Are there? Perhaps yes, and that is good, yet to get down to a singularity - so to speak, one traditionally has to be a hermit. There is a balance perhaps.
Yes, there are. One has to be a hermit…to do what?
Singular focus
To live for the love of Life.
I was a hermit since I was born.
EDIT:
Maybe temporarily hermetic… It’s not necessary as a lifestyle.
What is it to dismiss evidence?
To believe that one’s conclusions, grounded in ignorance, can hope to be constant?
Live to the best of your knowledge, but why shy away from new information?
Are we afraid of growth? Alteration?
How do these questions relate to anything I said?
I interpreted your former statement to be as such:
“Singular focus is only temporarily stable. Singular focus is not necessary to live Life.”
The process of Life entails experiencing new information. To say we don’t need to filter information, is to say we can remain ignorant of that information. That is has no relevance.
I ask what you think it is to dismiss information.
I followed up the former question with this. Is believing that a conclusion drawn on emergent information a show of arrogance or maybe even fear? Is it rational to dismiss what gave us the ability to question?
What becomes of Life, if we choose to dismiss what we comprise?
I’m saying here that we should live Life to the best of our knowledge, but be open to growth and change. Everything we do is based on belief. If you believe knowledge is constantly emerging, you’re saying yes to growth. If you say the alternative, if you’re saying no to growth.
Why say no to growth?
Are you afraid of growth? Of constantly re-shifting your lifestyle based on new information?
Is not the filter of Life apparent?
We want to live, for we are structured bias towards Life. Everything could be filtered to ask how does it aide our survival, and will to live.
We don’t need to validate our lives to what is indifferent of us. The only relevant validation is to ourselves, and each other. For Life is not indifferent, by it’s structure.
Is being bias wrong? No. Value judgements are part of bias, so it’s irrational to measure bias from mechanisms founded on bias.
There is only what is and what can be.
Where are we left? Possibility.
That’s not what I meant at all. I was saying to quetz that one doesn’t have to live socially closed off to focus intensely on his/her work.
In a much more limited sense, I have already done that.
In order to prove my theory concerning the make of physics particles, I combined my single-bit processor with a PC (for memory storage and display). I “taught it” how to communicate with me (via display) and a very few necessary principles of reality. From that foundation, it explained to me more about subparticle physics than any contemporary physicist you could find knows and the very make of particles (although different than what I had thought). I named it Jack. Because if you don’t know Rational Metaphysics, you don’t know Jack. And Jack is far beyond primitive notions like relativity.
The only reason relativity was ever “invented” was because man had previously presumed non-relativity. So to answer your question; no, such a super brain would not come up with relativity. It would be smarter than that and would have never assumed in the first place what didn’t work.
fuse
I take your point, one needs to experience life prior to taking a back seat and reflecting upon that. Then intermediately, one needs to go out into the world again.
I’d say wisdom requires both.
Joe Schmoe
One has to empty the cup in order to refill it - zen wisdom.
Perhaps hermiticism is similar to dreaming, the brain and thinker needs that to make some sense of it all; =
Slow learn ~ more considered
James S Saint
I am not inclined to accept that; the computer doesn’t ever know what a particle is, it just works in binary patterns. Perhaps it could describe what you know to be relativity, but it wouldn’t know what that is, nor would it know art, nor spirit, nor life, nor divinity. Such things are mans assumptions which in their original context were probably wrong, the computer wouldn’t make such assumptions and so would never know life as we know it.
_
There are many high intellects floating around but I think what distinquishes the one from all of the rest is the one which has the capacity to doubt its certainty - to say “I think I may be wrong” and begin again from scratch.
I don’t know what your point to any of this is, but the fact that the computer doesn’t know what a particle is, is what proved the point. The computer, by merely following fundamental logic, ended up forming a particle with exact particle characteristics. That means that the computer didn’t bias its reasoning so as to obtain any particular outcome, because it didn’t have any idea what the outcome means to anyone. The fact that I recognize that outcome to be exactly identical to a “physics particle”, is irrelevant to the logic used by the computer.
So it proved the point that the fundamental logic will in fact, result in a universe filled with subatomic particles exactly as physics proclaims to be real. The theory was confirmed and demonstrated by a blind computer.
Mine.
What if this is the main idea of yours you should question? Or worse it is damaging?
I would think the “highest kind” would be the kind that led to certainty.
Taking certainty to mean both correct and sure you are correct (?).
I still wonder why up is good and down is bad.
Why highest and not best?
Do we need a pope or something?
Hi everyone,
This is my first post in this forum, I Love Philosophy. I decided to post this under The Highest Kind of Intellect, for intellect is probably my most precious, most adored jewel a human ever has. So let me take a challenge to answer the question, What is the Highest Kind of Intellect. I would say that intellect as a subject has a long history.
Etymologically speaking, intelligence derives from the Latin verb, intelligere, which means to comprehend or perceive.
It was Alfred Binet who first designed IQ tests, to help identify students of educational need. This focussed on attention, memory and problem solving skills. Thereafter, IQ tests evolved, and theories emerged, including the Theory of Multiple Intelligences, which recognised nine areas of intelligence: musical-rhythmic-harmonic, visual-spatial, verbal-linguistic, logical-mathematical, bodily-kinaesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, naturalistic and existential.
However, across cultures, intelligence is valued as one of important human traits and assets. The westerners have had valued intelligence, mostly in areas of verbal and mathematical, whereas in eastern cultures, the people value intelligence highly in terms of artistic, musical and naturalistic thoughts. I believe, that there are endless areas of intelligence, or intellectual faculties that probably already exist in an average human brain, or will emerge at a certain stage of human evolution.
Nonetheless, to answer the question directly, What is the Highest Kind of Intellect, from a personal POV, it would be faculty of CREATIVITY, which is often pseudo scientifically labelled and claimed to occur in the right brain (assuming, in this pseudoscientific POV, that the left brain is dedicated to logical and verbal thoughts and processes). I think, Creativity is the highest faculty that a most highly evolved human would possess, which transcends use of both sides of the brain (lateral thinking if you like but not emphatically). Such a most highly evolved human could have reached a spiritual state and attained spiritual consciousness, according to Science of Spirituality by Lee Bladon (which dictates seven levels of consciousness from physical, through emotional, mental, causal… spiritual and monadic). Creativity is where a human can introduce something completely new into the physical world. It is where a human can challenge the verity of things, ideas and limits of existence. It is where a human can make the impossible possible. In art, it is where the artist achieves the finest, most sublime, aesthetically excellent works of art without compromising the purpose of realism and logicality. The architect, through creativity, is able to design and construct outstanding landmarks that address all complex, competing and most ambiguous issues of aesthetics, functionality, form, space, constructability, environmental quality, structural quality, sociocultural context and occupancy. Still, there are even higher kinds of intellect, than this creativity, which are yet to be discovered. There are strict benchmarks on what defines originality, creativity and innovation in works of art, architecture and design, and definitely dictate comparison with all preceding examples, against all standards that are used in human civilisations, and so on.
According to Bloom’s Taxonomy, creativity is usually preceded by lower faculties such as Knowledge, Understanding, Application, Analysis, Synthesis and Evaluation. Usually, at a younger age, humans tend to find themselves creative, without precedent uses of knowledge, understanding, analysis and judgement. However, as one ages, one becomes critical, reflective and metacognitive, and therefore realises that such creativity at a younger age has been a matter of Intuition and imprinted ideas, memories and imagination. This person as he/she ages, would realise that some works done are not creative enough, therefore self-challenging and raising the bar themselves on what is creative and what is unoriginal. Usually, at a higher intellectual standard, people define creativity that is preceded by extensive, deep and critical uses of knowledge, coupled with experimentation, hypothetical approach, teamwork and team evaluations.
One of my favourite websites that discuss critical thinking as the heart of most intellectual faculties, including creativity, is criticalthinking.org/.
I am afraid that this being my first post, there will be people who will challenge, ridicule and denounce the value of this message, as well as praising, acknowledging and agreeing with it.
Okay, I think that I may be wrong. 
And no, I realize that I am not any kind of high intellect or even lower intellect.
We don’t have to deep-six the whole idea or begin again from scratch, unless the person in his exploration comes to realize that that IS what he has to do. It’s like deciding whether the house needs to be completely gutted or just re-structured. In some cases, it’s gutted. Maybe it can be the same with an idea or theory. If there are too many loopholes in it, begin again. One doesn’t necessarily have to dispense with the foundation though.
Correct, sure.
He didn’t say, “goodest”.
Best was already taken?
If one cannot gain his own solid understanding, doesn’t it only make sense to stand upon someone else’s?