Note: The entire book is predicated on having nailed down a definition of human intelligence. Even the Philosophers are still out on that one, and will take gr

Note: The entire book is predicated on having nailed down a definition of human intelligence. Even the Philosophers are still out on that one, and will take great delight in frustrating you with counterexamples that prove you haven't hit the epistemological or ontological neighborhood yet. Any time you see a Mathematician, physicist, computer scientist, AI reasarcher, what have you try to justify something like this, please… please remember the massive asterisk and footnote reading: "according to my hackneyed definition of something that isn't even widely accepted as settled, and serves more to just try to even get this argument capable of being had with any semblance of concreteness such that my field can be applied to it." The map is not the territory, and YMMV. Philosophically speaking, that means we're realistically talking an issue of "if your definition is actually correct." Aldo note, that everyone can be in consensus on what everyone considers the dictionary definition, but the way life actually turns out can be completely different. Reality, as it were, cares not one lick what you think about it. Much like a teenager being told not to go out like that.