and you…figured out a way to verify that this prediction was successful?
intelligence is an eye
maybe intelligence is, at last, the talent for assimilating things
Vanitas wrote:
For the word ‘genius,’ despite its marvelous distinction, is most comprehensible in terms of a talent for assimilating things. That is what genius is- a superior capacity for assimilating. The art of assimilating knowledge, experience, trust, and distrust, is in the very least the most distinguishing mark of genius- for one must not only accumulate these things, but also endue them continually with order and unity, with art; one must at every step of contemplation exercise a certain retroactive capacity for uniting the disparate objects of one’s contemplation. In this way thinking conserves itself, in this way thinking remains perpetually childish. In the domain of philosophers I know of no two better examples of such a capacity than the ones given by Socrates and Pascal: Socrates with his careful petrification of an argument and Pascal- that thinker who does not fail to keep in his mind the vanity of man on subject matter so diverse as to range from justice, to love, to culture. Thinking is always a single, complete exertion that admits of no discontinuity, no distinction, no individuation of its effort. Thinking is essentially a sobering, a ‘becoming conscious’. These same laws hold for artistic genius. A marriage of joy and suffering as can be seen in Scriabin’s Op. 8. No. 11 is no product of mere art. It examples the basic fact that a great artist, an artist who possesses genius, does not merely translate the exuberance or the spiritual destitution of a particular moment, a particular day, a particular strumming of his heart into a song, poem, or painting: like the acts of procreation and parturition, the efforts of the man of genius are always a consummate exertion of his entire organism.
I don’t want to speak for Vanitas, but I think the word “despite” signifies the contrast between, on the one hand, the high distinction that genius is attributed and which in effect makes genius alien to many people and, on the other hand, the fact that genius is a “superior capacity for assimilation,” assimilation being the opposite of the alienation and distinction attributed to it.
“Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto”, or “I am a man, I consider nothing that is human alien to me.” → Consistent with Vanitas’s description, I feel that this thinking would be characteristic of a genius.
nope, but it is assumed that it is correct since prior predictions based on the same principle are correct.
that’s not how it works.
but anyway, can you give us any verified predictions?
the most significant one predicted that all kinds of emotional pain derive from basic physical pain, the same applies to pleasure and happiness.
this was stated and then verified by a finding which was posted here in this same web page,
there is a link to the piece of evidence.
what’s the principle and how did it predict that?
well i wuld have to open a new link for that since this is about intelligence.
why not? if you have a principle that allows you to predict human behavior better than other theories or behavioral models, i’m sure everyone here would love to hear. you might even be up for a nobel prize.
it does not really, yet if everything is not taken into account the missing links are a potentialluy fatal blow for the theory, everything must be outlined and clearly understood before anything ground breaking can be said to appear intelligence is extremely important, without that and a clear understanding of space time relationship my theory is simply modest guesswork.
I understand intelligence to be,
firstly it must be acknowledged that I am not a creator of the words and their definitions i am simply a user of the language thus, to define intelligence on must first look at the conditions that are present when the word is used.
A person who gets good grades in school is defined as intelligent, gettting good grades is to the most general part completely dependant upon memory.
Extrapolating from there intelligence must be directly proportional to memory.
Second intelligence is also used to describe a speed of learning, ( a reduced amount of repetitions needed to establish an association between diverging sensorial stimuli.)
Thus intelligence is directly proportional to both memory capacity and speed of associating. using aristotelean logic, and assuming a deterministic nature of human beings based on the principle of cause and effect we use a possibility verification to see if the prior observations are correct.
If a person were not able to memorize could he be said to be intelligent? no memory, no learning so the assumption was right.
If a person were not able to associate( speed of association were zero) would a person be able to learn? no so both are neccesary for intelligence.
intelligence should thus be described as memory capacity X associative speed.
Are their any other conditions where intelligence is used that i have not detailed?
This theory is gonna be a hoot.
why you think?
I have read some of your post I think for a philosopher you place too much importance on already established delimitations of what is true, to me if you want to go further than people behind you have to break from their dogmas and seek the truth on your own understanding otherwise, you becoming a a simple sheep following a blind person. einstein, newton… etc are people you are a person as well I see no difference.
I mean why be a philospher to read books? if you cannot think by yourself then you are well, not even intelligent you are just a follower, a mere sheep.
if people laugh at it or not is the least of my concerns as long as I can predict, the theory would serve its purpose so far so good.
I think you’re talking about being dexterous. That’s basically a mechanical function like a computer. Intelligence is more being able to be self secure with whatever you have to work with. Those who have computers can let the quickness of the machine do their work rather than relying on their brain’s memory. Computers are an extension of memory and speed. For those who have only their brains, intelligent living can still be accomplished. Having one’s basic needs (food clothing shelter) is really all that is needed for intelligent life. By life, I mean the physical life of the body with basic mental tasking. Don’t tell me you couldn’t lead a very simple, peaceful, intelligent life in that condition. If you want to get involved with desires and how they are tampered with, that’s another thing.
The reason why I am dismissive of your theory without even knowing what the hell it is , because you haven’t told us, is exactly because I know how to think critically. What should I expect from a theory that is based on two concepts, consciousness and intelligence, when the author isn’t even sure of what those concepts mean?
Furthermore, how could you possibly claim, that our last thought is eternal?
So don’t bullshit me with that blind dogma crap. I’m all for seeking the truth but seeking the truth does not mean making up theories or claim knowledge where you can’t possible have it. Seeking the truth means following ans valuing evidence.
Presumption ( a logical deduction on an assumed truth) is the source of all error. sometime in the future i might talk about it.
That’s brilliant. And it relates to what I said, how, exactly?
you said my theory is based on two things, which is inaccurate. they would just serve as to increase accuracy.
Oh ffs.
You said in your op that you theory had one big limitation and that was, you didn’t know what intelligence actually is.
So, you don’t know what intelligence is and yet you were able to formulate a theory that predicts human behavior in a precise manner .
Not only that but you were able to conclude that our last thought is eternal. Gee, I wonder why you haven’t received any awards yet, this is a breakthrough.
How could anyone ever take you serious?