GENIUS FORUMS

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

Carl G wrote:... can feelings be valid and accurate discerners of truth, especially in conjunction with the mind? Are there levels of understanding possible, which are unreachable by the mind alone?

Anything that is able to validate and discern truth would in my book still called mind or reason.

Perhaps then we need to broaden our definition of mind. It is said that the emotional center has its own brain. Gurdjieff, for example, called man a three-brained being. The third mental center concerns the physical body. This has a basis in esoteric tradition and makes sense to me.

Also: when understanding takes place, mind arises. If you take understanding to a different level, you're just taking the mind to that level.

Agreed, if we broaden mind to more than just what happens in the head.

The question is then what you mean by these different types of "accurate discerning" and "understanding". Wouldn't they add up to hunches, guesses, estimates, predictions and so on? Any examples?

Intuition, divination, telepathy, channeling. For you feeling, as a means, may equate to no more than hunches. For me it can be much more. For example, one can feel the quality of energy within a space, or surrounding a potential enterprise, or how it flows around a person or potential path of action.

Carl G wrote:For you feeling, as a means, may equate to no more than hunches. For me it can be much more. For example, one can feel the quality of energy within a space, or surrounding a potential enterprise, or how it flows around a person or potential path of action.

These kind of physiological sensations can be different and sometimes contradictory depending on arbitrary things like your current mood, tiredness or alertness, the ambiant lighting, the weather etc. I'm not dismissing their validity, but these kind of bodily reactions are never consistent, in my experience at least.

True, they don't work as well when one is tired.

Glostik91 wrote:It sounds right. But my ears have deceived me before. So, how do I know that truth is existence? What if truth doesn't exist?

These things can be worked out logically, like fighting fire with fire. Truth when defined as existence cannot be said to exist. It's more like admitting that the moment you accept something as existing, you're establishing a truth.

Self-awareness, the awareness of a self is the foundation of our existence, or sense of existing, the way we give it meaning in our mental landscape. Already here truth is established: we cannot deny existence as to deny it we first have to raise it.

What is the truth the way to?

There is a very good reason why nothing is added after "the way". It's just the way it is, it cannot be escaped, only denied.

The truth is life? Does this mean people who don't have truth are dead?

Zombie movies do play with this idea of people going through life with hardly awareness being near dead, holing themselves up in their neo-Egyptian tombs called 'housing' trying to kill whatever gives a sign of human awareness. But it's even more simple that that: life is what one values after all and what one rejects is like declaring dead: "non-valuing" or ignoring.

So something that is not constant does not contain truth. Therefore randomness abounded before time.

Randomness seems to me more of a phenomenological issue. But yeah, what is constant cannot be false. Only what is can be true. Therefore what becomes is false, illusion, "life as we know it". Yet the occurrence itself is a truth: we cannot deny things are becoming in our awareness.

Therefore if I want to find truth I must go outside of the universe. How am I to accomplish this task?

You are part of this universe so it's true that you cannot go outside it. But you could find out the lies, for that you don't have to leave the universe.

Everything is always approaching forever but never gets there. Eternity doesn't exist because nobody can perceive it, yet when I read this paragraph it seems as though you can. How is this possible?

Perceptions are always finite, this is the way we perceive: by separation. That means eternity is doomed to be approached by abstract, symbol or representation only. Yet at the same time we can realize the eternal and the finite are one. Not only realize it in our minds but also in everything we do. Some call this process the enlightenment not as much of that one person but of the world.

Carl G wrote:

Also: when understanding takes place, mind arises. If you take understanding to a different level, you're just taking the mind to that level.

Agreed, if we broaden mind to more than just what happens in the head.

Naturally our head is just a concept too. It's not difficult to realize there's constant exchange between the virtual inside and outside of that concept. It doesn't even need esoteric notions to realize that.

The question is then what you mean by these different types of "accurate discerning" and "understanding". Wouldn't they add up to hunches, guesses, estimates, predictions and so on? Any examples?

Intuition, divination, telepathy, channeling. For you feeling, as a means, may equate to no more than hunches. For me it can be much more. For example, one can feel the quality of energy within a space, or surrounding a potential enterprise, or how it flows around a person or potential path of action.

What's the difference between feeling qualities of potentials or the mentioned hunches, predictions and estimates? How could this become what you called an "accurate" form of discernment? How would you go about establishing this accuracy in an unbiased manner?

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:What's the difference between feeling qualities of potentials or the mentioned hunches, predictions and estimates? How could this become what you called an "accurate" form of discernment? How would you go about establishing this accuracy in an unbiased manner?

By testing for oneself, against experience. One tests one own feeling-mechanisms by acting according to them or against them -- with or without corroboration from one's mental process (the head) -- and observes the results.

Carl G wrote:

Cory Duchesne wrote:

Carl wrote:Must? Consciousness in Oneness is not possible

You can't experience oneness.

You? Me? I'm speaking of God. Can God not potentially be self aware?

Well, a human being (or some alien being) can identify himself as the all.......so there is your self aware God: a finite thing, conscious of his infinite nature.

Experience demands differentiation, duality.

Couldn't the Mind experience the Body? Why would some OTHER be necessary?

The body by definition is finite. So, even if his body had an infinite nature, God could only ever experience finite portions of it.

However, you can arrive at the truth that all is one. But you can't actually experience oneness, because experience is relationship (differentiation). If you eliminate all relationship (differentiation), then you eliminate consciousness.

Again, cannot the One can have relationship with It's Parts? Or one part -- Awareness -- with another -- Action?

But if you are conscious of parts, those parts must exist in space, and that space must be finite. If the space were infinite, the parts (and even space itself) would not be perceptible.

Picture looking down at the ocean with a tiny boat in the middle. If you were to zoom out further (enlarging the space), the boat would get smaller. Every time you increase space (zoom out), you reduce to size of the part (the boat). If you zoom out too much, the boat disappears. This is the nature of consciousness. It is finite and discriminatory.

When looked at in a very specific context (a person realizing that, logically, he is an indivisible part combining with the all) the all can indeed be self aware, but in that context, we are referring to a single helpless person at mercy to the rest of the cosmos.

However, the idea that the infinite cosmos itself can be self aware is absurd, because consciousness requires inputs, and inputs implies that there is something else being observed a part from the observer.

Why? When one is meditating -- free of normal external stimulus -- for example, can not some part detach and observe the rest of the organism in repose?

But isn't that at the expense of blocking out the outer environment? Freedom from external stimulus sounds like you are trying to reduce consciousness and focus on something else.

What is to prevent Infinite Mind from observing the Infinite Process, in other words?

The human mind has an infinite nature, and the things humans observe have an infinite nature. So in that context, the infinite mind can observe the infinite process.

But that's not what you're talking about, is it?

What you are talking about is impossible, for reasons I have explained above. (picture a lone boat floating in the ocean, and the finite space around it).

I understand your reasoning. Could the Mind not observe itself, its own processes?

Sure it can, but such finite observation would be at the expense of all the other things there are to observe.

Could Consciousness itself not be self reflecting?

We already know that it is (e.g., humans are self reflecting).

If he was the all, then there would be nothing to observe!

Yes, there is: Self

He would only be able to see finite portions of himself, ignorant to other portions. This is the nature of consciousness.

dejavu wrote:

Yes God is a snob, why wouldn't he be? he has meticulous taste.
If you can't see that a higher being "painted" the world, in highly spectacular 3D, which humans like to imitate crudely and repulsively by painting in 2D, then you are just a schmuck. Why would God be interested in you?

You should edit this post prince, and out of love I'll edit mine afterwards to hide all evidence. The tastelessness in saying God "painted the world in highly spectacular 3D" is not the sort of thing that's going to arouse his interest, let alone his whatsits. It's the sort of thing some sotted slob might write on the wall of a toilet.

No, I don't edit my posts. Unless its some sort of glaring error in format.

But I do appreciate your rather clever stabs and jabs, I really do. It's the work of a higher than average intellect, but still rather dour and mundane from my POV.

And now a word from your sponsor (GOD)...

http://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/lib ... Ph.D..html

Glostik91 wrote:

Pincho Paxton wrote:


Well the creator was just 2 bubbles, and they were created by logic that nothing cannot exist.

Glostik91 wrote: I don't understand. What do you mean by two bubbles?

Nothing cannot exist is logical, I agree.

Science used to have a thing called the Aether, but science chose to go with Einstein's Theory Of Relativity instead. But I believe that it was a mistake. If you instead go back to Aether as a propagator of matter then you can create the universe from very little. Like 1 electron. So I have been making models of everything using the Aether to replace all of the common terms like C, Relativity, waves, Vacuum, and what I now have is a physical Universe instead of a numerical one. I have replaced numbers with substance, and found nature.

Pincho, are you, like, the reincarnation of Tesla, or something?

Carl G wrote:Pincho, are you, like, the reincarnation of Tesla, or something?

I'd be more like De Vinci, an artist who studies science without really adhering to scientific formula. Basically I draw models of everything, and fit them together like a jigsaw. So I have a model of Aether, and that model includes a wave pattern, and that wave pattern creates light, and gravity, and it's size is the distance between two atoms, and that distance is a bubble. A bubble allows compression, and moving objects compress, the compression reduces the distance to travel, and that distance minus compression is speed. When bubbles compress they cannot compress more than flat, so close to that is C, so that is the compression limit of the wave peak. And it goes on like that, making all things physical. It even makes time physical, but it isn't time exactly, it's only passing through a bubble, and you can't alter it. What I have here is something that isn't exactly the same as the Aether that was removed from science. This Aether is bubbles, and the old Aether was a fluid. My version of science should pass the tests that the old version failed. However, science hates to go back to something that it discarded, but there are a few scientists still working on it.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Beluga whales have an average IQ of 155.

You're using an article hosted on a website whose domain is idiotica.com as a reference? Or are you just having a joke with us? I can't find independent corroboration of the startling claim that a Beluga whale beat Spassky at chess, and the Wikipedia article on Beluga whales doesn't mention the - also startling - claim that you made regarding the Beluga whale's average IQ. Do you have an authoritative source, or are you pulling our legs along with the hosts of idiotica.com?

guest_of_logic wrote:

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Beluga whales have an average IQ of 155.

You're using an article hosted on a website whose domain is idiotica.com as a reference? Or are you just having a joke with us? I can't find independent corroboration of the startling claim that a Beluga whale beat Spassky at chess, and the Wikipedia article on Beluga whales doesn't mention the - also startling - claim that you made regarding the Beluga whale's average IQ. Do you have an authoritative source, or are you pulling our legs along with the hosts of idiotica.com?

i just Googled IQ of Beluga Whales...and it looks like they all say the same thing (IQ/155)

guest_of_logic wrote:You're using an article hosted on a website whose domain is idiotica.com as a reference?

I am guilty of lazily quoting the first site that came up on a google search - nothing more. I'd gotten the information originally elsewhere, and just ran a google for a proof. Here are some more that reference the whale's high I.Q.:

http://aquaviews.net/tag/beluga-whales/

http://qpanimals.pbworks.com/Beluga-Whale

http://www.oppapers.com/essays/Beluga-Whales/114537

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Beluga

.


-tomas yaps earlier-
We are just another colony created for this specific Earth climate. The Totality has many creations out there specifically designed to inhabit that climate. No doubt whatsoever. I don't see man ever living on the Moon, Mars. Gotta run to the Space Shuttle.


-lucky numbers-
Now that Mars is warming up, humans could easily find a way to colonize it.

-tomas-
As I write this Elizabeth is testing a few beluga whales for high IQ, we'll be taking approximately 16 along on the space shuttle. Their primary mission will be to search for ocean water. Rumor has it the entrance to the wading pool is under the "face" on Mars.


-lucky numbers-
What is to stop human colonizing Moon or Mars?

-tomas-
Word has it that the beluga's have been organized by Barack Obama's ACORN affiliates. Seem the whales want extra plankton stored ahead of time on Mars. And, here's the kicker, they want exclusive movie rights written into their contracts without their thumbprints being revealed! They also want government-subsidized health care for life for their spouses and free submarine rides at Disney World, Florida, upon their return to Earth. (I think that last part was Elizabeth's idea though ACORN will disavow any knowledge or involvement).


-lucky numbers-
We humans are more versatile than you give us credit for, maybe?

-tomas
Sure, as long as Canadians aren't included in the mix.

PS - Pincho Paxton will be on the lookout (in the crows nest) that there are no black holes along the way.

Please pardon Tomas. He seems to have been watching Star Trek The Voyage Home, interrupted by political commercials and a commercial for Pirates of the Caribbean while reading the last few posts in this thread, and has gotten a bit confused.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:I am guilty of lazily quoting the first site that came up on a google search - nothing more. I'd gotten the information originally elsewhere, and just ran a google for a proof. Here are some more that reference the whale's high I.Q.: [snipped]

Hmm. They all just state the claim - there are no references. It's a bold claim - it would be nice to see the original research. How did they test them for example? They obviously can't just sit down and take a written test. And how come I haven't heard of this before? It upsets the truism that humans are the smartest creatures on this planet - I'd have thought it would have been big news.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

guest_of_logic wrote:You're using an article hosted on a website whose domain is idiotica.com as a reference?

I am guilty of lazily quoting the first site that came up on a google search - nothing more. I'd gotten the information originally elsewhere, and just ran a google for a proof. Here are some more that reference the whale's high I.Q.:

http://aquaviews.net/tag/beluga-whales/

http://qpanimals.pbworks.com/Beluga-Whale

http://www.oppapers.com/essays/Beluga-Whales/114537

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Beluga

Whales cannot be measured using standardized IQ tests. Whales are wholly incapable of remarking on the content of standardized IQ tests. Which means that an test would need to be derived for the purpose of testing whales specifically, in which case the average IQ amongst whales would be 100 (because that's what an IQ average is).

As it is researchers try very hard to develop standardized IQ tests which do not contain culture bias, as most do. Its not easy to develop an IQ test that is fair across human cultures, and we can all speak and write out our answers to complicated pattern recognition problems. Developing an IQ test that spanned different species would be much more difficult and as far as I can tell, no one has ever devised such a system, or one hasn't been reviewed and demonstrated to be effective.

Some people try to infer from brain-weight an animals IQ rating. They will say that the human brain is 1400cc and average human IQ is 100 (100 is the average for any sample), thus if a whale has a brain that is 2200cc then the whale must be roughly 50% smarter than humans. What they miss is the fact that brain-weight is proportionate to body-weight. The more body mass the more brain mass needed to manage it. So there is no direct correlation between brain-weight and IQ.

Another feature of whales and dolphins is that they operate with half a brain at a time. One half of the brain sleeps while the other is awake. So whales are capable of operating their entire system with only half of their brain at a time. Whereas humans rely on their entire brain for wakefulness and sleep. Supposing humans had twice the brain but only ever used half the brain at once, we'd be in the same boat we are in now, as far as intelligence but we wouldn't need to spend 8 hours a night unconscious.

neither does intelligence correlate with brain-weight. Virtually all humans have the same brain-weight, but IQ scores vary between 25 or less and 200 or more. It has more to do with the organizational structure of the brain in question. certain anomalies like agenesis of the corpus callosum can create amazing insights in an individual which are usually accompanied by some deficit as well. Think savant syndrome.

All of this and I forgot to mention the fact that IQ itself is controversial. It may not seem controversial now, but it is.

IQ has proven to be a decent predictor of academic achievement (not social or economic success). It is used mainly for this purpose, for measuring childhood scholastic development.

At the core of the issue for psychologists is what Spearman called "General Intelligence" ("Spearman's G") which has never be observed or proven to exist and is the subject of much controversy.

The IQ tests established to predict scholastic development are culture specific and tend to break-down in efficacy when used across cultures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_in ... nce_factor

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Please pardon Tomas. He seems to have been watching Star Trek The Voyage Home, interrupted by political commercials and
a commercial for Pirates of the Caribbean while reading the last few posts in this thread, and has gotten a bit confused.

Elizabeth,

Speaking of IQ in animals ...
Here's something I found on rense.com:

Denmark Dolphin Slaughter

The sea is stained in red and in the meanwhile its not because of the climate effects of nature.

10 photos > http://www.rense.com/general88/barb.htm

Animus wrote:All of this and I forgot to mention the fact that IQ itself is controversial. It may not seem controversial now, but it is.

IQ has proven to be a decent predictor of academic achievement (not social or economic success). It is used mainly for this purpose, for measuring childhood scholastic development.

At the core of the issue for psychologists is what Spearman called "General Intelligence" ("Spearman's G") which has never be observed or proven to exist and is the subject of much controversy.

The IQ tests established to predict scholastic development are culture specific and tend to break-down in efficacy when used across cultures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_in ... nce_factor

They are finding ways to brain scan for IQ now. It is even easier to scan for Genius status, because Genius have unique brains. men have more Grey Matter, and women Genius have more white matter. Grey matter is better for mathematics, and white matter is better for higher vocabulary. Lol, you could say that a female genius can talk one hell of a lot!

Pincho Paxton wrote:They are finding ways to brain scan for IQ now. It is even easier to scan for Genius status, because Genius have unique brains. men have more Grey Matter, and women Genius have more white matter. Grey matter is better for mathematics, and white matter is better for higher vocabulary. Lol, you could say that a female genius can talk one hell of a lot!

Not really. They are finding that intelligence can be measured by specific cognitive features. Spatial reasoning can be measured distinct from mathematical ability. They are finding that in certain people some regions are more streamlined than others. This demolishes the traditional notion of "General Intelligence" and "IQ" along with it.

For example the latest issue of Scientific American Mind (Nov/Dec 09) has the following to say in an article written by Richard J. Haier called "What Does A Smart Brain Look Like?":

"The results so far are confirming a view many experts have had for decades: not all brains work in the same way. People with the same IQ may solve a problem with equal speed and accuracy using a different combination of brain areas. [For more on IQ and intelligence, see "Rational and Irrational Though: The Thinking That IQ Tests Miss," by Keith E. Stanovich, on page 34]....

The person with the highest g score showed far more gray matter than the group's average amount in several P-FIT [parieto-frontal integration theory, see p. 30] areas-perhaps not surprisingly. But it is interesting to note that two people with identical g scores of 100, the average for the group tested in the study, exhibited different cognitive profiles, suggesting different cognitive strengths and weaknesses...

But IQ scores do not tell the whole story-not even close. Intelligence seems to arise from varying combinations of the P-FIT brain areas in different people, which may explain each person's individual strengths and weaknesses. The challenges of identifying these patterns are well illustrated by the extremely rare cases of autistic savants. Daniel Tammet, for example, is an autistic young adult with uncommonly high IQ scores. He sees numbers as colors and shapes, which allowed him to memorize the value of pi to 22,514 digits. He also learned to converse fluently in Icelandic after only seven days of instruction. Tammet leads an independent life and wrote a best-selling autobiography describing his extraordinary numerical and language ability."


Tammet isn't a good example here in my opinion because Tammet's deficits are not obvious. Tammet has learned to interact fluently within social groups, a deficit he had suffered from as most autistics do. By contrast to Tammet, Kim Peek (the real 'Rain Man') also has superior numerical ability, but unlike Tammet, Peek has difficult performing the simplest of routine cognitive tasks. He is unable to properly tie his own shoes or dress himself, but he can tell you what day of the week your birthday was on in 2025 or who won the superbowl in 1975. He is a sponge of interesting facts and a whiz with math, but is almost totally incapable of normal day-to-day activities.

Simply looking at Tammet as an example can give the false impression that general intelligence is real or is the only factor worth considering, but considering Peek insists a more disparate analysis of specific cognitive abilities.

The other article by Stanovich I haven't read yet, but here is one of the headlines: "The idea that IQ TESTS DO NOT MEASURE all the key human faculties is not new; critics of intelligence tests have been making that point for years."

Pincho Paxton wrote: Grey matter is better for mathematics, and white matter is better for higher vocabulary.

That makes little sense considering the function of grey and white matter.... fact is you wouldn't have a vocabulary at all if all you had was white matter, nor could you perform any maths with grey matter alone. Both work together.

White matter are axonal projections from one cell body to another, or from one nerve bundle to another. Grey matter are nerve cell bodies or nerve bundles. I don't know what good having a bunch of axons would be if you had no cell bodies. They would be projecting information from nowhere and to nowhere. Likewise if the grey matter had no axons, brain regions wouldn't communicate with each other.

The Sciam article I cited earlier also has something to say about this:

"Gray matter, made up of neuron cell bodies, does the computational work of the brain. White matter enables communication among regions of gray matter via axons, brain cells' long, wirelike appendages.... In general, we found that in women more gray and white matter in frontal brain areas, especially those associated with language, was correlated with IQ scores; in men IQ scores correlated with gray matter in frontal areas and, especially, in posterior areas that integrate sensory information."