Originality and Intelligence

a reply to: namelesss

Goodness.

Intelligence. Not intellect.

Look up the definition of intelligence.

Look up the etymology of intelligence.

It literally means a set of knowledge.

Intellect is the ability to interact and add-to that set of knowledge.

"Central Intelligence Agency" does not imply High I.Q. It implies a department which contains an extensive collection of data and utilizes it. The CIA is not Mensa, just in case you haven't realized that by their actions lately.

originally posted by: TarzanBeta

originally posted by: Neith

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: Neith
There is no edge, save the one our senses are telling us exists. This is actually a really interesting subject to say the very least.

It is not the senses that say they is an edge - it is thought.
When sitting on a chair - can 'chair' be felt separate from 'you'? Is there a line? Or is it not two feelings - just one?

I will refrain from delving too deeply into this one, people aren't awake enough to grasp what I have to share. However, I will say this... What we comprehend as separate is nothing more than an illusion. It's a rearrangement of electrons. And even then, that is but, another illusion.

Thought... is another consortium altogether. One of which at this time, I shall pass on.

Hey now, Neith. Maybe I'm not awake enough, who knows? But I motivated you. Return the favor!

I wasn't actually referring to you because your grasp on this stuff is much higher than most i've seen here. I'm afraid opening pandora's box wasn't my plan with this, lol. uh oh.. hmm where to begin. Let me contemplate on this a little.

a reply to: namelesss

No beliefs here, dear, just my observations and studies. A classic symptom is the initial attempt to divert the discussion, using an assortment of fallacies, such as your attempted 'ad-hominem'. Rather than calling my definition names, please feel free to refute the points which so disturb you, without going all symptomatic.

And don't leave out experience. If experience be the road to fact and belief and ultimately one's truth. That is, unless we conjured up our experiences via ego-need, then would not emotion and creativity play the larger roles and intellect not so much? So, then within the metaphysical and philosophy thread, do we now need to inject psychology and quantum physics, or create a separate thread strictly for Mensa?

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: namelesss

No beliefs here, dear, just my observations and studies. A classic symptom is the initial attempt to divert the discussion, using an assortment of fallacies, such as your attempted 'ad-hominem'. Rather than calling my definition names, please feel free to refute the points which so disturb you, without going all symptomatic.

And don't leave out experience. If experience be the road to fact and belief and ultimately one's truth. That is, unless we conjured up our experiences via ego-need, then would not emotion and creativity play the larger roles and intellect not so much? So, then within the metaphysical and philosophy thread, do we now need to inject psychology and quantum physics, or create a separate thread strictly for Mensa?

Philosophy needs thinkers, feelers, intuitive people, all kinds of people. It's not so much about intellect as it is about honesty and consideration.

Metaphysics is definitely more the domain of the intuitive however. But it's not about IQ, but honesty.

Unfortunately, there is a lot of self-dishonesty for the sake of fantasy and a lot of external dishonesty for the sake of manipulation. It is rare to meet two people that disagree and yet both are being 100% honest. It can happen, but oh so rare. When that happens, though, some Benjamin Franklin comes around and becomes part mediator-part mentor between the two... If they're lucky.

a reply to: TarzanBeta

Do you mean a Benjamin Franklin moment such as this?

"In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes. "

in origin there is no intelligence. in originality there is.
so when you say is there intelligent life in universe. answer is yes. life is not origin by itself. it is originality. but in origin intelligence cant be defined.it doesnt exist.

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: TarzanBeta

Do you mean a Benjamin Franklin moment such as this?

"In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes. "

That's Ben's typical cynicism and wit. I don't think he was referring to universal laws as much as he was jaded by the climate in which he had to exist.

originally posted by: xbeta
in origin there is no intelligence. in originality there is.
so when you say is there intelligent life in universe. answer is yes. life is not origin by itself. it is originality. but in origin intelligence cant be defined.it doesnt exist.

The very idea of origin is the advent of physically accessible information itself.

Since it's hard to comprehend exactly the mechanism that works to create the universe, let's explore the underlying principle.

Before the advent of anything, there is an idea. Then there is a design. This is abstract processing. Then there is abstract experimentation. Once a prototype is developed, potential begins to be realized and it takes form. Now that there is a framework, then the hands-on work begins. Eventually, there is a finished product. Then there is duplication.

But it must all begin with an idea.

The idea is the abstract realization of the building blocks of the idea. That is the generation of information.

This is the same for every single thing a human has ever produced.

Without humans, there is no evidence of that kind of abstract origination...

Except that humans tend to have to refine their products over time. The universe is an impossibly perfect machine.

If our combined efforts always produce that which is slightly lacking, then to believe that unintelligence created the perfect machine is absurd.

Rather, it is perfect intelligence that is used to create the perfect machine.

Origin must be attributed to design. There is no other honest way to consider.

The principles of this universe apply to this universe. It seems redundant, but this is often ignored as if there must be some other way.

But some people only wish to see through the lens of their bias. Why anyone would want the universe to work against its own principles... I don't relate.

a reply to: TarzanBeta


No it doesnt begin with an idea. you cant even name it in origin.

originally posted by: xbeta
a reply to: TarzanBeta


No it doesnt begin with an idea. you cant even name it in origin.

How can one even begin to touch on philosophy or metaphysics without the capacity for abstract thought? To say there is no origin is to deny your own birth. I don't relate to such an oblivious attitude.

originally posted by: TarzanBeta

originally posted by: xbeta
a reply to: TarzanBeta


No it doesnt begin with an idea. you cant even name it in origin.

How can one even begin to touch on philosophy or metaphysics without the capacity for abstract thought? To say there is no origin is to deny your own birth. I don't relate to such an oblivious attitude.

It isnt philosophy. It is how i tested it so far.

originally posted by: xbeta

originally posted by: TarzanBeta

originally posted by: xbeta
a reply to: TarzanBeta


No it doesnt begin with an idea. you cant even name it in origin.

How can one even begin to touch on philosophy or metaphysics without the capacity for abstract thought? To say there is no origin is to deny your own birth. I don't relate to such an oblivious attitude.

It isnt philosophy. It is how i tested it so far.

You were touching on metaphysics... :facepalm:

a reply to: TarzanBeta

really? is it a nice thing?

originally posted by: xbeta
a reply to: TarzanBeta

really? is it a nice thing?

I think there is a communication barrier here.

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: namelesss
And don't leave out experience. If experience be the road to fact and belief and ultimately one's truth.

I do not see it as such.
Experience = knowledge.
Every unique moment is a unique moment of (Self!) Knowledge!
There is no difference between a 'fact' and a 'belief', both describe the same malware from different Perspectives.
Neither science nor philosophy deal in 'facts/beliefs', but tentative theories.

That is, unless we conjured up our experiences via ego-need, then would not emotion and creativity play the larger roles and intellect not so much?

We don't conjure/'create' Reality, we perceive the One unchanging Reality, from unique Perspectives.
So, though I understand what 'creativity' means when commonly used, it is a 'mirage' of the ego.
If you are saying that the 'Heart' should lead the intellect, I'd probably answer that, at the moment, we need a balance.
Heart without intellect finds us married to a rapist.
Intellect without Heart finds us... miserable... also!

So, then within the metaphysical and philosophy thread, do we now need to inject psychology and quantum physics, or create a separate thread strictly for Mensa?

If you are complaining that I'm going over your head with something, I am always happy to respond to respectful requests for elucidation.
It happens to turn out that quantum mechanics is very 'metaphysical';

"Quantum mechanics comes on as so off the wall that only a mystical state of mind can even begin to probe it's mysteries!" - Richard Feynman and Chuangtse

Just as the ancient mystics understood what QM is only beginning to understand.

So, it all goes together.
Philosophy is about critical examination of (anything), most often known for examining 'assertions/accepted givens'.
Any and all avenues of Knowing are acceptable in a philosophical examination; experience, logic, illogic, anecdote, evidence, intuition, etc...
No means of Knowing is rejected!

Charles Sanders Peirce required that the first and primary obligation of any philosopher or scientist is to do nothing that would block inquiry...