IQ

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Atla
Posts: 2978
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: IQ

Post by Atla »

Advocate wrote: Wed Sep 23, 2020 3:54 pm Actionable certainty is The Point of all knowledge, wisdom and understanding. An educated guess is actionable, btw.
The Point for you. But for most people, knowledge, wisdom and understanding don't necessarily have anything to do with actionability. Further educated guesses don't necessarily need to have anything to do with it either.
As I said, you should stop redefining 'philosophy'.
Advocate
Posts: 1071
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: IQ

Post by Advocate »

>The Point for you. But for most people, knowledge, wisdom and understanding don't necessarily have anything to do with actionability. Further educated guesses don't necessarily need to have anything to do with it either.

There is literally no possible use for those things Except actionable certainty. Also, appeal to "most people" is inherently flawed. An educated guess is a type of knowledge - justified belief.

If you'll accept my ideas are created in good faith then you can see how they do actually answer more philosophical questions than any other alternative. If that's not good enough for you, you're in the wrong business, philosophy isn't compatible with your way of thinking.
Atla
Posts: 2978
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: IQ

Post by Atla »

Advocate wrote: Wed Sep 23, 2020 5:26 pm >The Point for you. But for most people, knowledge, wisdom and understanding don't necessarily have anything to do with actionability. Further educated guesses don't necessarily need to have anything to do with it either.

There is literally no possible use for those things Except actionable certainty. Also, appeal to "most people" is inherently flawed. An educated guess is a type of knowledge - justified belief.

If you'll accept my ideas are created in good faith then you can see how they do actually answer more philosophical questions than any other alternative. If that's not good enough for you, you're in the wrong business, philosophy isn't compatible with your way of thinking.
You don't get it. Some parts of philosophy are usable like that, some parts of it aren't. You have simply redefined philosophy to mean its usable parts.

Also, the irony here is that many people with 140 IQs have more or less figured out this 'usable' part of philosophy before you. Yet they all failed to make a big enough difference, and so will you. And it's not because you don't have enough 'integration/resources/privilege', but because humanity as a whole is beyond repair. No matter how good your usable philosophy is, it will never be actionable enough hehe, the average human is just not capable of understanding and following such things. And this insight is also part of the search for 'truth'. But the bubble you're living is kinda amusing to me.
Advocate
Posts: 1071
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: IQ

Post by Advocate »

>You don't get it. Some parts of philosophy are usable like that, some parts of it aren't. You have simply redefined philosophy to mean its usable parts.

If there's no intent for it to be useful it's not philosophy. Wisdom cannot stand alone, it must lead toward a better something, and that's an inherent property. And to be part of the "love of wisdom", one must to understand that there are two kinds of wisdom, truth, and practical. The point of all truth is also practical. This is not debatable. If you believe otherwise, you've pulled the primary support beam out from under anything else you might possibly say. "My words aren't useful but they're still philosophy." is incoherent. There is never such a case in reality. Even the example just given aims toward clarifying something in spite of itself.

>Also, the irony here is that many people with 140 IQs have more or less figured out this 'usable' part of philosophy before you.

That's not irony. Why would anyone expect otherwise? Every philosophical thought has been independently derived many times. What has not been done, so far as i can find, is putting all the pieces together. That i've done, but it doesn't address any point in the OP.

>Yet they all failed to make a big enough difference, and so will you.

You've just restated one of my original points as though i didn't make it and it's your own. GTFO. This is evidence of the part about what society allows. People who are apparently incapable of working with deep thoughts have much more power than people who are.

>And it's not because you don't have enough 'integration/resources/privilege', but because humanity as a whole is beyond repair.

Can't it be both? Humanity is beyond repair BECAUSE it's core principles do not include respect for intellect. If we would give smart (knowledge + intelligence) people more resources, they'd find ways to use them more effectively than everyone else and in ways that would benefit everyone else, but we don't, and people think it's a bad idea largely because of it not being that way; non-smart people are elevated and entitled as though they were, making it seem that smart isn't important. And to the extent it is respected, knowledge is elevated over the ability to process that knowledge effectively, because DK effect.

>No matter how good your usable philosophy is, it will never be actionable enough hehe, the average human is just not capable of understanding and following such things.

Actionable enough is nothing to do with whether it's recognised as actionable. That's combining two concepts with extremely different dynamics as though they are one. But i've taken great pains to keep my philosophy as simple as possible, within the limits of justifiable certainty, for just that reason, as any true philosopher should.

>And this insight is also part of the search for 'truth'. But the bubble you're living is kinda amusing to me.

I'm not searching for it, i'm teaching it. the truth cannot be found, it can only be recognised. The bubble is all around you.
Atla
Posts: 2978
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: IQ

Post by Atla »

Advocate wrote: Wed Sep 23, 2020 8:14 pmIf there's no intent for it to be useful it's not philosophy. Wisdom cannot stand alone, it must lead toward a better something, and that's an inherent property. And to be part of the "love of wisdom", one must to understand that there are two kinds of wisdom, truth, and practical. The point of all truth is also practical. This is not debatable. If you believe otherwise, you've pulled the primary support beam out from under anything else you might possibly say. "My words aren't useful but they're still philosophy." is incoherent. There is never such a case in reality. Even the example just given aims toward clarifying something in spite of itself.
Quite naive. Of course my comments aren't useful, if anything, they are not.

Is the idea that the point of all truth is practical, not debatable, because it's simply not true? :) Sometimes truth and practicality coincide, sometimes they don't.
That's not irony. Why would anyone expect otherwise? Every philosophical thought has been independently derived many times. What has not been done, so far as i can find, is putting all the pieces together. That i've done, but it doesn't address any point in the OP.
Obviously I meant that they more or less put all the pieces together. You should be aware of this. I've done that too, big deal. You are new to this aren't you.
>Yet they all failed to make a big enough difference, and so will you.

You've just restated one of my original points as though i didn't make it and it's your own. GTFO. This is evidence of the part about what society allows. People who are apparently incapable of working with deep thoughts have much more power than people who are.

>And it's not because you don't have enough 'integration/resources/privilege', but because humanity as a whole is beyond repair.

Can't it be both? Humanity is beyond repair BECAUSE it's core principles do not include respect for intellect. If we would give smart (knowledge + intelligence) people more resources, they'd find ways to use them more effectively than everyone else and in ways that would benefit everyone else, but we don't, and people think it's a bad idea largely because of it not being that way; non-smart people are elevated and entitled as though they were, making it seem that smart isn't important. And to the extent it is respected, knowledge is elevated over the ability to process that knowledge effectively, because DK effect.

>No matter how good your usable philosophy is, it will never be actionable enough hehe, the average human is just not capable of understanding and following such things.

Actionable enough is nothing to do with whether it's recognised as actionable. That's combining two concepts with extremely different dynamics as though they are one. But i've taken great pains to keep my philosophy as simple as possible, within the limits of justifiable certainty, for just that reason, as any true philosopher should.

>And this insight is also part of the search for 'truth'. But the bubble you're living is kinda amusing to me.

I'm not searching for it, i'm teaching it. the truth cannot be found, it can only be recognised. The bubble is all around you.
Average people can't comprehend what intellect is, so how could they respect it? :)
Dimebag
Posts: 228
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:12 am

Re:

Post by Dimebag »

As they say, it’s not what you know but who you know. People who are “elevated” as you call it typically are better at making social connections than those with even the deepest knowledge. Eventually those talented ones will eventually rise as well, but not in the same privileged way as social people. Which brings me to another point, there are more than one kind of intelligence. Those people who rise quicker must have a higher social intelligence than those who don’t. Or maybe they are less inhibited which allows their natural social intelligence to shine forth easier than those who are more restricted socially.

If you view intelligence as simply one single measure I feel you are very short sighted. Before this world existed, intelligence might have been knowing how to form the best tools, I.e. practical intelligence, or knowing how to read the land and to extract food and water, I.e. survival intelligence. The idea of intelligence we think of today is highly specific to a kind of heady scientific way of thinking, but science itself is a human invention. These days we are adapted to completely human made environments, not necessarily a stable thing and likely to change in the future. What is the intelligence which subsumed them all? I say it’s the ability to learn without being taught.
Advocate
Posts: 1071
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: IQ

Post by Advocate »

>Obviously I meant that they more or less put all the pieces together. You should be aware of this. I've done that too, big deal. You are new to this aren't you.

To answer your last question first, no. I'm more accomplished than all but the most prolific academics, and better than them nonetheless. "More or less" isn't sufficient any longer because i, for one, can answer literally all philosophy questions coherently. The bar has been raised, even if nobody knows it yet.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2131
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: IQ

Post by RCSaunders »

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.
Only an idiot thinks there needs to be a king. So, you must be joking since anyone with an IQ of 140 would know that.
Atla
Posts: 2978
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: IQ

Post by Atla »

Advocate wrote: Wed Sep 23, 2020 9:19 pm >Obviously I meant that they more or less put all the pieces together. You should be aware of this. I've done that too, big deal. You are new to this aren't you.

To answer your last question first, no. I'm more accomplished than all but the most prolific academics, and better than them nonetheless. "More or less" isn't sufficient any longer because i, for one, can answer literally all philosophy questions coherently. The bar has been raised, even if nobody knows it yet.
In philosophy, Western academia isn't the bar. :) And I pointed out like 5-6 philosophical issues so far which you got wrong, or were unaware of. But I guess redefining 'philosophy' to not cover them, does the job hehe.
Atla
Posts: 2978
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: IQ

Post by Atla »

Also, my IQ is soooooooooooo high, that I even know that a high IQ isn't the highest form of human cognition. Acquired savantism is (preferably combined with a high IQ).
Last edited by Atla on Wed Sep 23, 2020 9:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Advocate
Posts: 1071
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: IQ

Post by Advocate »

[quote=RCSaunders post_id=472948 time=1600893310 user_id=16196]Only an idiot thinks there needs to be a king. So, you must be joking since anyone with an IQ of 140 would know that.
[/quote]

I didn't say there needs to be one, at least not here, so i don't know what your referring to. Also, there needs to be a king (not in the inherited sense) because of the inherent inefficiencies of any variety of consensus system. Someone has to have the meaningful authority to make final decisions. If you want to remove trust from the leadership equation i can promise you there's a dystopia at the end of that road. A benevolent dictatorship is the only guaranteed efficient system. Better that power should be widely delegated generally, but that's not always possible and not always desirable.

Your contention that anyone who supports any idea of regency is an idiot is unsupportable. And once again, my example isn't the point of the post - anyone with an IQ of 100 should see that.
Advocate
Posts: 1071
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: IQ

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Atla post_id=472949 time=1600893381 user_id=15497]
[quote=Advocate post_id=472944 time=1600892370 user_id=15238]
>Obviously I meant that they more or less put all the pieces together. You should be aware of this. I've done that too, big deal. You are new to this aren't you.

To answer your last question first, no. I'm more accomplished than all but the most prolific academics, and better than them nonetheless. "More or less" isn't sufficient any longer because i, for one, can answer literally all philosophy questions coherently. The bar has been raised, even if nobody knows it yet.
[/quote]
In philosophy, Western academia isn't the bar. :) And I pointed out like 5-6 philosophical issues so far which you got wrong, or were unaware of. But I guess redefining 'philosophy' to not cover them, does the job hehe.
[/quote]

No, the bar is "answering literally all philosophical questions coherently". Help me understand how that wasn't clear, please.
Advocate
Posts: 1071
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: IQ

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Atla post_id=472950 time=1600893771 user_id=15497]
Also, my IQ is soooooooooooo high, that I even know that a high IQ isn't the highest form of human cognition. Acquired savantism is (preferably combined with a high IQ).
[/quote]

I don't see where anyone made the contention that a high IQ is the highest form of human cognition, whatever that is, but savantism is literally only useful for very specific things, and philosophy is not the very specific sort of thing that savantism can apply to. If it was, i'd be a philosophical savant. Basic reasoning ability is required as a prerequisite for applying mental acuity of any variety effectively, as is mentioned in the OP. That's the "how you choose to apply it" part.
Atla
Posts: 2978
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: IQ

Post by Atla »

Advocate wrote: Wed Sep 23, 2020 9:52 pm
Atla wrote: Wed Sep 23, 2020 9:36 pm
Advocate wrote: Wed Sep 23, 2020 9:19 pm >Obviously I meant that they more or less put all the pieces together. You should be aware of this. I've done that too, big deal. You are new to this aren't you.

To answer your last question first, no. I'm more accomplished than all but the most prolific academics, and better than them nonetheless. "More or less" isn't sufficient any longer because i, for one, can answer literally all philosophy questions coherently. The bar has been raised, even if nobody knows it yet.
In philosophy, Western academia isn't the bar. :) And I pointed out like 5-6 philosophical issues so far which you got wrong, or were unaware of. But I guess redefining 'philosophy' to not cover them, does the job hehe.
No, the bar is "answering literally all philosophical questions coherently". Help me understand how that wasn't clear, please.
Even some of the questions of Western philosophy, especially academia, are wrong. And some important questions it doesn't even ask. There are even issues which both great philosophical schools got wrong. Probably. Etc. it's always going to be a "more or less", and there are people already ahead of you in unification. There were already people ahead of you 1000 years ago, if we don't count the political stuff.

Anyway I was just trying to be a bit annoying, things I write should be ignored. Carry on Your Majesty :)
Advocate
Posts: 1071
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: IQ

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Atla post_id=472961 time=1600895529 user_id=15497]
Even some of the questions of Western philosophy, especially academia, are wrong. And some important questions it doesn't even ask. There are even issues which both great philosophical schools got wrong. Probably. Etc. it's always going to be a "more or less", and there are people already ahead of you in unification. There were already people ahead of you 1000 years ago, if we don't count the political stuff.

Anyway I was just trying to be a bit annoying, things I write should be ignored. Carry on Your Majesty :)
[/quote]

Definitely some of the questions are wrong. The answer to a question can be that it's not a meaningful question. I can't think of any important questions that haven't been asked. Can you provide examples? Perhaps you mean a better phrasing of the ones that have been?

Who are these people ahead of me in unification? It's not part of this post so i assume you've read tiny.cc/TheWholeStory at some other point? I've seen a lot of philosophy and never anything that approximates a ToE in even a minimally rational way (no appeal to woo, for example). You're speaking lucidly and without personal attacks so i'm afraid i must ignore your request to ignore you. :P
Post Reply