IQ

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Advocate
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

IQ

Post by Advocate »

Mine is 140. There are three filters, if you will, between intelligence and success. The first is IQ itself, how much raw processing ability you have. The second is what you choose to spend it on - i've chosen philosophy, and solved it. And the third is what society allows. I'd be a great philosopher/king of the world but there's no chance of that happening. And before you respond (you know who you are), i'm going to report any semblance of ad hominem immediately.
Dimebag
Posts: 215
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:12 am

Re: IQ

Post by Dimebag »

Advocate wrote: Wed Sep 23, 2020 3:34 am Mine is 140. There are three filters, if you will, between intelligence and success. The first is IQ itself, how much raw processing ability you have. The second is what you choose to spend it on - i've chosen philosophy, and solved it. And the third is what society allows. I'd be a great philosopher/king of the world but there's no chance of that happening. And before you respond (you know who you are), i'm going to report any semblance of ad hominem immediately.
If you have solved philosophy, why are we here?
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2464
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: IQ

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Advocate wrote: Wed Sep 23, 2020 3:34 am i'm going to report any semblance of ad hominem immediately.
Go right ahead you ludicrous narcissist.
Atla
Posts: 2952
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: IQ

Post by Atla »

140 should be enough to figure out that the more interesting part of philosophy lies outside of 'actionable certainty'. And one doesn't just 'solve' it. :)
Advocate
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: IQ

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Dimebag post_id=472827 time=1600841091 user_id=5396]
[quote=Advocate post_id=472817 time=1600828474 user_id=15238]
Mine is 140. There are three filters, if you will, between intelligence and success. The first is IQ itself, how much raw processing ability you have. The second is what you choose to spend it on - i've chosen philosophy, and solved it. And the third is what society allows. I'd be a great philosopher/king of the world but there's no chance of that happening. And before you respond (you know who you are), i'm going to report any semblance of ad hominem immediately.
[/quote]
If you have solved philosophy, why are we here?
[/quote]

Because i have no integration/resources/privilege and most people, including philosophers, have no capacity to recognise the truth, and of those who do, most are busy with having a life and don't do philosophy, and of those who do, most believe such a thing isn't possible and won't vet it. Yes, i've been walking this road for a while now. I know the landscape well
Advocate
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: IQ

Post by Advocate »

[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=472831 time=1600848344 user_id=11800]
[quote=Advocate post_id=472817 time=1600828474 user_id=15238]
i'm going to report any semblance of ad hominem immediately.
[/quote]
Go right ahead you ludicrous narcissist.
[/quote]

I don't actually consider that insulting. As you were. But it happens to be false too. What you consider narcissistic, i look for an opportunity to prove with logic.
Advocate
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: IQ

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Atla post_id=472839 time=1600866627 user_id=15497]
140 should be enough to figure out that the more interesting part of philosophy lies outside of 'actionable certainty'. And one doesn't just 'solve' it. :)
[/quote]

Whatever lies outside actionable certainty still lies within the point of getting to actionable certainty, or it's indistinguishable from fiction, which is much more interesting.
Atla
Posts: 2952
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: IQ

Post by Atla »

Advocate wrote: Wed Sep 23, 2020 2:49 pm
Atla wrote: Wed Sep 23, 2020 2:10 pm 140 should be enough to figure out that the more interesting part of philosophy lies outside of 'actionable certainty'. And one doesn't just 'solve' it. :)
Whatever lies outside actionable certainty still lies within the point of getting to actionable certainty, or it's indistinguishable from fiction, which is much more interesting.
Nope, at some point we have to make educated guesses to continue. Not the same as fiction.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 2179
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: IQ

Post by Sculptor »

Advocate wrote: Wed Sep 23, 2020 3:34 am Mine is 140. There are three filters, if you will, between intelligence and success. The first is IQ itself, how much raw processing ability you have. The second is what you choose to spend it on - i've chosen philosophy, and solved it. And the third is what society allows. I'd be a great philosopher/king of the world but there's no chance of that happening. And before you respond (you know who you are), i'm going to report any semblance of ad hominem immediately.
Tut tut.
IQ is no measure of knowledge.
You need to look up Ad Hominem. There is a common enough fallacy on the Internet that confuses ordinary insults with argumenta ad hominem.

An ad hominem example as follows.

A truck driver (x) explains the gravity phenomenon around a black hole.
A fool (f) with some knowledge of physics claims that x's explanation of BH gravity is wrong BECAUSE x is only a truck driver.
F has committed an ad hominem attack against x as he has imputed that x is not qualified to know anything about BH gravity.

It is a simply fallacy that x's explanation is wrong because he is a truck driver.
That is the essence of an ad hominem.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 2179
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: IQ

Post by Sculptor »

Advocate wrote: Wed Sep 23, 2020 3:34 am Mine is 140. There are three filters, if you will, between intelligence and success. The first is IQ itself, how much raw processing ability you have. The second is what you choose to spend it on - i've chosen philosophy, and solved it. And the third is what society allows. I'd be a great philosopher/king of the world but there's no chance of that happening. And before you respond (you know who you are), i'm going to report any semblance of ad hominem immediately.
LOL
If you mean by ad hominem that many people will rush in to show your failure to demonstrate your amazing IQ, then that is definitely going to happen.
However I do not think it is a fallacy to question why a person with an IQ of 140 seems incapable of using the QUOTES function!!!
You have cocked up the quotes function three times out of three tries in your replies already.
Last edited by Sculptor on Wed Sep 23, 2020 3:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8813
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: IQ

Post by henry quirk »

Advocate wrote: Wed Sep 23, 2020 3:34 am Mine is 140. There are three filters, if you will, between intelligence and success. The first is IQ itself, how much raw processing ability you have. The second is what you choose to spend it on - i've chosen philosophy, and solved it. And the third is what society allows. I'd be a great philosopher/king of the world but there's no chance of that happening. And before you respond (you know who you are), i'm going to report any semblance of ad hominem immediately.
you won't even fix the advocate-damn a/c

you'd be a lousy philo-king
Advocate
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: IQ

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Atla post_id=472851 time=1600869966 user_id=15497]
Nope, at some point we have to make educated guesses to continue. Not the same as fiction.
[/quote]

Actionable certainty is The Point of all knowledge, wisdom and understanding. An educated guess is actionable, btw.
Advocate
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: IQ

Post by Advocate »

>Tut tut.
>IQ is no measure of knowledge.

I concur.

I haven't applied the ad hominem thing yet so why do you believe i need to look it up? I did fail to apply it once because the principle of de minimis subsumes it.
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2464
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: IQ

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Advocate wrote: Wed Sep 23, 2020 4:00 pm I haven't applied the ad hominem thing yet so why do you believe i need to look it up?
Perhaps because he saw the no-true-scotsman fiasco you inflicted on yourself, and therefore correctly suspects you aren't very smart at all, IQ scores notwithstanding.
Advocate
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: IQ

Post by Advocate »

>If you mean by [i]ad hominem[/i] that many people will rush in to show your failure to demonstrate your amazing IQ, then that is definitely going to happen.

I mean that they will attack my IQ instead of the points made about it or with it. Kind of like what you're doing, plus being apparently intended as an insult, which is clearly disallowed by the forum, not myself, as indicated by the presence of "off topic" in the report feature. Obviously, my own IQ is an example, not the point of the post.

>However I do not think it is a fallacy to question why a person with an IQ of 140 seems incapable of using the QUOTES function!!!
You have cocked up the quotes function three times out of three tries in your replies already.

I use the included site feature of not parsing that code for two reasons, that it's an unnecessary addition of complexity, and the ideas should be what matter, not who said them. I feel free to respond to anyone at any time with or without quotations, and you should too.
Post Reply