GENIUS FORUMS

FoolsJourney wrote:okay i am back.... i think two people mentioned krishna and i havent included him.... i gotta be honest, i havent delved much into hinduism.....but this will make me dig deeper...

again and again my id has been brought up....it's actually from the deck of tarot cards where the very first card is a fool. fool starts a journey and gradually gets enlightened.

of course, needless to mention, fools in ancient medieval times were the only ones being able to take jabs at the king...but i am getting too defensive here.

Can you explain how God fits in your list? And babies?

Dan Rowden wrote:
Can you explain how God fits in your list? And babies?

I will deal with the second one first. Babies are geniuses who are not aware of the fact that they are geniuses. Walking, learning a language, riding tricycle, etcetera are complex activities that requires tremendous skills which we only realize when we fail to do so with that much of fluidity as adults. Besides, babies brainwaves are mostly in alpha-theta state and they live in a world of lucidity. And at the risk of introducing my own personal experiences, as a kid I used to have psychic abilities, but in the cases of babies who are devoid of any ego, their potential of manifestation would be much higher.

Babies, when they are born, have much more neurons than us adults, and they start shedding them or else they'd have information overload and because they need to specialize.

Babies' brain are in pure mint state of formlessness and emptiness which is capable of infinite potential.

And why God? The very same reason why babies are who are born with God-consciousness.
If the first one is proven, then the second one automatically follows.

Of course, much of what I wrote is open to barrage of skeptical attacks. But purpose of my OP was to create a personal list and to see how it fares with others and by no means proposing it to be the ultimate list...

There is at least one thing I know about my "ultimate list" and that is...you're not on it.

Renaissance wrote:There is at least one thing I know about my "ultimate list" and that is...you're not on it.

Are you and Fool the same alter-ego?

Sure have a lot of the same writing style and verb placements.


.

Tomas wrote:

Renaissance wrote:There is at least one thing I know about my "ultimate list" and that is...you're not on it.

Are you and Fool the same alter-ego?

Sure have a lot of the same writing style and verb placements.


.

A 'fool' might very well indeed come to that conclusion


______________________________
I'm not who everyone thought I was

Uh, where's myself on this list?

Steven Coyle wrote:Uh, where's myself on this list?

Pick a number, between ... and ... A=A


.

I have revised my list (I can do that you know...)

00) Steven Coyle
0) Karl Marx/Tomas/Satan/A Circus Clown
1) Cantinflas
2) Shakira (sans undies)
3) The Baal Shem Tov
4) Flesh-Colored Christs That Glow In The Dark
5) Babies (interchangeable with 6)
6) Dan Rowden (interchangeable with 5)
7) Carl G
8) Grumpy Babies

Renaissance wrote:There is at least one thing I know about my "ultimate list" and that is...you're not on it.

Because it includes you...

FoolsJourney wrote:

Renaissance wrote:There is at least one thing I know about my "ultimate list" and that is...you're not on it.

Because it includes you...

What??? I'm on your new top ten genius list? Please take me off!

After reading through the introduction pages and much of the material connected to this site. I have the impression the words "exist" and "genius" are defined as such:

Exist - Something exist if it shares a contrast or relation to something else, in the very least an observer. So long as an observer perceives boundaries a thing exists. Where there is no contrast, no boundaries, a thing does not exist.

Genius - A genius is not of the intellect, but of wisdom. The genius may fail a math test, but is yet far more attuned to the real than members of Mensa who attained their status through scholastic achievement. By this definition, Einstein may or may not have been a genius. We are only familiar with his words, not his perception.

Is this correct?

Hi Animus,

Firstly, welcome to GF - I've appreciated your contributions so far.

Secondly, I'm not a wholesale subscriber to the philosophy of this forum, although there are some aspects that I agree with. This post,then, presents my understanding of a couple of QRS definitions that I don't necessarily support.

Animus wrote:Exist - Something exist if it shares a contrast or relation to something else, in the very least an observer. So long as an observer perceives boundaries a thing exists. Where there is no contrast, no boundaries, a thing does not exist.

That seems to be fairly accurate, although you're not giving enough prominence to consciousness. A more concise definition might run like this: "A thing exists if it appears to consciousness".

Animus wrote:Genius - A genius is not of the intellect, but of wisdom. The genius may fail a math test, but is yet far more attuned to the real than members of Mensa who attained their status through scholastic achievement. By this definition, Einstein may or may not have been a genius. We are only familiar with his words, not his perception.

That seems to be spot-on. A genius is one who perceives reality as it truly is, without distortion.

1.Blaise Pascal
2.Plato
3.Sören Kierkegaard
4.Baruch Spinoza
5.Walter Kovak
6.Socrates
7.Friedrich Nietzsche
8.The Comedian
9.Otto Weininger
10.Herman Hesse

1.bert; also the greatest Humanist; a resurgence of Julian the Apostate
2.Dali; also the greatest Clown
3.Cervantes, also the greatest Warrior
4.Socrates, also the greatest male mediumist and Anoetist and for relating to bert the transcedental Perspective
5.Sappho, also the greatest female mediumist and Poet
6.Michaelangelo, also the Greatest
7.Plotinus, for he has given bert the most wonderful formula
8.Apollonius, for he has inspired bert with the only magical means of inseparation and Psychic help withou disastrous aftereffects.
9. a Witch who remains nameless, because her fortune telling never failed.
10.Zeno, for being the greatest Vampire

Yeah surely we have to limit the inclusion of fictitious characters and non-human entities in the list or we could start adding the names of super computers too...

I appreciate Music, but I think to be good at music is a talent not really a genious thing, maybe because I am fairly good at music myself I under-rate it so my list would not have any musicians on it. I have read some great novels but couldnt really add any novelists either, maybe novels are more about the work put in and ability to write idea's down nicely than being a genius. Anyway the term genius is banded about far too loosely aplying it to far too many fields. I think a genius has an unimaginable cognative ability or ability to think outside the box, as such here a a few for consideration.

Stephen Bartley (artist who flew over london then drew the skyline in perfect proportion and detail after only viewing it for 15 minutes)

Stephen Hawkins (mathmatical genius and deep thinker)

Einstien (though scholastic in nature clearly had original and groundbreaking thought )

KAsperov (a very limited genius as I dont think chess is too useful but certianly genius level of logical thought)

daveyboy'z wrote:Stephen Bartley (artist who flew over london then drew the skyline in perfect proportion and detail after only viewing it for 15 minutes)

I would think this would also fall into the category of talent, rather than genius.

Welcome to the board.

Perhaps someone could provide an example of something Stephen Hawking has provided other than an excuse for people to be awed of him for no reason than they don't understand a single word he says?

Theoretical physicists are just theists in disguise.

Wait, Hawkings is the guy thats all deformed and shit, right?

Oh isn't life ironic.

God has an awesome sense of humour.

Thanks for your welcome, but I hardly think an ability to memorise the number of windows/scales of every building in the London skyline in 15 minutes and transpose them into a well scaled drawing from a different perspective is merely a talent. The person in question is not normal, no normal person is capable of learning to perform such a feat in my opinion. (he is regarded as a savant- only a few people have this catagorisation making him amongst around 100 of the most gifted people in the world.)

In case your geography isnt up to much London is one of the biggest cities in the world and its architechture is highly varied and not in a uniform pattern. 15 minutes would not be long enough for any normal person to remember all the buildings let alone the intricate details of each building itself.

Prince you seem very cynical to me. Stephen Hawkins perhaps is just a talented student, perhaps it is because he suffers the illness that he does it is in fact a mixed blessing in that he has applied himself far more extremely than an able bodied person would have.

As to what he has done, he has applied thought to concepts that most people don't understand explained let alone have the vision to think up in the first place and then he has used his mathmatical abilities to prove/disprove some of them.

Being a thiest is nothing to be ashamed of and so why would one disguise it? However your assumption that physics theorists are all thiests is completely false. In the modern world religion and science are two different arena's as far as most are concerned.

daveyboyz wrote:Thanks for your welcome, but I hardly think an ability to memorise the number of windows/scales of every building in the London skyline in 15 minutes and transpose them into a well scaled drawing from a different perspective is merely a talent. The person in question is not normal, no normal person is capable of learning to perform such a feat in my opinion. (he is regarded as a savant- only a few people have this catagorisation making him amongst around 100 of the most gifted people in the world.)

In case your geography isnt up to much London is one of the biggest cities in the world and its architechture is highly varied and not in a uniform pattern. 15 minutes would not be long enough for any normal person to remember all the buildings let alone the intricate details of each building itself.

If you are saying a gifted savant with photographic memory is a genius, I would disagree.

Alex Jacob wrote:I have revised my list (I can do that you know...)

00) Steven Coyle
0) Karl Marx/Tomas/Satan/A Circus Clown
1) Cantinflas
2) Shakira (sans undies)
3) The Baal Shem Tov
4) Flesh-Colored Christs That Glow In The Dark
5) Babies (interchangeable with 6)
6) Dan Rowden (interchangeable with 5)
7) Carl G
8) Grumpy Babies

I dunno if I care for my ranking .. and where's Diebert?

There are many forms of intelligence, memory is a facet of intellegence. The term photographic memory is not one I actually like but if there is such a thing it is certainly a very great ability.

Even those with "photographic memory" would be unable to perform the task because they would need the ability to shift the images to form a skyline built from an imaginary point from which they have not seen everything. They would also need the artistic ability to represent their understanding.

The guy is autistic, as such he maybe has more brain assigned to visual memory than most, but to see he many works and him at work I would say that he is genius. IE his ability if far in advance of normal human capabilites.

Tomas, how about this, then?

1) Diebert
2) QRS
3) Ryan Rudolph
4) Nick Treklis
5) Jehu
6) Hawkin, Hawkins, Hawking or however the fuck you spell it
7) Einstien, Einstein, or however the fuck you spell it
8) The guy who can draw London after a 15-minute overflight
9) Tomas
10) dirt

daveyboyz wrote:There are many forms of intelligence, memory is a facet of intellegence. The term photographic memory is not one I actually like but if there is such a thing it is certainly a very great ability.

Even those with "photographic memory" would be unable to perform the task because they would need the ability to shift the images to form a skyline built from an imaginary point from which they have not seen everything. They would also need the artistic ability to represent their understanding.

The guy is autistic, as such he maybe has more brain assigned to visual memory than most, but to see he many works and him at work I would say that he is genius. IE his ability if far in advance of normal human capabilites.

Seems like a waste, then, if it is genius at work there, to use it to draw fucking London.

Carl G wrote:Tomas, how about this, then?

1) Diebert
2) QRS
3) Ryan Rudolph
4) Nick Treklis
5) Jehu
6) Hawkin, Hawkins, Hawking or however the fuck you spell it
7) Einstien, Einstein, or however the fuck you spell it
8) The guy who can draw London after a 15-minute overflight
9) Tomas
10) dirt

Not bad .. considering that you are the dirt.