I can understand why you are confused about the issues you raise – you take original ideas, but you view them through the rehashed words of parts of it others have spit out.

e.g. Logical and Mathematical Prepositions are Tautologies because they have been proven to be so after extensive work, done by many different people over a very very long period of time.
As we go on we disprove some and we discover new ones – such as Newton and Einstein! Einstein btw used philosophy and Hume to find a way to disprove Newton.

The point is that although each one of us has unique abilities, our knowledge is view of the world is given to us – in other words, at first we are all told what to think and how to think about it. It’s only as our brain develops that we acquire the ability for abstract thought and imagination, which also varies among people.
This basically means that we develop the ability to start questioning what we thus far regarded as tautologies (again this is part of the entire nihilism process – so typical for teenagers! – as the frontal cortex evolves and with it the so called executive functions).

Intelligence, in essence, is nothing else but our drive to pose questions about the world around us (or at least the initial view of it as given to us) and our search for answers.
For some of those questions we find irrefutable, already existing answers (a bit like what Wittgenstein described as his idea of tautologies).
Others are able to take their abstractions and imagination further and look for possible answers to previously unanswered or even never posed questions – such as Fermat Theorem!

At the end of the day, I believe that all people are intelligent, but they are intelligent in a different way, because their brains just produce different output with the same input. In fact, that’s not a bad thing!

As to the issue of “the Mind” – you say “I know that it happens somewhere in the brain”.
What happens in the brain? Do you mean that the Mind IS in the brain? Or is it more likely that you know that the thought process happens in your brain and therefor you assume that what people call “the Mind” must be located there?
Interestingly enough the ancient Egyptians thought it all happened in the heart and they didn’t consider the brain was needed in the Afterlife!

Do you think there is a correlation between our ability to believe in “the Mind” and our ability to “diagnose” a disproportional amount of imaginary abstract “Mental Illnesses” as opposed to actual Physical diseases?

In analysis of statements, by definition, there is no room for questions! I believe that’s self-explanatory.

however, your example is very basic:
a bit like the old white/black swan argument.

Logic works, but only up to a certain point. By our worldly standard, life is rife with paradoxes and contradictions. This is because logic is our tool.

According to Gödel, and Turing, there are things that will forever remain unknown, or rather, undecidable.

It might be more worth our time to discuss things within the realms of the decidable. Instead of squabbling over whether there is intelligent design or not, I picked my ‘axiom’ and got on with my life a long time ago.

The final passages argue that logic and mathematics express only tautologies and are transcendental, i.e. they lie outside of the metaphysical subject’s world. In turn, a logically “ideal” language cannot supply meaning, it can only reflect the world, and so, sentences in a logical language cannot remain meaningful if they are not merely reflections of the facts.

Your analysis of my language is spot on. I do think of cognition as a process. This may be due to my computer science background.

As to the location of our ‘mind’, I cannot say for sure, but I do not believe in Cartesian duality. Does the location really matter, however? Would an approximation do?

e.g. I know that it happens somewhere in the brain. We also know that the brain re-arranges the location of specific processing areas in some situations.

As it comes to the definition of self, it would be a very sad picture if it were a static definition. It needs to change as our world-view broadens. I have not disputed that fact, contrary to your interpretation.

However, I disagree with you on the fact that only a few people know how to stop chasing their tails. I tried to convey the fact that we in fact know how to stop chasing our tails, which makes us somewhat ‘intelligent’.

Moreover, I do not understand the relationship between having the knowledge of the subconscious and knowing when to stop a ‘computation’. Can you please elaborate?

As for the statement, I was trying to demonstrate a flaw in the system of logic, which, if you weren’t intelligent you wouldn’t easily see it were a paradox.

Linguistics certainly has a part to play, but i was more interested in the cognition processes involved in parsing such a statement.

By “intelligent”, I meant the ability to process information on an abstract level. I do not believe in intelligent design.

I am not a religious person, but I have to concede that at some level, there needs to be a leap of faith. For instance, I need to ‘believe’ that the lowest layers of abstraction in any fields of science are true.

I cannot prove that intelligent design is false, however, I believe it is. That makes me different from computers, which is the point I was trying to make.

In that light I think you are “intelligent”. And no, the subject of the matter is totally different.

Je pense, donc je suis.

then is it equally true to say
Je suis, donc je pense?
or
Je suis mes pensees?