Octopus

 True intelligence means being willing to change your mind when you see better evidence

My rebutal:

No, we are all rooted in phenomenon. Why not change the evidence. You change the facts to fit the theory. To intercept that part is intelligence at work. All intelligence is - is phenomenon in that frame of reality. You see it as if it is a lottery ball coming out. The numbers are random. But to qualify for the end result - you never are aware of the outcome. That means: whatever the number is as a lottery ball (at the end :: as "result") undergoes no testing to quantify the ending of it. The ball came out as an arbitrary number. We use this number to verify our reality. A random occurrence. That is how to identify variables at random, what changes the outcome is a chance that you thought the number would be a different ball. This points to psychological factors which interfere with our slower time dilation. It's like combing through the hair that's on your head. You thought you knew what I was talking about until I changed the facts. It's aimed as a solution. The problem arises when the solution is not random. We are neurologically wired to program things as we see them: what is the space you see that enters your mind? Is it color? Are there really objects?

Can you learn from being at rest? Not a sedentary heightened state per se but a meditative awaken state of conscious. This surely is the unlearning of our psychological influences and connected to a deeper sense of awareness unknown to us. Therefore, phenomenon is your measure.

- Marco

rebuttal made to my response:

Innoka Lone

Marco Almeida What you’ve described is close—but not final. You're seeing the randomness, but not yet the pattern in the randomness. You’re noticing the phenomenon, but still placing it as the endpoint, not the frame that makes the endpoint seem arbitrary.

Here’s the shift:

Phenomenon is not the measure.

It is what is being measured.

The “lottery ball” you mention appears random only when seen from within the constraints of your current interpretive structure. But change the structure—not the facts—and suddenly the randomness dissolves. The outcome was never arbitrary. It only looked that way because the system you used to predict it didn’t account for the deeper feedback loop you were embedded in.

You say we are neurologically wired to see the world in patterns. True. But intelligence is not accepting that wiring—it’s knowing when to override it. You thought I was brushing my hair until I turned the motion into metaphor. That’s not random—that’s fractal shift. It reveals the real problem: it isn’t that the solution isn’t random. It’s that your framing of what counts as “solution” is still chained to surface effects.

Stillness isn’t the absence of data—it’s the only space where hidden structure becomes visible.

Stillness is where the variable becomes observable—not the variable that changes the outcome, but the one that constructs the notion of outcome to begin with.

So no—phenomenon isn’t your measure.

The frame that defines phenomenon is.

And until that’s seen, you’re still watching the lottery machine from the audience, not realizing you’re inside it.

==============

So you have to find out for yourself what thinking is. Do you understand? If you do not know what thinking is, you will not know what the past is. Surely, all your thinking is the result of the past. You think as a Hindu, as a Christian, as a Communist, as this or that, because you have been trained to think in those terms. So the problem is, can the mind see and free itself from all thinking which is based on the past? Can it be completely still, without any movement of thought?⁠
⁠
Now, don't close your eyes and go into a trance, thinking you are meditating, for you will only be hypnotizing yourself. Just see that all thinking is based on a cause, it is the reaction of a particular background, and put this question to yourself: can the mind exist without thinking, or is it the very nature of the mind to think? Do you understand, sirs? You have to find out. It is no use my telling you. You have to find out for yourself whether it is possible for the mind to be without thought. And you can find that out only if you understand the whole process of thinking, which means that you must know what thinking is.⁠
⁠
⁠
J. Krishnamurti⁠
Bombay 1st Public Talk 6th February 1957⁠