks is important but it appears to be a fallibility of (human) intelligence and culture to ascribe more significance to the waypoints (and notions of closure or completeness) than they actually possess.

In redefining intelligence through technology, do we fundamentally limit or set free and unbound our own potential? This is another (ultimately) unanswerable question: in formulating answers, we only recreate the possibility of more degrees of freedom, of more answers, of more information entropy and endlessly-extensible systemic self-inflection; and that – in non-linearly self-propagating adaptation and complex motion – constitutively is intelligence.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.