A little introspection

[Bobby Two Hands]

I initially loved, then came to hate the whole "But what if the universe doesn't exist?", "What if we're all just in the matrix/dreams in the minds of Gods/dreams in the mind of God/simulated/brains in jars/ALL THE FEET IN THE SAME SOCK!", "Does stuff exist when I'm not looking at it" branch of philosophy.

Imagine how pleased I was to discover AN ENTIRE FORUM DEDICATED TO THE DAMN POINTLESS QUESTION.
You, self professed geniuses, seem to have latched on to a few main topics, and then quivered around like a monkey on acid superglued to a hot-air balloon's exterior while being electrocuted.

Your main crimes are:
-The whole man/woman thing. WHAT? Woman's just standardly used to mean 'bad'. We already had a word for that. It was 'bad'. I can assume that this is because the average person who thinks they're a genius and then goes and finds other people to share this with on the internet is invariably male.

-The GOD DAMNED QUESTION ABOUT REALITY. Leave it alone. Who knows what reality is? Actually, if you looked hard enough at the definition of logic, then the definition of axiom, then the definition of "Put two and two together", you'd realise that no matter how many man-hours you spend on the forums, reality is simply self-defined, and you can't prove a damned thing. Occams Razor's best friend of all time 'Basic Sanity' therefore says "Just accept that things are". QUIT ASKING ABOUT THE DAMNED TREE IN THE WOODS, THE QUANTUM OBSERVERS AND THE FUN OF BRAINS IN JARS. There's nothing you can do about it, it means nothing either way, and it changes nothing. Science is about whats, not whys. So is philosophy.

-The Kabbalah. Why must you go on and on about this crazy thing? It wasn't written by anyone remotely qualified, just by some random people with random ideas. Go read modern philosophy papers to see stuff written after basic logic was invented. Basic logic: Your best friend when trying to be right.

-Einstein was wrong. Okay, not all of you are guilty of this, as far as I can tell. But there's at least one 'tard knocking about on these forums who's got it in his hat that Einstein was wrong. Same person fails to understand stuff like what Plasma is, how an atomic clock works, how electrons behave in shells and possibly critically what Einstein actually claimed.

-Nietzsche. Yes, we'd all like to be the superman. But you're not. I'm not. No-one is. Let the psycho stay dead. If he were that great, I'm sure God would have kept him around for a bit longer. Or there'd be a petition or something to send off to the Vatican to have him brought back. There isn't. Trust me, I get far too many petitions for there ever to be one I haven't yet seen.

-MAKING YOUR ENTIRE THING UNITELLIGABLE IS CLEVER. It isn't. Genius isn't being able to encrypt and decrypt to some surreal other dialect. Any good idea can be explained to anyone. If it needs complicated words, if it needs the person to be enlightened, if it involves hand-waving and 'You know', it is, in fact, WRONG. The entirety of modern knowledge can be explained to a child. This is, in fact, how we get the knowledge to the suckers. Or it'd die off in a few decades. Being deliberately obtuse isn't clever, it's a sign of poor English.

-ENLIGHTENMENT. Yeah. I love Buddhism as much as the next man. Shame the next man is sane and clear-thinking. While loving other people is all great, and they may be right, enlightenment is impossible to convey by means of simple logical statements. It's an emotional state. It isn't advanced knowledge, it's simply a state of mind. Knowledge can be spread by words, enlightenment MUST be generated from within.

-And lastly, the most obvious point. YOU ALL THINK YOU'RE GENIUSES. WRONG, BAD. If you are, in whatever way, get some genius word produced. Get some new knowledge to add to man's rather brimming pool. If you can effectively prove, using logic and, if necessary, science, that we're all brains in jars, with time just a subjective experience, and controlled by a five dimentional being who sees all, then you can be called geniuses. Blind conjecture won't do, words which only the writer understands won't do. Anything else is just a NewScientist frontpage on Quantum all over again. Destined to be soundly mocked in the letters page, and ignored.

Genius isn't something you award yourself. It's what people call you if they think you worthy of it. At no point do you ever earn the right to call yourself a genius.

[Bobby Two Hands]

Oh man. That was more theraputic than I could ever have imagined possible. You've no idea how many times I've heard ramblings like some I see here. It's always made my blood boil. LITTERALLY. I'm basically some horrible Spanish foodstuff right now.

Reckon you could do that? If you got the resonant frequency of haemoglobin, the just heated up the blood? The most foul way of cooking EVER. I call it. I'm naming it "Nutriroasting". And it shall be all I serve in my restaurant.

[Bobby Two Hands]

TRIPLE POST. If I weren't already on the bantrain, I'd be slightly upset about this. It's TERRIBLE manners. But anyway.

I've been informed that I sound completely insane, and that my points are lost as I drift off into ramblings. Sorry for not bitching at you in a more rational and coherent manner. But, hey, [cheap joke goes here]. I won't make that cheap joke, cos I have STANDARDS.

Anyway, my main point is:

Logic is based off, exclusively, axioms. Axioms are completely arbitrary, by their very nature. Thus, everything you ever think, if logical, is arbitrary. Thus illogical. Best you can do is agree on the same axioms as mostly everyone else. For instance, those making up SCIENCE. One of these is Occam's Razor. This says stop making up theories where we're brains in jars, cos the theory that we're not is simpler.

Oh, and you can only have a logical argument WITHIN an axiom set. You CANNOT argue with someone with different axioms. Well, not logically. "FUCKYOUFUCKYOUFUCKYOU" doesn't count, cos it's too good an argument.

[MySuicide.X.MyBride]

I've been lurking for a while and I agree with many of your points. However you can often find good dialog if you don't mind wading amongst the pretentious crap. Also with the closure of the Worldly Matters section much of the discussion has been limited to the founders' philosophy.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Next time, go for brevity. "Fuck all y'all" says just as much, thus saving time and minimizing pollution.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

I don't like metaphysics. I also don't like thinking about the psychology of sexuality. I don't know what Occam's razor is, or what science is, or what philosophy is. I don't understand why people discuss philosophy of religion, whether it's Judaism or Buddhism. I think somebody here said something about Einstein that I disagree with, and I also think somebody said something about Nietzsche, who I never read. Some people on this forum have bad grammar, and I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that everyone on this forum thinks they're a genius even though, if you asked a moderator, you would sooner hear that this forum is a study of genius than a collection of geniuses. I, of course, have my own opinion on genius, even though I have never spent any time thinking about what a genius is.

Sorry for babbling, but my main point is that logic is based off of axioms.

[David Quinn]

Logic is based off, exclusively, axioms. Axioms are completely arbitrary, by their very nature. Thus, everything you ever think, if logical, is arbitrary. Thus illogical. Best you can do is agree on the same axioms as mostly everyone else. For instance, those making up SCIENCE. One of these is Occam's Razor. This says stop making up theories where we're brains in jars, cos the theory that we're not is simpler.

Oh, and you can only have a logical argument WITHIN an axiom set. You CANNOT argue with someone with different axioms. Well, not logically. "FUCKYOUFUCKYOUFUCKYOU" doesn't count, cos it's too good an argument.

Your point here only applies to formalized logical systems. You're right in saying that different formalized logical systems are different by virtue of what axioms are affirmed.

However, your point doesn't apply to the logical process of deduction as performed at a basic level within every human mind, where no system is being put forth.

Your own writings above, for example, are an attempt to utilize this basic level of deduction to make convincing points to everyone here. In effect, you are appealing to a universal form of logic, as recognized by everyone. This alone undercuts what you are trying to say.

Whether we accept or reject your points won't have anything to do with us having the same or different formalized systems. It will be decided on their own merits as to how rational or irrational they are.

-

[hsandman]

I agree with the rest of your post, but this part...

-Einstein was wrong. Okay, not all of you are guilty of this, as far as I can tell. But there's at least one 'tard knocking about on these forums who's got it in his hat that Einstein was wrong. Same person fails to understand stuff like what Plasma is, how an atomic clock works, how electrons behave in shells and possibly critically what Einstein actually claimed.

While I understand how plasma is defined by currently dominant theory in physics, and how behavior of electron clouds relate to atoms as defined in Quantum Mechanics etc. I also believe that I understand what Einstein actually claimed, yet I believe he got it wrong.
I don't know if you were referring to me or someone else... let me assure you that just because I believe a genius like Albert Einstein could have gone down the wrong path while constructing a theory "EXPLAINING" the "REASONS" behind phenomena of the observable world... does not make me a retarded. The fact that I do not subscribe to theories that so far have failed to explain the reasons behind the observable phenomena in "logical" way, also does not automatically make me someone ignorant of the content of these theories. The fact that I can accurately "predict" and "demonstrate" that bus No233 will stop at certain bus station at such and such time with approach speed of 60km/h and period between rest and departure of the bus, will be calculated by amount of people at the bus stop... Does NOT explain WHY the bus is traveling this particular route, why it stops at the bus stops, why it travels at this particular speed, how its locomotion is achieved, and WHY it is there in the first place.

Describing something is not the same as explaining. Newton "Described" how observable interaction between bodies in space can be predicted "more accurately". Everyone took it as
"Newton EXPLAINED gravity"... then Einstein EXPLAINED some more.
Then Quantum Mechanics EXPLAINED some more.

But I am glad to see some smart people pipe up… just cut down on name calling. ;-)

[Dan Rowden]

The opening post of this thread was the most immature, irrational, ranting nonsense that I've seen since yesterday. Pathetic. I sincerely hope the poster was 14.

[hsandman]

The opening post of this thread was the most immature, irrational, ranting nonsense that I've seen since yesterday. Pathetic.

I sincerely hope the poster was 14.

Yes, let's hope so... otherwise every sentence in your post would be a display of hypocrisy and ignorance, yet again.

[Dan Rowden]

Show me a single sentence in that opening post that said something sensible, complete with an argument as to why.

[hsandman]

Show me a single sentence in that opening post that said something sensible, complete with an argument as to why.

Sure..

Being deliberately obtuse(abstruse) isn't clever, it's a sign of poor English.

Why=

Blind conjecture won't do, words which only the writer understands won't do

.

Rambling and not that much of original insight between the rants,but he has some rational points there. He just cant express them clearly.

• *Basic logic: Your best friend when trying to be right.("determining the truth" would be better than "being right", but meh)
  *Same persons (here) fail to understand stuff like what Plasma is, how an atomic clock works, how electrons behave in shells and possibly what Einstein actually claimed.
  *Science is about whats, not whys. (Yes, that is where science falls short ;-P )
  *Woman's just standardly used to mean 'bad' (on this board). We already had a word for that. It was 'bad'.

"Hypocrisy is anything whatever may deceive the cleverest and most penetrating man, but the least wide-awake of children recognizes it, and is revolted by it, however ingeniously it may be disguised." - Leo Tolstoy

Unless this is the first thread that you have read on this board since yesterday, that does not make it

“ The most immature, irrational, ranting nonsense”.

I would guess he is 16 to 19yrs of age.

[JustinZijlstra]

I don't like metaphysics. I also don't like thinking about the psychology of sexuality. I don't know what Occam's razor is, or what science is, or what philosophy is. I don't understand why people discuss philosophy of religion, whether it's Judaism or Buddhism. I think somebody here said something about Einstein that I disagree with, and I also think somebody said something about Nietzsche, who I never read. Some people on this forum have bad grammar, and I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that everyone on this forum thinks they're a genius even though, if you asked a moderator, you would sooner hear that this forum is a study of genius than a collection of geniuses. I, of course, have my own opinion on genius, even though I have never spent any time thinking about what a genius is.

Sorry for babbling, but my main point is that logic is based off of axioms.

90-99 - Average

Able to learn a trade in a hands-on manner and perform tasks involving decisions. Craftsman, sales, police officer, clerk.
100-109 - Average

Able to learn from written materials. Employable in senior positions.
110-119 - Above average

Able to learn in "college" format. Bachelor degrees. Manager, teacher, accountant. Just capable of taking high-range tests.
120-129 - Borderline gifted

Capable of gathering and inferring own information. Master degrees. Attorney, chemist, executive.
130-139 - "Gifted"

May be able to write a legible piece of text like an article or modest novel. Minor literary figures. Ph.D. The "soft" sciences. In this range lies the median of scores on high-range tests. Regular psychology's IQ tests should not be trusted beyond this range as their correlation with "g" breaks down there, if such scores are given at all.
140-149 - Highly intelligent

Capable of rational communication and scientific work. From this range on, only specific high-range tests should be considered. Important scientific discoveries and advancement are possible from the upper part of this range on.

We do not yet know if intelligence from about this range on is simply the extreme end of a normal distribution centered at 100 and largely formed by heredity, or if high intelligence may in some cases have other causes (non-inherited or non-genetic) which cause it to deviate from the normal curve centered at 100 and form a kind of "bump" in the far right tail, similar to the bump in the retarded range (which is caused by non-inherited and non-genetic effects).

Perhaps distinctions could be made?
Genius, Gifted, Prodigy or Savant?

I have done some tests and have because of that been and still am in some societies and one thinktank [snip->searchable].

Also introversion/extroversion, social problems, environment, pressure all contribute, I would claim that patient deviance is almost a need if one wants to contribute something significant but not participate in the whole.

There is also a misunderstanding in high intelligence that creates and high intelligence that creates out of passion. When one is ultra intelligent one thinks without knowing it and connects seemingly unrelated fields together, call it 'higher analogical thinking', associative horizon is also important here.

Fisher distinguishes between four personality types each of which she associates with a body chemical:[7]
explorer - dopamine
negotiator - estrogen
director - testosterone
builder - serotonin.

On average higher testosterone in woman means beter performal (playing mentally with polygons) capacities.
Whilst the opposite is true for man. Lower on average means better performances.

--

It is pretty unfruitful to discuss here what has been already sorted out in 'thethinkingminefield'.


Most individuals like to talk and certainly not get their leggs slashed from them.

They want wings above them, not be the wings themselves. "Masculine" sounds great, but only the sound is ok. Most do not dare to fail under eachothers eyes.

But ok. Gone again.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Justin: I was just writing a summary of the three opening posts to emphasize how scatter-brained the emotional outburst was. You are right: all of this has been discussed in the thinking minefield. (Honestly, if Bobby Two Hands finds every branch of philosophy discussed here boring, he probably shouldn't be philosophizing.)

However, associating genius with IQ scores is not that much of an improvement over the OP, where genius is used as a term of endearment. I mean, IQ is a little better, since the OP's idea of genius is arbitrary to the point of meaninglessness.

[JustinZijlstra]

However, associating genius with IQ scores is not that much of an improvement over the OP, where genius is used as a term of endearment. I mean, IQ is a little better, since the OP's idea of genius is arbitrary to the point of meaninglessness.

Hence->meurl