If the act of observation is what connects mind/s with objects; The brain unifies its tasks into a oneness, part of that is concentration, perception and focus. These are each a collection of neurons composed of particles all observing.
Where an observer at the quantum level is a fraction of the observers being utilised by the brain into singular function and processes, We get; what you sense as ‘you-ness’ or just the consciousness if you like, is the product of the vast collection of observers - in unity or union of some kind [directed by singular observation probably].
So that would mean; the amount of observers is equivalent to the amount of awareness, concentration and focus a mind has at its dispensal.
If you have two people with a similar sized brain, the person who makes greatest utility is the more intelligent person. Not to mention that at some point we may be able to measure this.
Good perception has to do with optimal integration with reality.
Being smart and insane at the same time renders the intelligence harmful or useless.
Observation can be good or bad.
I don’t believe in the whole knowledge = good, ignorance = evil.
Integration and harmony are what it’s all about.
Quite. I think the creative intellect requires some manner of randomness/chaos, this is why our thoughts aren’t perfectly logical with many thoughts, and thoughts fading in and out on the periphery. Insane is not the term i would use for that though, but i think insanity derives from the same randomness but with some misappropriation of thoughts [paranoia etc]. So yes and no.
Agreed. Freedom of mind but not necessarily of action perhaps?
In what way? Isn’t it always good to be in full knowledge of a situation? E.g. Even if may not please to see?
Oh i see, yes makes sense. Do you think that the mind has a way to ignore some signals, i.e. Ones it deems have an unreliable source or are unimportant defunct etc? It constantly replenishes informations, and can only possibly remember fragments of each situation, which to me means there is information loss, and a system in place to deal with that.
Ergo cancerous cells and clusters especially would be kind of quarantined? As such the observers singularity or integrity of, is not a part of such a cluster.
The mind has all kinds of “defenses”, but to me it’s mostly a poor mess.
Sculpting clay, dirt, and poo.
We can derive a love of living from the pangs of suffering and near death.
Or we can die from drug dependency.
An intelligent person will likely to be very observant at the right thing, at the right time and place.
However a more observant person [more than the average person] need not be intelligent.
A person may be very observant if s/he is insecure, has a certain kind of obsessive compulsion disorder, is fearful, a schizo who ‘see’ enemies are out to kill him, and the likes.
A poor mess lol yes. Another way of thinking about it is ‘just right’. A machine like intellect [some animals] does what a machine does and nothing but, an adaptive machine can learn to do more ~ naturally. A mass of adaptive machines i.e. Neurons [and the glue etc] would be better still, no?
I derive my desire for living [i wouldn’t say i love it or could] not from physical extremes but mental ones, for me death is irrelevant except as an inevitable end for this life. If we apply things where apt, then the proportion of things relevant to death are greatly outweighed by those of life, of the present and planning for the future.
As i believe in rebirth, i want to make a better future to be born into, and as 1/7billionth of the world population that means i can be very lazy.
Why not? How can a less observant person be more intelligent than a more observant one? ‘To observe’ contains factors of knowing, learning, replicating, mirroring [opposites], to perceive, to notice, to see visually etc. If you do less of that, you do less of that.
though, my ole man used to say; “you cant see the wood for the trees”, so maybe I am missing something? what exactly?
My understanding of ‘observant’ was confined more to the visual sense faculty which include noticing.
‘Intelligence’ relates more to the faculty of intellectual judgment, understanding, thinking, reasoning and rationalizing. That is why I said,
“An intelligent person will likely to be very observant at the right thing, at the right time and place” i.e. just enough to facilitate intelligent judgment efficiently.
A suspicious insecure fearful person may be more observant within his/her surroundings due to emotional and psychological reason, but such extensive obsessive observances do not mean s/he is more intelligent or has higher intelligence.
Intelligence is not only a measure of one’s ability to extract information from one’s environment, but also of one’s ability to judge how and when to apply that information - among other things.
So partially, yes, being more observant does make you more intelligent.
I’d say only in a limited spectrum though.
Ah that makes perfect sense now. Thanks.
So now if we put the two together, if you get two equally observant people, one could notice selective things in the world more or better than another. So its mostly a matter of picking the right informations rather than simply taking in information. Experiential knowledge over knowledge.
Can we not say that if you have two equally wise persons, but one is more observant/perceptive, the latter will gain or be more intelligent?