|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 7:04 am
Kulshedra The reason I made this post was, well, basically to disagree with nearly everything you just said. Just making sure you get that. My main arguments are already posted, so either you're purposely disagreeing with me, or you didn't read my top posts. Do I have to reiterate everything I've already said, or do I have to elaborate on what I've said? Okay? Then present your argument! DX Yes, please elaborate, and possibly restate. I would love to learn. I'm not here to be right or wrong. If you think I'm wrong, teach me! xd Please? heart EDIT: Whoops, I thought you two were the same person (it was the K's).My pie chart does not disagree with your quote. But what I gather, and I believe this is where we may disagree, that what you have described as intellect, I believe to be knowledge. Conditioning is knowledge. One can use that knowledge to contribute to the usage of their intellect. Intellect, as you say, is mostly innate. However, I do believe that someone with even a 180 IQ needs that to be brought out. If they are conditioned to be stupid, they will not meet their full potential. Allow me to quote, and get my little point across. Then correct me. smile This is probably the best way to get me to understand. Kanon Vilente To put it another way, through having learned, he is better able to learn and to make efficient judgements and decisions. This is known as environmental intelligence ( intelligence b ). This, I always thought was wisdon. He has learned things, and with his intellect he has applied what he has learned to real life situations. If this is the case, is that thought not wisdom, whereas the process of getting to it would be intellect? I suppose thinking about it that way, wisdom should be the smallest piece of the pie... Kanon Vilente There are many more factors that apply to ones intelligence. Street smarts isn't exactly the greatest thing to have nor knowledge of the streets about the streets and whats happening in the streets. I see you making a differentiation between "street smarts" and "knowledge of the streets." I have always considered those the same thing. One cannot be "street smart" without "knowledge of the streets." Being street smart is probably better said being street-wise, where a person applies their street knowledge to real life situations. Kanon Vilente Unless you use the factor that knowledge is power and yes. Information can actually sell for a great amount of money ( far off topic ) Well, that was never the point, really. The point is this. Knowledge is like apples that have fallen on the ground. You can easily pick them up. Wisdom is like an apple in the tree. You must climb up the trunk a bit to reach some. Intellect is at the top of the tree, and you must used your knowledge and wisdom "apples" to knock it down. Otherwise, if you are born "strong" (that with high intellect), you can easily climb to the tree's top. Kanon Vilente And the chart you have created shikalee in regards of trying to determine these areas leaves out a great deal. Such as? Kanon Vilente You can be head strong but brain dumb. And yet you can be wiser, intellignet, and more knowledgable than a genius. Is that not what my post indicates? Head strong (knowledge) is far easily to obtain. Being brain dumb (having a small intellect) cannot be so much related to being head strong. However, being brain strong in most cases is not caused my being head strong, yet it generally manifests a head strength. Damn, I wish I knew Hawking's IQ. He'd be a great example for this one... He started out a really average boy. He wasn't a savant or autistic. He just had an interest and he pursued it. This has made him respected as one of the most innovative "geniuses" since Einstein (who, as I remember, flunked out of school). Being a genius isn't a matter of being lucky. It's a matter of effort. Both Hawking and Einstein struggled a lot. Einstein was somewhat autistic, while Hawking started losing control over his hands in his early to mid twenties. If anything, these two people were very unlucky.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 3:28 pm
All right. Let me see if I can redefine what I've said so far about the three here, and maybe adapt it. So you know, my general way of putting thoughts on paper is just to let it flow. It's why I don't like looking up resources, but I will beforehand. It interrupts the flow. Anyway, here's my thoughts. Let's see if they've changed.
I think what you've said on intellect does put it in a new perspective. I would think that a large amount of intelligence is generally innate, you're born with it, and it's simply sheer luck. But then again, you're right, Einstein used to be horrible in school, although I don't know anything about Stephen Hawking's past. Perhaps if intelligence is something you wish to obtain, then you've already proved that you're worthy of it, in that you're willing to work hard to achieve it. I mean, you're already partway there. Part of intelligence is being smart enough to know the smart thing to do, and if you already know that you want to be intelligent, and are willing to work hard to get there, then you deserve it. Generally, people who aren't intelligent will go after goals that don't actually have much purpose behind it, without care, and only saying that they wish to be intelligent (probably just so they could finish their homework and show off, rather than actually use it), and don't ever bother actually trying to get to that point.
I suppose that some people who are innately given intelligence don't give their own intellect the attention that it deserves. They underestimate its value, and take it for granted, not understanding that a greater portion of the population has nothing near to their level of intelligence. By doing so, their own intelligence's potential starts to decrease. Because they don't actively use their intellect, it loses its edge, it starts to dull, and they lose their ability to figure out what the smart thing to do is. Eventually, they are about as intelligent as the average high school student, only backed up with the knowledge that they were able to learn in college, allowing them to hold up a better-than-average job, but not nearly as good as what they could have earned if they simply payed attention. Perhaps this is why those who sharpen intelligence out of their own minds are more renowned and powerful than those that start off with it sharpened.
I don't think there's any changes in my thoughts on knowledge, though. Knowledge is simply information. It has no relation to intelligence, besides that people too often mistake knowledge for intelligence. If someone has a large store of knowledge, it bespeaks aboslutely nothing about how smart they are. All they have to do is look up on the internet to find anything they could possibly want to know. And even if the page was too complicated for them to understand, several (hundred) checks in the dictionary will give them all the comprehension that they care to have.
I would say wisdom is both the combination of the two, and maybe even something extra. Whereas the previous two are completely separate things (although I suppose you could split intelligence into two categories, squandered intelligence and true intelligence), wisdom is something beyond. It is the ability to understand things of the world, to be able to act upon a combination of knowledge and of intelligence. I mean, knowledge is only facts. That's all it is. And intelligence is only computation, calculation, logical thinking. Wisdom is something beyond both of these. It's being able to intelligently discern, through knowledge, the correct thing to do. It is also the ability to logically decide, again, through the knowledge you already have, what has, is, or will happen. I'm not entirely sure how to describe wisdom, but it's just something above and beyond even the intellectual giants that stick out around us.
Does that all make sense?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 7:53 pm
Kulshedra All right. Let me see if I can redefine what I've said so far about the three here, and maybe adapt it. So you know, my general way of putting thoughts on paper is just to let it flow. It's why I don't like looking up resources, but I will beforehand. It interrupts the flow. Anyway, here's my thoughts. Let's see if they've changed. Very well. Kulshedra I think what you've said on intellect does put it in a new perspective. I would think that a large amount of intelligence is generally innate, you're born with it, and it's simply sheer luck. Well, I know this could be true. I was always "different." I always had skills others had not. At this point, I really am no genius. There is, however, potential towards my ability to contribute to the world. It is hard to say whether or not we are born intelligent, since many who are intelligent lose this talent, and many who are not intelligent gain that in themselves. Kulshedra But then again, you're right, Einstein used to be horrible in school, although I don't know anything about Stephen Hawking's past. Einstein was a very special case... As for Hawking, he did rather well in school (not excellently, but he had few shortcomings). Kulshedra Perhaps if intelligence is something you wish to obtain, then you've already proved that you're worthy of it, in that you're willing to work hard to achieve it. I have considered this myself. Whether or not "worthy" is the correct word is likely under much debate. However, I do agree upon the idea that intelligence is something one must earn, or obtain. They are born with an innate ability, but if they don't use it, it might as well not be there at all. Kulshedra I mean, you're already partway there. Part of intelligence is being smart enough to know the smart thing to do, and if you already know that you want to be intelligent, and are willing to work hard to get there, then you deserve it. Logically, this makes a lot of sense. However, I still don't feel people are "worthy" or "deserving" of intelligence. Nothing in the world is free. But sometimes the cost is simply reaching out and taking it. Kulshedra Generally, people who aren't intelligent will go after goals that don't actually have much purpose behind it, without care, and only saying that they wish to be intelligent (probably just so they could finish their homework and show off, rather than actually use it), and don't ever bother actually trying to get to that point. I wouldn't necessarily go that far. People who aren't pompous geniuses still can succeed in life, and do something that matters to them. Hawking's pursuit of physics is no different than Papa John's pizza parlor. Sure, Hawking has made some magnificent discoveries. But Papa John did exactly as he; there was a passion, an excitement towards and idea, and he reached out and took that opportunity. As we well know, one does not need to be a genius to be a pizza parlor owner (nor, do the need to be a genius to be a physicist, but that's an arguement for another time and another day). Kulshedra I suppose that some people who are innately given intelligence don't give their own intellect the attention that it deserves. They underestimate its value, and take it for granted, not understanding that a greater portion of the population has nothing near to their level of intelligence. By doing so, their own intelligence's potential starts to decrease. I do believe those who are arrogant, and believe their intelligence is far greater than it really is, are truly just as dumb as those who don't notice their own personal power. A person can have large intellect, but can lack wisdom and knowledge, making them able to crunch big numbers, but very dull in most other respects. Kulshedra Because they don't actively use their intellect, it loses its edge, it starts to dull, and they lose their ability to figure out what the smart thing to do is. Eventually, they are about as intelligent as the average high school student, only backed up with the knowledge that they were able to learn in college, allowing them to hold up a better-than-average job, but not nearly as good as what they could have earned if they simply payed attention. Perhaps this is why those who sharpen intelligence out of their own minds are more renowned and powerful than those that start off with it sharpened. I wouldn't say todays "geniuses" exercise their brains by doing math problems or specifically performing brain-enhancing tasks. Those with the highest intellect, such as savants, are generally so naturally gifted that "practicing" is not an activity, but a compulsion, and something they cannot help. They don't do it because it saves their brain, they do it because it is a trigger which is tapped by their brain. It is an activity in which the brain thrives. As far as comparing people with such extremes; you are either a genius or you're as stupid as a secondary school student (which I assume you mean the American ones), is a bit much. There are shades of grey between black and white. A person can be moderately intelligent, and not completely useless. Kulshedra I don't think there's any changes in my thoughts on knowledge, though. Knowledge is simply information. It has no relation to intelligence, besides that people too often mistake knowledge for intelligence. The word intelligence has an arguable definition; this is the reason for this "mistake." It is less a mistake, and more a disagreement on the definition of a word. The semantics involved with pseudo-intellectuals VS people who tend to live their lives with common knowledge; perhaps the elitists are acting too pompous for their own good. Kulshedra If someone has a large store of knowledge, it bespeaks aboslutely nothing about how smart they are. Is knowledge not a very useful tool, which can lead to improving one's intellect (or as you refer to, "sharpening" their intellect)? Kulshedra All they have to do is look up on the internet to find anything they could possibly want to know. Is this not an "intelligent" action in itself? Kulshedra And even if the page was too complicated for them to understand, several (hundred) checks in the dictionary will give them all the comprehension that they care to have. Is not, spending the time to comprehend something, an "intelligent" action, whereas no effort into this action would be an "unintelligent" action? By a person giving the time and effort to do this, are they not doing exactly what people who are respected as modern "geniuses" have? Again, I'll throw the name on the table. If Hawking was an average kid (which is somewhat hard to prove), did his effort contribute to his "genius"? Has learning and thinking about new ideas made him more intellectual and more able to create new ideas, or was he simply born with that ability? People aren't very often born knowing how to measure a black hole. Kulshedra I would say wisdom is both the combination of the two, and maybe even something extra. Whereas the previous two are completely separate things (although I suppose you could split intelligence into two categories, squandered intelligence and true intelligence)... Why give "squandered" intelligence a category in the first place? If intelligence is the innate calculation and analysis of information, how can it be useless? Perhaps you were referring to squandered knowledge, which would make more sense. Kulshedra wisdom is something beyond. It is the ability to understand things of the world, to be able to act upon a combination of knowledge and of intelligence. I mean, knowledge is only facts. Who says knowledge is only facts? Have you taken a Philosophy class, by chance? As young philosophers, we had argued the definition of knowledge. It is a common attempt to create a loophole used specifically for arguing to call knowledge "just facts." It is my view, and the view of many others, that knowledge is more than just numbers and ideas. Again, another physics example from me. I for a long time studied the two concepts Black Hole Information Paradox and Hawking Radiation, two conflicting equations, two conflicting concepts. I had learned the physical and mathematical mechanics to each concept, and compared them. By gaining this knowledge, I was able to draw new conclusions. One's intellect, or, ability to draw the conclusions, is based on the accuracy and their ability to draw these conclusions. But without knowledge, which, in to all cases, is simply "just fact," intellect would have nothing to draw from. Knowledge can also be opinionated. I can believe something, but what I believe may not necessarily be wise. Kulshedra That's all it is. And intelligence is only computation, calculation, logical thinking. Wisdom is something beyond both of these. It's being able to intelligently discern, through knowledge, the correct thing to do. It is also the ability to logically decide, again, through the knowledge you already have, what has, is, or will happen. Wisdom is not necessarily anticipation. It could just as easily be conclusions drawn from experiences, and that would be considered a reflection. Kulshedra I'm not entirely sure how to describe wisdom, but it's just something above and beyond even the intellectual giants that stick out around us. To make that judgment is based on large assumptions. I cannot think of many intellectual giants in our modern age (except Hawking, ahaha... oh, and his colleagues). However, it is pretty easy to determine that just because one is an intellectual powerhouse, that does not mean they are unwise. The two are actually completely unrelated, except for the fact that it requires at least some intellect to draw wise conclusions. Kulshedra Does that all make sense? It may make sense, perhaps, however, some of it I disagree with, and in some aspects I can distinctly locate logical fallacies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 8:28 pm
Quoting and re-quoting can get a bit messy in BB code, so please forgive me if there's problems in my post at this point. Shikalee Kulshedra Perhaps if intelligence is something you wish to obtain, then you've already proved that you're worthy of it, in that you're willing to work hard to achieve it. I have considered this myself. Whether or not "worthy" is the correct word is likely under much debate. However, I do agree upon the idea that intelligence is something one must earn, or obtain. They are born with an innate ability, but if they don't use it, it might as well not be there at all. Kulshedra I mean, you're already partway there. Part of intelligence is being smart enough to know the smart thing to do, and if you already know that you want to be intelligent, and are willing to work hard to get there, then you deserve it. Logically, this makes a lot of sense. However, I still don't feel people are "worthy" or "deserving" of intelligence. Nothing in the world is free. But sometimes the cost is simply reaching out and taking it. I think you do need to be worthy of it. I don't mean to say that if you aren't worthy, it should be removed. I'm saying that when you don't ever bother to use it, then it decays by itself, proving that you're not worthy, in that you won't use it anyway, so you shouldn't have it. If you change your mind, and realize how much it was a good thing, and you want it back, then you can regain it eventually. Shikalee Kulshedra Because they don't actively use their intellect, it loses its edge, it starts to dull, and they lose their ability to figure out what the smart thing to do is. Eventually, they are about as intelligent as the average high school student, only backed up with the knowledge that they were able to learn in college, allowing them to hold up a better-than-average job, but not nearly as good as what they could have earned if they simply payed attention. Perhaps this is why those who sharpen intelligence out of their own minds are more renowned and powerful than those that start off with it sharpened. I wouldn't say todays "geniuses" exercise their brains by doing math problems or specifically performing brain-enhancing tasks. Those with the highest intellect, such as savants, are generally so naturally gifted that "practicing" is not an activity, but a compulsion, and something they cannot help. They don't do it because it saves their brain, they do it because it is a trigger which is tapped by their brain. It is an activity in which the brain thrives. As far as comparing people with such extremes; you are either a genius or you're as stupid as a secondary school student (which I assume you mean the American ones), is a bit much. There are shades of grey between black and white. A person can be moderately intelligent, and not completely useless. Yeah, I suppose there are shades of gray. But you do have to admit that those who don't give any attention and don't bother using their higher intelligence will eventually lose that intelligence. Shikalee Kulshedra If someone has a large store of knowledge, it bespeaks aboslutely nothing about how smart they are. Is knowledge not a very useful tool, which can lead to improving one's intellect (or as you refer to, "sharpening" their intellect)? Kulshedra All they have to do is look up on the internet to find anything they could possibly want to know. Is this not an "intelligent" action in itself? Kulshedra And even if the page was too complicated for them to understand, several (hundred) checks in the dictionary will give them all the comprehension that they care to have. Is not, spending the time to comprehend something, an "intelligent" action, whereas no effort into this action would be an "unintelligent" action? By a person giving the time and effort to do this, are they not doing exactly what people who are respected as modern "geniuses" have? Again, I'll throw the name on the table. If Hawking was an average kid (which is somewhat hard to prove), did his effort contribute to his "genius"? Has learning and thinking about new ideas made him more intellectual and more able to create new ideas, or was he simply born with that ability? People aren't very often born knowing how to measure a black hole. What I'm trying to explain is that anyone can look up information on the internet, for whatever reason they want, but that reason isn't necessarily an intelligent one. Yes, looking up information for a good purpose would be intelligent, but the act of itself has no good or bad attributes. It's the intention that matters. Shikalee Kulshedra I would say wisdom is both the combination of the two, and maybe even something extra. Whereas the previous two are completely separate things (although I suppose you could split intelligence into two categories, squandered intelligence and true intelligence)... Why give "squandered" intelligence a category in the first place? If intelligence is the innate calculation and analysis of information, how can it be useless? Perhaps you were referring to squandered knowledge, which would make more sense. No, I mean squandered intelligence. I'm again referring to the people who are born with their innate level of intellect, but don't bother to use it. Shikalee Kulshedra wisdom is something beyond. It is the ability to understand things of the world, to be able to act upon a combination of knowledge and of intelligence. I mean, knowledge is only facts. Who says knowledge is only facts? Have you taken a Philosophy class, by chance? As young philosophers, we had argued the definition of knowledge. It is a common attempt to create a loophole used specifically for arguing to call knowledge "just facts." It is my view, and the view of many others, that knowledge is more than just numbers and ideas. Again, another physics example from me. I for a long time studied the two concepts Black Hole Information Paradox and Hawking Radiation, two conflicting equations, two conflicting concepts. I had learned the physical and mathematical mechanics to each concept, and compared them. By gaining this knowledge, I was able to draw new conclusions. One's intellect, or, ability to draw the conclusions, is based on the accuracy and their ability to draw these conclusions. But without knowledge, which, in to all cases, is simply "just fact," intellect would have nothing to draw from. Knowledge can also be opinionated. I can believe something, but what I believe may not necessarily be wise. I don't see how knowledge equates to anything beyond facts. If you extrapolate anything from the facts, then that's your intelligence at work. Shikalee Kulshedra That's all it is. And intelligence is only computation, calculation, logical thinking. Wisdom is something beyond both of these. It's being able to intelligently discern, through knowledge, the correct thing to do. It is also the ability to logically decide, again, through the knowledge you already have, what has, is, or will happen. Wisdom is not necessarily anticipation. It could just as easily be conclusions drawn from experiences, and that would be considered a reflection. I'm not limiting it to anticipation; I'm simply trying to give an example, as I can define the general meaning. And, yes, your addition here I would agree with. Shikalee Kulshedra I'm not entirely sure how to describe wisdom, but it's just something above and beyond even the intellectual giants that stick out around us. To make that judgment is based on large assumptions. I cannot think of many intellectual giants in our modern age (except Hawking, ahaha... oh, and his colleagues). However, it is pretty easy to determine that just because one is an intellectual powerhouse, that does not mean they are unwise. The two are actually completely unrelated, except for the fact that it requires at least some intellect to draw wise conclusions. I'm not saying their unrelated. I'm saying that those with wisdom are above and beyond those that have intelligence, even those with a powerful intelligence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 8:58 pm
Kulshedra Quoting and re-quoting can get a bit messy in BB code, so please forgive me if there's problems in my post at this point. There's no problem. A lot of us can get lost in the chain. I will try my best to keep this tidy. Kulshedra Shikalee Kulshedra Perhaps if intelligence is something you wish to obtain, then you've already proved that you're worthy of it, in that you're willing to work hard to achieve it. I have considered this myself. Whether or not "worthy" is the correct word is likely under much debate. However, I do agree upon the idea that intelligence is something one must earn, or obtain. They are born with an innate ability, but if they don't use it, it might as well not be there at all. Kulshedra I mean, you're already partway there. Part of intelligence is being smart enough to know the smart thing to do, and if you already know that you want to be intelligent, and are willing to work hard to get there, then you deserve it. Logically, this makes a lot of sense. However, I still don't feel people are "worthy" or "deserving" of intelligence. Nothing in the world is free. But sometimes the cost is simply reaching out and taking it. I think you do need to be worthy of it. I don't mean to say that if you aren't worthy, it should be removed. I'm saying that when you don't ever bother to use it, then it decays by itself, proving that you're not worthy, in that you won't use it anyway, so you shouldn't have it. If you change your mind, and realize how much it was a good thing, and you want it back, then you can regain it eventually. What makes one person more "worthy" or "acceptable" than another? Their race? Their gender? A person cannot help how they were conditioned, or what genes they were born with. As for intellectual decay, this has not been strongly proven by science. It mostly only occurs in seniors, who, generally, have a low protein production and the process of "brain decay" is not necessarily related to its usage. A person who is "not worthy" is stuck in a sort of paradoxical trap. If they are not worthy, and not intelligent enough to deserve that intelligence, they are very likely stuck in a mindset where they will not change, unless they obtain new knowledge. This point is arguable; a "dumb" person by these standards could be "genius" overnight. The point that I wish to display, which may simply be considered one of morals, is that we are not helping these "dumb" people by disrespecting them, nor are we helping ourselves by assuming that we are better than them. Kulshedra Shikalee Kulshedra Because they don't actively use their intellect, it loses its edge, it starts to dull, and they lose their ability to figure out what the smart thing to do is. Eventually, they are about as intelligent as the average high school student, only backed up with the knowledge that they were able to learn in college, allowing them to hold up a better-than-average job, but not nearly as good as what they could have earned if they simply payed attention. Perhaps this is why those who sharpen intelligence out of their own minds are more renowned and powerful than those that start off with it sharpened. I wouldn't say todays "geniuses" exercise their brains by doing math problems or specifically performing brain-enhancing tasks. Those with the highest intellect, such as savants, are generally so naturally gifted that "practicing" is not an activity, but a compulsion, and something they cannot help. They don't do it because it saves their brain, they do it because it is a trigger which is tapped by their brain. It is an activity in which the brain thrives. As far as comparing people with such extremes; you are either a genius or you're as stupid as a secondary school student (which I assume you mean the American ones), is a bit much. There are shades of grey between black and white. A person can be moderately intelligent, and not completely useless. Yeah, I suppose there are shades of gray. But you do have to admit that those who don't give any attention and don't bother using their higher intelligence will eventually lose that intelligence. I don't have to admit that. Because it has not been proven. I feel a "born intelligence" lingers until it is open, and is never essentially lost. It stays as it was; unused. This does not mean there is no hope for these people. Kulshedra Shikalee Kulshedra If someone has a large store of knowledge, it bespeaks aboslutely nothing about how smart they are. Is knowledge not a very useful tool, which can lead to improving one's intellect (or as you refer to, "sharpening" their intellect)? Kulshedra All they have to do is look up on the internet to find anything they could possibly want to know. Is this not an "intelligent" action in itself? Kulshedra And even if the page was too complicated for them to understand, several (hundred) checks in the dictionary will give them all the comprehension that they care to have. Is not, spending the time to comprehend something, an "intelligent" action, whereas no effort into this action would be an "unintelligent" action? By a person giving the time and effort to do this, are they not doing exactly what people who are respected as modern "geniuses" have? Again, I'll throw the name on the table. If Hawking was an average kid (which is somewhat hard to prove), did his effort contribute to his "genius"? Has learning and thinking about new ideas made him more intellectual and more able to create new ideas, or was he simply born with that ability? People aren't very often born knowing how to measure a black hole. What I'm trying to explain is that anyone can look up information on the internet, for whatever reason they want, but that reason isn't necessarily an intelligent one. Yes, looking up information for a good purpose would be intelligent, but the act of itself has no good or bad attributes. It's the intention that matters. What defines a, "good purpose"? My research, as I described, was for my own personal gain. Is this "worthy" as a "good purpose"? Who decides what is and is not a good purpose? Isn't all learning gained with the intention to improve one self? Just because the purposes are "evil" does not mean that the intention itself; learning to rob banks, is an entirely negative aspect. These learned lessons could be used later to build a very well-rounded individual. It seems unwise to me to second guess people. Kulshedra Shikalee Kulshedra I would say wisdom is both the combination of the two, and maybe even something extra. Whereas the previous two are completely separate things (although I suppose you could split intelligence into two categories, squandered intelligence and true intelligence)... Why give "squandered" intelligence a category in the first place? If intelligence is the innate calculation and analysis of information, how can it be useless? Perhaps you were referring to squandered knowledge, which would make more sense. No, I mean squandered intelligence. I'm again referring to the people who are born with their innate level of intellect, but don't bother to use it. Squandered "calculation and analysis of data." Useless logical syllogisms. It is not useless unless it doesn't make any sense, and if it doesn't make any sense, it isn't intellect. Kulshedra Shikalee Kulshedra wisdom is something beyond. It is the ability to understand things of the world, to be able to act upon a combination of knowledge and of intelligence. I mean, knowledge is only facts. Who says knowledge is only facts? Have you taken a Philosophy class, by chance? As young philosophers, we had argued the definition of knowledge. It is a common attempt to create a loophole used specifically for arguing to call knowledge "just facts." It is my view, and the view of many others, that knowledge is more than just numbers and ideas. Again, another physics example from me. I for a long time studied the two concepts Black Hole Information Paradox and Hawking Radiation, two conflicting equations, two conflicting concepts. I had learned the physical and mathematical mechanics to each concept, and compared them. By gaining this knowledge, I was able to draw new conclusions. One's intellect, or, ability to draw the conclusions, is based on the accuracy and their ability to draw these conclusions. But without knowledge, which, in to all cases, is simply "just fact," intellect would have nothing to draw from. Knowledge can also be opinionated. I can believe something, but what I believe may not necessarily be wise. I don't see how knowledge equates to anything beyond facts. If you extrapolate anything from the facts, then that's your intelligence at work. Why not? Would you like some dictionary definitions to convince you? Kulshedra Shikalee Kulshedra That's all it is. And intelligence is only computation, calculation, logical thinking. Wisdom is something beyond both of these. It's being able to intelligently discern, through knowledge, the correct thing to do. It is also the ability to logically decide, again, through the knowledge you already have, what has, is, or will happen. Wisdom is not necessarily anticipation. It could just as easily be conclusions drawn from experiences, and that would be considered a reflection. I'm not limiting it to anticipation; I'm simply trying to give an example, as I can define the general meaning. And, yes, your addition here I would agree with. A general meaning is useless in specific cases... Kulshedra Shikalee Kulshedra I'm not entirely sure how to describe wisdom, but it's just something above and beyond even the intellectual giants that stick out around us. To make that judgment is based on large assumptions. I cannot think of many intellectual giants in our modern age (except Hawking, ahaha... oh, and his colleagues). However, it is pretty easy to determine that just because one is an intellectual powerhouse, that does not mean they are unwise. The two are actually completely unrelated, except for the fact that it requires at least some intellect to draw wise conclusions. I'm not saying their unrelated. I'm saying that those with wisdom are above and beyond those that have intelligence, even those with a powerful intelligence. How is that certain? A person with high wisdom may have a very low intelligence, but were simply alive a very long time, and had a very long time to draw those conclusions. They could still be very slow with decisions. And since when are people measured as "beyond" or "behind" due to their intelligence? What about "good intent" and "kind hearts"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 9:18 pm
Shikalee What makes one person more "worthy" or "acceptable" than another? Their race? Their gender? A person cannot help how they were conditioned, or what genes they were born with. As for intellectual decay, this has not been strongly proven by science. It mostly only occurs in seniors, who, generally, have a low protein production and the process of "brain decay" is not necessarily related to its usage. A person who is "not worthy" is stuck in a sort of paradoxical trap. If they are not worthy, and not intelligent enough to deserve that intelligence, they are very likely stuck in a mindset where they will not change, unless they obtain new knowledge. This point is arguable; a "dumb" person by these standards could be "genius" overnight. The point that I wish to display, which may simply be considered one of morals, is that we are not helping these "dumb" people by disrespecting them, nor are we helping ourselves by assuming that we are better than them. You keep taking my words either ethically or literally. I'm not saying that this worth has anything to do with the person's biological make up. I'm saying that the worth comes to a person when they are willing to go out and get it, or at least to maintain it, if they already have it. I don't mean a literal decay here. I mean that when a person does not bother using their intelligence, and wastes away with pointless diversions, they do nothing with their own minds, and thus it will eventually lose its edge. Shikalee I don't have to admit that. Because it has not been proven. I feel a "born intelligence" lingers until it is open, and is never essentially lost. It stays as it was; unused. This does not mean there is no hope for these people. I've already said that it is not hopeless for these people. Shikalee What defines a, "good purpose"? My research, as I described, was for my own personal gain. Is this "worthy" as a "good purpose"? Who decides what is and is not a good purpose? Isn't all learning gained with the intention to improve one self? Just because the purposes are "evil" does not mean that the intention itself; learning to rob banks, is an entirely negative aspect. These learned lessons could be used later to build a very well-rounded individual. It seems unwise to me to second guess people. You're turning it into ethics again. I never meant 'good' as in 'good or evil.' I meant 'good' as in purposeful, not just looking up information just to make sure they can pass the next test, but to actually use that information. Shikalee Squandered "calculation and analysis of data." Useless logical syllogisms. It is not useless unless it doesn't make any sense, and if it doesn't make any sense, it isn't intellect. Again, you're twisting my words around. I'm saying that the intelligence is squandered, as I've said a dozen times before, because it is never used. When it is left unused, intelligence becomes unusable. Shikalee How is that certain? A person with high wisdom may have a very low intelligence, but were simply alive a very long time, and had a very long time to draw those conclusions. They could still be very slow with decisions. This part starts to circle around simply conflicting beliefs. I would say that someone who isn't intelligent enough to think clearly, has lost their wisdom. But perhaps what we're arguing as 'wisdom' are coming from different areas of thought. Shikalee And since when are people measured as "beyond" or "behind" due to their intelligence? What about "good intent" and "kind hearts"? I'm not saying that intelligence makes a person 'beyond' in matters of their very soul. Good intent and kind hearts are definitely good things, but that's going into moral situations, which isn't what this debate is about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 7:09 am
Kulshedra Shikalee What makes one person more "worthy" or "acceptable" than another? Their race? Their gender? A person cannot help how they were conditioned, or what genes they were born with. As for intellectual decay, this has not been strongly proven by science. It mostly only occurs in seniors, who, generally, have a low protein production and the process of "brain decay" is not necessarily related to its usage. A person who is "not worthy" is stuck in a sort of paradoxical trap. If they are not worthy, and not intelligent enough to deserve that intelligence, they are very likely stuck in a mindset where they will not change, unless they obtain new knowledge. This point is arguable; a "dumb" person by these standards could be "genius" overnight. The point that I wish to display, which may simply be considered one of morals, is that we are not helping these "dumb" people by disrespecting them, nor are we helping ourselves by assuming that we are better than them. You keep taking my words either ethically or literally. I'm not saying that this worth has anything to do with the person's biological make up. I'm saying that the worth comes to a person when they are willing to go out and get it, or at least to maintain it, if they already have it. I don't mean a literal decay here. I mean that when a person does not bother using their intelligence, and wastes away with pointless diversions, they do nothing with their own minds, and thus it will eventually lose its edge. Sorry, I tend to assume that people mean what they say. I save looking for metaphors and allegories for the books... I suppose perhaps I am not being literal enough. A lot of people who are stupid are trapped that way, or just plain can't help it. It doesn't make them enemies of ours (people who think and use their heads). No one knows what potential they have. Not even "geniuses." They always strive higher, and usually think low of themselves. True geniuses know that even they are dumb, because we are human, and our minds can only go so far. I don't think it goes away. And you likely cannot honestly say you are not distracted by school, maintaining your body, friends, and of course, the computer. A lot of people play with the iPod. Hell, I'm sure "geniuses" use them. Those geniuses we look up to still need to have fun. The human mind would go crazy if it wasn't for relaxation. As for "losing it's edge," I still consider that a matter of literal decay. If a knife has a dull blade, it has decayed from usage and oxidation. Kulshedra Shikalee I don't have to admit that. Because it has not been proven. I feel a "born intelligence" lingers until it is open, and is never essentially lost. It stays as it was; unused. This does not mean there is no hope for these people. I've already said that it is not hopeless for these people. You have said it loses it's edge. This somewhat indicates that they lose part of their potential through their prolonged learning period. Kulshedra Shikalee What defines a, "good purpose"? My research, as I described, was for my own personal gain. Is this "worthy" as a "good purpose"? Who decides what is and is not a good purpose? Isn't all learning gained with the intention to improve one self? Just because the purposes are "evil" does not mean that the intention itself; learning to rob banks, is an entirely negative aspect. These learned lessons could be used later to build a very well-rounded individual. It seems unwise to me to second guess people. You're turning it into ethics again. I never meant 'good' as in 'good or evil.' I meant 'good' as in purposeful, not just looking up information just to make sure they can pass the next test, but to actually use that information. "Good" and "Evil" are not terms I agree with. What I meant as a "good purpose" (in reference to your idea) would be better explained as a "good egg" vs a "bad egg." Good eggs you can eat and cook. Bad eggs, you can't do much with. It is exactly the same no matter what word you use. Who are you, or I, to judge what is and is not "purposeful"? How do we know that we have to do more in this life than simply live? If we all came here to be geniuses, I'm sure we would all be, or at least a far larger percent. Kulshedra Shikalee Squandered "calculation and analysis of data." Useless logical syllogisms. It is not useless unless it doesn't make any sense, and if it doesn't make any sense, it isn't intellect. Again, you're twisting my words around. I'm saying that the intelligence is squandered, as I've said a dozen times before, because it is never used. When it is left unused, intelligence becomes unusable. Not twisting. Say what you mean. Your first reference was between "squandered intelligence" and "true intelligence." You defined them as two groups. I believe at that point you yourself had confused "intelligence" and "knowledge." There is nothing more true, plain, simple, and to the point, than analysis and calculations. There is no "useless" calculations, unless they make no sense, which, by "intellect's" definition, would make it not intellect in the first place, therefore not even squandered because it isn't even worth a category. When something is unused, it is not stuck at that state. When an object is at rest, it stays at rest, unless a force acts upon it. Kulshedra Shikalee How is that certain? A person with high wisdom may have a very low intelligence, but were simply alive a very long time, and had a very long time to draw those conclusions. They could still be very slow with decisions. This part starts to circle around simply conflicting beliefs. I would say that someone who isn't intelligent enough to think clearly, has lost their wisdom. But perhaps what we're arguing as 'wisdom' are coming from different areas of thought. Why is that? Do care to explain. I feel as though I have explained my thoughts on this. I am not here to put you on the spot. I just feel there is a chance I could be incorrect. However, I am not convinced by a lack of evidence... Kulshedra Shikalee And since when are people measured as "beyond" or "behind" due to their intelligence? What about "good intent" and "kind hearts"? I'm not saying that intelligence makes a person 'beyond' in matters of their very soul. Good intent and kind hearts are definitely good things, but that's going into moral situations, which isn't what this debate is about. Sure it is. If you place intelligent people at a higher stance of respect, it most certainly brings morals into the conversation. Conversations transform and their goals change as new ideas come into play. I can see why that makes you uncomfortable since I have somewhat put a couple of your ideas you shame. However, that does not mean you cannot argue your case, and make sense. A lot of ideas are put to shame, and dust themselves off and continue as if nothing happened.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:50 pm
Look Shikalee, I came here to debate with philosophers and thinkers. Not to argue against a lawyer. When you're willing to actually discuss the concepts which I brought up, then I'll come back to you. If you feel like you want to keep discussing ethics, the inadequacy of metaphors, and constantly saying that you just disagree with me, then it'll have to wait.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 4:06 pm
Kulshedra Look Shikalee, I came here to debate with philosophers and thinkers. Not to argue against a lawyer. When you're willing to actually discuss the concepts which I brought up, then I'll come back to you. If you feel like you want to keep discussing ethics, the inadequacy of metaphors, and constantly saying that you just disagree with me, then it'll have to wait. Hehe trouble in paradise jk jk rofl Theres no use in biting heads off here. blaugh Just gotta have patience with one another confused I wonder if im gonna get my head chewed for this eek HAHA I'm playing mediator Hey Shikalee could you do me a favor. If you already know about it then you dont have to worry about it. Since wikipedia is something you like to go to ( not sure just assuming ) go and look up The Philosophers T.O.E if you haven't learned about it yet. You might come to a different understanding if you research it and contemplate this stuff. Hehe trust me science and logic can't exactly explain everything. Like Kaji was stating in another thread it would be nice if they would actually get along. blaugh rofl pirate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 4:10 pm
Sorry, I just can't stand it when people argue like that. It seems like their arguing for no reason other than arguing. I suppose that would be my pet peeve.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 4:20 pm
Kulshedra Sorry, I just can't stand it when people argue like that. It seems like their arguing for no reason other than arguing. I suppose that would be my pet peeve. Alot of us have pet peeves blaugh (Unfortunately) Best thing to do is not let our anger or frustrations get the best of it blaugh sweatdrop Yeah easy for me to say since im to easy going and happy go lucky you can say whee Besides its a good thing to keep open minded because if you think about it her arguments towards the subject can actually help you put a little more perspective on the idea or theme youre thinking about thats why i dont mind having people debate in here. See since alot of us in here are philosophers and thinkers here we can also take into consideration the logical and scientific theory of the situation Hopefully you get what im saying cause im not sure I put it out correctly haha rofl
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 4:23 pm
sweatdrop I personally dont mind but im not sure about Ressurection lol his rules his guild.
Lmao personally id be like " In this area flaming will not be reported but... it will be graded" jk jk
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 4:35 pm
Kulshedra Look Shikalee, I came here to debate with philosophers and thinkers. Not to argue against a lawyer. When you're willing to actually discuss the concepts which I brought up, then I'll come back to you. If you feel like you want to keep discussing ethics, the inadequacy of metaphors, and constantly saying that you just disagree with me, then it'll have to wait. Wow. I'll have you know I know next to nothing about law. Furthermore, I have discussed the topics. You just refuse to accept the fact that my opinion differs, and yet it makes sense. I do believe you are the one who felt the need to PM me requesting why I "insult you so." The reason why your inadequacy is even brought up is that you are, indeed, a poor communicator. Your ideas don't make sense, and so I had asked you to reiterate. Even when you did, they made just as much sense as the first time; you had no really reiterated as much as you had just repeated yourself. See, the difference between "just disagreeing" and actually interpreting the information you present, and presenting satisfactory counterexamples myself, is grand. I'm not just saying you're wrong, or simply saying I disagree. I give reasons for why I disagree, but I have never claimed you were incorrect. If you were incorrect, I would have brought in outer sources to disprove your statements. However, you have drawn conclusions with, what I had previously mentioned, are called logical fallacies. Now, I haven't felt the need to give you formulas in which these logical fallacies take place, however, you are now starting to look in my eye like a person who is in very much denial. I have made many points from many different angles and every which way, you have refused to actually take a look at the information. Instead, you stuck to your guns, proclaiming your ideas were correct, and that mine were, indeed, incorrect. As far as bringing ethics in, you have clearly ignored my post. I have stated many times that this is not matter of ethics, but, a matter of ethics. I already stated that I was simply using your terminology, and that, by saying "good," I clearly meant "valid." You are the one who added "evil" into the discussion. By arguing semantics, you are the one who in this case made this an argument of logic and reasoning, not an argument (or even discussion) of conflicting ideas. It went from your determination to be correct to your dismissing my discussions because I was simply following your pattern. @ Kanon Vilente: *POST MOVED*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 4:36 pm
Kanon Vilente sweatdrop I personally dont mind but im not sure about Ressurection lol his rules his guild. Lmao personally id be like " In this area flaming will not be reported but... it will be graded" jk jk I don't know why anyone thinks discussing an idea is flaming. Sure, I talk a lot. That doesn't mean I'm trying to be a jerk. I just try to prevent loopholes in what I say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 4:37 pm
I moved the post so it was easier to read. 3nodding @ Kanon Vilente: Though this is true; not everything can be explained by logic and science, it is also true that nothing can be explained by non-logic and logical fallacies. He presented ideas that conflicted with themselves. I saw these mistakes and pointed them out. Somehow, he digressed, putting words in my mouth, and decided to ignore the content of the post, but look at what was offending him. If I let myself get offended by people with conflicting ideas, I would never learn anything. As for wikipedia, I do not like it much. I always refer to it, however, because most people I am talking to do. This to me means that I can look at the very information they are using to base their arguments off of. The Theory of Everything (physics wise), is exactly as stated. A theory. It also has not ever been fully established, and is actually the current goal of physicists today. Starting with Einstein, physicists wanted to find a theory that could explain all physical phenomenon in the universe. This would be given the name TOE. The purpose of the TOE is to unify all the fundamental interactions of nature, which are commonly broken into four categories: gravitational force, electromagnetic force, the weak nuclear force, and the strong nuclear force. This, in essence, would also explain the mechanics of elementary particles. However, to create a theory of everything, one would have to combine the theory of general relativity to quantum mechanics, and have these coexist with quantum gravity. This is yet to be done, since the theories have conflicting ideas... Now that I'm done practicing that... The Theory of Everything (philosophy wise) is the non-scientific explanation of reality. It has the same exact goal as the physicists' TOE, and yet the two sides separated, commonly create the illusion of two conflicting sides. Though philosophers find things through logical reasoning and learn things through discussion, this does not devalidate what physicists have discovered, nor have the discoveries of physicists devalidated the discussions of philosophers. The two do not effect each other in that respect, therefore, one is not necessarily to be preferred over the other. It is good to have a healthy medium, and I admit that I do rely on science a lot of the time, but that does not make me unaware of philosophy. I love the class, and just like my physics class, I have an A+ in philosophy as well. My love for the subjects are quite equal, however, physics is far more complicated in some respects, which is why it consumes more of my time. I don't have to go to wikipedia to find out what all these things are; I read books, and I already knew what they were. However, I will use the site in reference to your point. The Philosophical TOE does not claim that science cannot explain everything. Now, this claim is made in this quote from the Wiki: Quote: In his 1996 book The Conscious Mind, David Chalmers argues that a theory of everything must explain consciousness, that consciousness does not logically supervene on the physical, and that therefore a fundamental theory in physics would not be a theory of everything. He does have a point, but this does not mean that scientists are not pursuing the idea. Philosophers are not any closer than physicists are. Science might not explain consciousness yet, but it could one day. Just as philosophy doesn't, and could.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
