## Notion of intelligence in terms of Kierkegaard’s idea of crowd

Lets assume Gauss curve would be used to describe to statistical intelligence of a being. The argument for the assumption has its foundations in searching a decisive tree. One.

We could use a slightly less steep curve, though, if we assume value of decision is not of binary output. This is omitted in this sketch.

Two. Beings interact. This, together with Three, defines the system. Discrete filter would have to use the sequence of prime numbers to describe the system. No margin for this.

Three. Beings must learn. Explanation lies in the fact that any non-optimal solution brings about non-optimal output. Non-optimal variance comes back to a being, i.e. a tensor that defines that.

Four. A perfect being does not have any decision influenced by any other. On the other side, every other being has its decisions affected by a complementary sub-system.

In real life this means that imperfect being works hard and learns fast to become perfect. Works for the crowd, not being part of it, not sharing its love, passions and desires due. Proven easily by combining Two and Three.

Panem et circenses, for the all but a group. Probitas laudatur et alget or insanity, or imperfection. Most obvious solution is a beautiful great life of imperfection, with a loved person, great family, and ideas to create a better place for the beings.Â Beautiful and most of us who understand this post will end here. Still, it’s already so beautiful. Still, more learning is needed to become perfect in the sense of Gauss curve that comes as straightforward result of One.

I remember the words of one of the monks I had met during my travels. He said you cannot expect understanding. Now, it’s even perfectly easy to prove, but back then it wasn’t all that simple.

Moreover, you need to expect variance to attack you from groups of lesser beings. This must come assuming you understand the post and know where you heading, and the path you took is the right one.

But, remember, duo cum faciunt idem, non est idem, don’t judge too fast with too much “your certainty” (certainty you can obtain at your level of intelligence). You are somewhere in the Gauss curve, and was earlier somewhere else. Combination of One-Four to prove this. Besides, there is also one thing I havent mentioned yet. Global consciousness, which requires different approach to a being. Deffo not enough of a margin to hazard a conjecture. A proof is beyond me now.

Nemo sapiens nisi patiens, because it’s patience something that should be defined as acting for the right reasons, not on time. If by listening to me, you already recognize where I stand, just smile and believe that I will make it.

I’ve had too much. I have too much. I need to prove what I chose to do with this.