Define Intelligence

@HexHammer,

You silly fool!

Do you not see that your basis for ridiculing my ideas is this "group think". That is what you are doing.

First you ridicule me for going outside what is generally acepted by the masses (the group), then you proceed to defend your reaction by calling my thoughts group think?

If you cannot see how idiotic your behaviour is, we have nothing more to discuss, as you clearly do not abide by the normal rules for communication.

2 Replies

@The Pentacle Queen,

The Pentacle Queen;

You said;

Quote:

And what the **** was wrong with 'the process of creating one's own reality'? Does someone else do yours for you?

The answer to your question is a resounding yes. Anybody that would post

Quote:

It's very simple, when you doesn't respond to my factual posts, but only to "feel good statemens" then what am I to think?

(See HexHammer Post # 4,406,616) has committed themselves to being a stimulus/response mechanism.

HexHammer doesn't stop for even one moment to notice that he has already determined what is a "Factual post" long before you respond.

I can say this from my own experience. There was a time in my life that I sat back (like a game of "Pong") and waited for the ball to come over to my side of the net. For some people that's all there is. The problem is that they don't know their doing it and they don't know they don't know.

It's not discussion, it's entanglement. If you put down your racket and refuse to return their serve, they keep serving anyway and find fault in you for not returning the serve. The possibility of doing something else doesn't occur as a possibility to them.

I predict that HexHammer and a few others won't take this as an opportunity to think. They'll just race to the ball and knock it over the net.

There are a ton of people on this forum who think 'returning the ball' is the same thing as thinking. The world has created the ball, the net, the rackets, the rules, and a place to play. Without it they would be lost. What most of them don't realize that if they never 'think' for themselves, they are lost.

If we created a new forum and called it the "Opinion Forum" and not allow 'scientific opinion' (I say 'scientific opinion' because people are slippery, they will make their opinion scientific (valid) to try to slip it in) to be posted on the "Philosophy Forum", the "Philosophy Forum" would eventually disappear.

One last thing. I have clicked on quite a few "Ignore User" buttons for people who have already opted out of the conversation.

3 Replies

@Dasein,

Dasein wrote:

One last thing. I have clicked on quite a few "Ignore User" buttons for people who have already opted out of the conversation.

doesn't that make it a pretty one sided game of pong Wink

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

re: "Group Think"

Be careful, "Group Think" doesn't have any room for you to 'be'.

And, no, HexHammer can't see his behavior, otherwise he wouldn't act the way he does.

Jesus Christ said; "Forgive them for they know no what they do".

1 Reply

@Dasein,

good points

0 Replies

@Dasein,

Quote:

The answer to your question is a resounding yes. Anybody that would post ... has committed themselves to being a stimulus/response mechanism.

If you are inclined to think of a human self as a static, coherent entity, I would have to rephrase the statement for you.

Intelligence is the process of creating reality.

If we dig down into what constitues "self" we may find that there is no true distinction bewteen self and what it percieves. "Self" may be more of a set of arbitrarily established relationships, and as such we cannot make the distinction you/me with regards to a definition of what intelligence is, since there is no clear distinction between "my" intelligence and "your" intelligence, which is reflected in the statement in the quote above.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

You silly fool!

Do you not see that your basis for ridiculing my ideas is this "group think". That is what you are doing.

First you ridicule me for going outside what is generally acepted by the masses (the group), then you proceed to defend your reaction by calling my thoughts group think?

If you cannot see how idiotic your behaviour is, we have nothing more to discuss, as you clearly do not abide by the normal rules for communication.

This is blantant evidence that you have absolutely no idea of what I asked, this does not in any way relate to the question which was asked. You therefore respond with a babbeling emotional response.

1 Reply

@Dasein,

Please see that I try make the PQ see reason and logic, this is the basic of that logistic work I beat in peoples head when I used to work.

1 Reply

@HexHammer,

Whatever. Go play with your dictionary.

0 Replies

@HexHammer,

Your problem is that you think people are things to be manipulated or manuvered.

You are not a 'thing' that can be changed. You are Be-ing. It's a process.

You don't have the ability or the capacity to "make PQ see reason and logic" or "beat in peoples head". You can beat on steel to change it's shape, but you can't beat on people. Knock it off.

The only person on the planet you have any determination over is you. Uncover who you are and stop distracting your 'self' by spinning out of control.

Remember, you have no inherent ability to change or contribute to anybody. They are whole and complete the way they are and you need to address who they are Be-ing and not what you think. And, don't let them try to convince you that you made a contribution to them. They are being irresponsible by trying to give you credit for something they did.

Come from that place in your dialogs with others and see if that works for you. And, I don't mean that you'll have a better way to change/manipulate others.

2 Replies

@Dasein,

My good Dasein, either you have no clue what's going on here, or you are just a troll trying to rescue PQ and Cy' from the foul Hex, either way it's annoying.

I will just put you on ignore to save the both of us a headache.

0 Replies

@Dasein,

Dasein wrote:

Your problem is that you think people are things to be manipulated or manuvered.

hmmm

Quote:

You are not a 'thing' that can be changed. You are Be-ing. It's a process.

of course you can change , maturity

Quote:

You don't have the ability or the capacity to "make PQ see reason and logic" or "beat in peoples head". You can beat on steel to change it's shape, but you can't beat on people. Knock it off.

Quote:

The only person on the planet you have any determination over is you. Uncover who you are and stop distracting your 'self' by spinning out of control.

so your ignoring psychology , especialy of religion

Quote:

Remember, you have no inherent ability to change or contribute to anybody. They are whole and complete the way they are and you need to address who they are Be-ing and not what you think. And, don't let them try to convince you that you made a contribution to them. They are being irresponsible by trying to give you credit for something they did.

so Gandi and Hitler had no inherent ability to change anyone ?

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz;

Let me start by saying I mean no disrespect. Respect and disrespect are both a waste of time and are subject to the whims of society.

Are you really listening to what you're writing? Everything you (the collective you) hear and read is distated to by your interpretation.

The line “The answer to your question is a resounding yes. Anybody that would post . . . has committed themselves to being a stimulus/response mechanism.” has nothing to do with 'intelligence'.

You interpreted that what I was talking about had something to do with 'intelligence'. Notice, that everything that followed was a explanation/justification for your conclusion 'intelligence'.

What if I live my life consistent with the fact that there is no such thing called 'intelligence'? What if what I said was merely an 'observation'. What if all there is for me is Be-ing and that intelligence is a man-made concept that has nothing to do with Be-ing?

You said;
“Intelligence is the process of creating reality”.

If you hit your thumb with a hammer, would 'reality' show up? Would that be the 'intelligent' thing to do? Would you be more or less 'intelligent' for having hit your thumb with a hammer? How?

What if there is no 'intelligence'? How would you say what you said then?

You said;
“If we dig down deep into what constitutes 'self' we may find that there is no true distinction between 'self' and what it perceives.”

What if there is no “digging down deep” to do. No “true distinction between 'self' and what it perceives”. What if 'self' is not an 'it'? What if all there is, is Be-ing/perceiving? What if you are Be-ing and what you're perceiving is who you are? How does that change what you had to say?

You also said;
”"Self" may be more of a set of arbitrarily established relationships, and as such we cannot make the distinction you/me with regards to a definition of what intelligence is, since there is no clear distinction between "my" intelligence and "your" intelligence, which is reflected in the statement in the quote above.”

'You' are your relationships, there is no distinction “you/me”, and there is no such 'thing' as intelligence. There is only Be-ing.

Now that you know who I am, does what I've said change what you posted in response to my post. If the answer is yes, how? If the answer is no, why not?

I know (from experience) that most people can't accept what I'm saying because they have too much invested in being right about their point-of-view.

I did say most people because I don't know how you'll respond (as in response-ability) or how you'll react (stimulus/response) to my 'invitation'.

One last thing. There is no box to think outside of.

2 Replies

@Dasein,

Quote:

Everything you (the collective you) hear and read is distated to by your interpretation.

Just because I am connecting the dots doesn't mean it is strictly my interpretation. I didn't singlehandedly work out all the involved factors in the understanding of what we are speaking of. That is an endeavor shared by everyone. Some more than others perhaps, but even Einstein was working with, and expanding on ideas he had gotten from others. There is not really any clear distinction between mine and yours in this regard.

Quote:

What if 'self' is not an 'it'?

That's what I am suggesting.

Quote:

No “true distinction between 'self' and what it perceives”.

Precicely what I am suggesting. Heck, thats what I said, isn't it? Wink

And it may have nothing to do with intelligence, but you used this:

Quote:

Anybody that would post . . . has committed themselves to being a stimulus/response mechanism.”

...as an explanation as to why it is not right to say that "intelligence is the process of creating one's own reality".

It sounds reasonable to say that my intellectual activity doesn't create reality, but only if you make the distinction "my" intelligence and "your" intelligence. Besides, is intellectual activity the same as intelligence? In the army, intelligence is a kind of information.
In many contexts that is a useful distinction to make, but I do think that if you want to make sense of my proposed description of intelligence it is best not to make that distinction. We all create our reality by means of social negotiation, and in this context, we can think of intelligence as an aspect of human perception, which is, after all, what we are talking about.
Now, I wouldn't ask you to do this if there was conclusive evidence that it is "wrong", but I hope I have given a reasonable account of why I think it is a valid proposition.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

The only thing that can be said about your response is - you have no idea of what I'm talking about and the problem is that you think the way you see it is all there is.

Thanks for opting out of conversations with me. I appreciate the time you've saved me.

1 Reply

cannot defining intelligence be both practible and abstract

relising your limits

practible , being smart on the everyday living

and abstract , the depth of understanding of a particular thing or things

and then being able to think beyond what both offers as far as knowledge

and the ability to reason things out

0 Replies

@Dasein,

Well, if you think I am missing the point, please clarify.

I have made statements and sought to explain those.

As far as I can tell you have just made statements. I haven't said that I think the way I see it is all there is. But what else is there here? You surely haven't supplied us with any alternative. You've made claims that have yet to be explained.
I may even agree that your take on it is more acurate than mine, if you ever posted one.

What is it with people who seem to think that their opinions do not need to be justified by reasoning? You are not god, and I will not take it on faith, as you seem to expect me to.

So, again, if you feel I missed the mark in my response to you, please clarify.

So far, all you have done is say "what if.... " and proceeded to ask how those "what ifs" would alter my statement, when the "what ifs" you propose are the eventualities I started with...

0 Replies

@Dasein,

Quote:

What if I live my life consistent with the fact that there is no such thing called 'intelligence'?

You can't. You will categorize and create relationships which you can find meaning within. It is inevitable if you are human, and it is also intelligence. Thus we create our reality.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
What if I live my life consistent with the fact that there is no such thing called 'intelligence'?

Quote:
You can't. You will categorize and create relationships which you can find meaning within. It is inevitable if you are human, and it is also intelligence.

Quote:
Thus we create our reality.

what does this really mean for you ? Thus we create our reality

1 Reply

@north,

What I mean is that reality is a phenomenon of consciousness. We cannot interact with anything that is not present in consciousness.

Intelligence is the human attribute that lets us conceptualize and categorize this phenomenon of experience. We do this by assuming viewpoints relative to what we observe, and this decides which pieces of information we place emphasis on, out of the enormous amount of available information.
What constitutes reality at any given moment in history is decided by this activity.
Once upon a time the earth was flat, god was real, and women were inferior to men. This was reality once. It's not anymore.

Perhaps this does not go over well with your notion of "objective reality", but as I have stated elswhere, I don't think there is such a thing.
To me, the idea of a reality outside consciousness seems as impossible as consciousness without physicality no doubt seems to you.

1 Reply

Define Intelligence

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know