Genius - Page 3

Topic: Genius (Read 21977 times)

Re: Genius

Reply #50 – 2015-04-20, 14:27:39

Quote from: ersi on 2015-04-20, 07:40:24

For normal people, when one knows, it definitely means there's something there to know or ignore. When one is mistaken, real consequences follow that indicate beyond any reasonable doubt that there's something there that one's mistaken about and that must be corrected.

I believe that this statement might be more applicable to genius rather than the more common persons who often try relentlessly to fit the square peg into a round hole.

Re: Genius

Reply #51 – 2015-04-20, 15:27:24

Quote from: Belfrager on 2015-04-18, 21:23:16

My post that you quoted without understanding, it's about the nature of the property that turns people into genius, a characteristic that makes them specially and deliberately different from all the other people and why it is so.
The only word or concept I can identify for such thing to happen it's the concept of "Grace". It's indifferent if it applies to the scientific mind, the artistic mind or to the philosophical mind.

"...turns people into genius.", is this like the water into wine thing? Plato had the original idea that genius (creativity), was divined and through the ages that idea played out to the Saints who were thought to have divined genius. It just seems that long ago, all things which were inexplicable then, were attributed to god or the supernatural of some sort--we are better than that now.

Re: Genius

Reply #52 – 2015-04-20, 16:35:23

Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2015-04-20, 10:27:24

Plato had the original idea that genius (creativity), was divined...

...using a divining rod.

Re: Genius

Reply #53 – 2015-04-20, 22:17:52

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-04-20, 05:30:52

But: All you know is what you wish to believe.

Genius and Wish have absolutely no relationship.
By the contrary, I would bet that most genius wishes not to be one.

Re: Genius

Reply #54 – 2015-04-20, 22:24:06

Quote from: Belfrager on 2015-04-20, 14:17:52

I would bet that most genius wishes not to be one.

It's worse than you think! See here.

Re: Genius

Reply #55 – 2015-04-20, 22:26:59

Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2015-04-20, 15:27:24

"...turns people into genius.", is this like the water into wine thing?

Nope, it's just the total despise for rudimentary languages as yours.

Re: Genius

Reply #56 – 2015-04-21, 00:46:12

Quote from: Belfrager on 2015-04-20, 14:26:59

it's just the total despise for rudimentary languages as yours

If you mean his use of it, perhaps. If you mean to disparage English, you're confused about the meaning of "rudimentary"…

You prefer to keep things simple, and your language makes that easy. But it also makes understanding anything that's actually complicated difficult to discuss.

If you don't like English, you can go to all those wonderfully stimulating fora held in Portuguese…

Re: Genius

Reply #57 – 2015-04-21, 06:03:36

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-04-21, 00:46:12

But it also makes understanding anything that's actually complicated difficult to discuss.

You know that English was never an acceptable language to publish scientific, philosophical or theological work, you had to publish it in Latin. Guess why...

Re: Genius

Reply #58 – 2015-04-21, 14:25:39

Historical accident…?

Re: Genius

Reply #59 – 2015-04-21, 15:15:57

English , is a Weird language .
You spell Ai for i
e for a
jee for G
etc ..

but it is verified as the international language .
since The Ally Win the WWII

for somehow , If the Plot is twisted , Perhaps today We speak in Deutsch .
Which more Weirder than English .

sprechen Sie Deutsch?

nein , ich spreche kein Deutsch

Re: Genius

Reply #60 – 2015-04-21, 22:23:56

Quote from: Belfrager on 2015-04-21, 01:03:36

You know that English was never an acceptable language to publish scientific, philosophical or theological work, you had to publish it in Latin. Guess why...

Just one more example of the Catholic conspiracy.

Re: Genius

Reply #61 – 2015-04-22, 01:38:26

@Belfrager: For the Romans from whom we got Latin you mean, they used (and prized!) Attic Greek… Then, after a brief reign for Latin, Arabic took over — and lasted a good long while.
(In the east, Sanskrit sufficed, I think.)
When Latin resumed, under the Schoolmen, natural science was beginning to flourish (again); and who's to say whether its use helped or hindered?

By the 18th Century, Latin had shot its bolt. German and French had been sharing the "honors" of scientific and diplomatic lingua francas, respectively; and continued to do so.

How English took over is an interesting story… But I wouldn't bore you.

Quote from: Jimbro3738 on 2015-04-21, 14:23:56

the Catholic conspiracy

Not far off, sir: I suspect that the few remaining libraries and collections of scholars in Europe (and, thank God!, Ireland…) were in Catholic monasteries — where, of course, Classical Latin was the mode for formal communication.
We're lucky we didn't end up with just any old pidgin!

Re: Genius

Reply #62 – 2015-04-22, 06:11:09

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-04-22, 01:38:26

How English took over is an interesting story… But I wouldn't bore you.

Doubt very much you know why. And even less about the consequences...

Re: Genius

Reply #63 – 2015-04-22, 08:52:52

But I do! Peacocks strut their stuff, with no hens interested!

The actual consequence was that one needed to communicate, rather than (…go figure, this word came right to mind:) pontificate… (You know what "regular" punctuation I used. The Smilie got 'et! Good!) If you don't know what I mean, please find me any works of quantum physics (that anyone would take seriously, besides you…) written in Latin.
I'd say, if you have to go back more than a hundred years to make your point, you've a hard row to hoe.

You reject "scientism" — which is good, I think. You also seem to reject science, which is not good.

If you find English inadequate, provide something better…

Which is to say: If you don't like the predominance of English, provide another language that will suffice! And convince others to use it.

If intelligent quasi-Christians can't accommodate legitimate science, they might as well accept VooDoo and Cargo Cults!
Heck! They should become Freudians! (And then feminists…

) Stupidity cascades.

Re: Genius

Reply #64 – 2015-04-22, 22:32:53

With no special order.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-04-22, 08:52:52

You reject "scientism" — which is good, I think. You also seem to reject science, which is not good.

Yes, I reject "scientism" but you are wrong at your accusations. I'm probably the biggest defensor of Science at this forum. Amongst Catholics, I defend, as Pope Benedict XVI, the supremacy of reason over faith.
I'm sorry, but I have no patience to explain basic knowledge to ignorants that don't even know how much "their" science was made by theists. Not speaking about you.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-04-22, 08:52:52

If you find English inadequate, provide something better…

Anything is better than English.
You've just recognized you don't have a clue why English has turned today's Esperanto.

I tell you why, because it is the minimum denominator, the lowest leverage possible.
Any idiot in earth can learn English enough to "communicate".

But remind you, dear Oakdale (and considering you one of the few that fight for his own language), English supremacy will destroy English entirely... it doesn't have enough consistency to resist to popularity.
From Portugal to China we will destroy it. Not to speak about Scotland, or the Harlem, two equivalent entities, that started destroying it much before.

Your "English" doesn't exists anymore. It's just a bunch of primitive dialects, distorted and twisted at our will. Not too much different from it's origins.
Never a language "domination" has lasted for such a short time...

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-04-22, 08:52:52

If intelligent quasi-Christians can't accommodate legitimate science, they might as well accept VooDoo and Cargo Cults!

I don't know a shit about what you're talking about.

Re: Genius

Reply #65 – 2015-04-23, 01:48:15

Quote from: Belfrager on 2015-04-22, 14:32:53

English supremacy will destroy English entirely... it doesn't have enough consistency to resist to popularity.

Your presumption is showing! I disagree with your prejudices about language in general… (I remember your horror at Brazil's effect upon Portuguese!) Like all languages, English is constantly changing — and, while some recent changes "bother" me, there's no help for it. I accept the inevitable reluctantly, because it discomforts me. But I hope to live long enough to be considered an antiquarian.

(BTW: Esperanto was -and is- a dismal failure. Un-natural languages fail to inspire the commitment I think you mean by "popularity"… You should know better: The difference between organic and mechanistic is patent and potent!)

Re: Genius

Reply #66 – 2015-04-23, 04:32:02

We may need to resurrect Jax's thread about the origins of language… (That is the correct phrasing, by the way: Language itself had an origin, not individual languages per se.) Your slight at English -that it is lacking in consistency- is bombast, and you know it. That learning enough to "communicate" in English requires only idiocy is a trope only a zealot would use. Every human language is readily accessible to most humans, if they're exposed to them early enough, and you know that.
(Those that can learn other languages as adults are rare… And they are more like geniuses, since intelligence is no prerequisite for their talent!)
Furthermore, with some very few spurious or questionable exceptions, no one in modern times has ever discovered a "primitive" human language… Do you have information to the contrary?

I'd be interested to know. A truly primitive human language would tell us much about the evolution of language…

But perhaps you think God created all human languages -maybe at the same time- and, in that case, there is not much for the science of linguistics… Let me know, huh? I'd not waste your time or mine on irreconcilable differences!

I was once being divorced by a young lady who used the grounds of bigamy to pursue her claim. In the state of California, that is a charge for which one must prove one's innocence rather then be proven by prosecution to be guilty; the penalty, at a minimum, was a ten-year prison stay!
We met at a park, she and I; neutral territory!- and discussed my predicament. I persuaded her to change the grounds of her request for the dissolution of our marriage to the no-fault stand-by, Irreconcilable Differences…
She acquiesced. (I applied reason, for which she was woefully unprepared. — If you ask, I'll provide the particulars: But privately. Did I mention that logic was not her strong suit?

)
Then, she asked me -after she'd changed the stated grounds to irreconcilable differences- to contest the divorce!
(She hoped for a reconciliation, she said.

)
If she filed for the divorce -on those grounds- and I disagreed, her grounds were proved! She was a woman who knew nothing of logic…

Re: Genius

Reply #67 – 2015-04-23, 20:21:43

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-04-23, 04:32:02

She was a woman who knew nothing of logic…

Women don't need to know logic, they dominate emotional thinking. Some are genius at it.

Re: Genius

Reply #68 – 2015-04-26, 03:57:06

Quote from: Belfrager on 2015-04-23, 20:21:43

Women don't need to know logic, they dominate emotional thinking. Some are genius at it.

You can only speak from experience about this, which doesn't say much about the quality of women you've known or, perhaps, you've just not known that many women.

Re: Genius

Reply #69 – 2015-04-26, 04:39:25

Okay, James. Fair enough.
I've known many intelligent women. And some could be -when it suited them- logical.

But I'll give you a typical example of female ill-logic: An more than competent and experienced RN had to administer 7.5 ml of Motrin to a 5-year old… She wasn't willing to "guesstimate" the dose using a cup gradated 5 and 10 ml. She searched until she found a dispenser with the proper markings!
When I mentioned that dosages were best determined by patient age, weight and other items from their history, she stopped talking to me…

Even the steadiest hand is "guesstimating" when pouring a liquid into a dose-er. But -for some- the need for the illusion of precision is indispensable — a sad commentary on the educational system that is supposed to teach more than the tricks of the trade, no?

Re: Genius

Reply #70 – 2015-04-26, 06:32:54

Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2015-04-26, 03:57:06

which doesn't say much about the quality of women you've known or, perhaps, you've just not known that many women.

Or, perhaps, that you have no clue about what intelligence and, particularly, female's intelligence is about.
From the land that keeps on using QI's fraud, it will not surprise me.

Re: Genius

Reply #71 – 2015-04-26, 07:00:29

Quote from: Belfrager on 2015-04-25, 22:32:54

on using QI's fraud,

Okay: Now I'm confused! What the heck are you saying…?

Re: Genius

Reply #72 – 2015-04-26, 07:15:36

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-04-23, 04:32:02

I was once being divorced by a young lady who used the grounds of bigamy to pursue her claim. In the state of California, that is a charge for which one must prove one's innocence rather then be proven by prosecution to be guilty; the penalty, at a minimum, was a ten-year prison stay!
We met at a park, she and I; neutral territory!- and discussed my predicament. I persuaded her to change the grounds of her request for the dissolution of our marriage to the no-fault stand-by, Irreconcilable Differences…
She acquiesced. (I applied reason, for which she was woefully unprepared....

No, you didn't apply reason. You applied emotional appeal. Your "predicament" was only that you were forced to prove your innocence. There's nothing irrational about having to prove one's own innocence. It's just that you didn't feel like doing it for whatever reason and you managed to sway the other side.

There's no doubt that you used emotional arguments, because (1) your predicament was emotional rather than anything else and (2) women in general reject rational arguments while they accept irrational ones that click somewhere else than in intellect. They say "makes sense" where nothing makes sense, whereas when something makes perfect sense, they reject it because "something does not feel right". You managed to make it "feel right" even though she was your adversary.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-04-23, 04:32:02

If she filed for the divorce -on those grounds- and I disagreed, her grounds were proved! She was a woman who knew nothing of logic…

Yep, you duped her good. But what I find dubious in this story is that the court of law seems to have accepted your logic. Courts of law don't even follow law - and in English common law countries there's even no proper law to follow in the first place. In my experience, courts of law only judge, and the judgement is either random or corrupt.

Re: Genius

Reply #73 – 2015-04-26, 07:37:55

I reject and resent almost everything that you said… But you're not far from the truth!
I'm a "wood-pusher," not a Grand Master. I know and like chess; but some people simply don't care to play the game. They prefer another, which -in this case, eventually- I learned, well enough.
———————————————————
BTW: When you say I don't apply "reason" what you can only mean is that I haven't followed Euclidean strictures. Your definition of reason is deficient. and you know it. To try to call me out on that basis is futile, fatuous.

Why -I ask- do you keep trying to best me?

Re: Genius

Reply #74 – 2015-04-26, 07:43:19

I said that "quotient of intelligence" tests are a fraud.