I am nobody's foe yet. You do not want to find out what this is and neither do i. Because the worse foe is someone that will go scientific about it lol.

Furthermore i need a true crime for real war which elevates someone to foe status to become necessary.

But have no illusions that the traffic on SMP and creative participation of previously active members will collapse if people come here and instead of finding incentives to study new topics, learn something or challenge themselves with creative puzzles, ideas and links, even have good fun time at the expense of nobody, they see egos fighting each other 24/7 in some war games. The terminal solution of such system is the egos left alone with nobody else around because all others have moved to do better things where their efforts, participation and inputs are appreciated and their time is spent having fun and being creative without having to relive the selfish survival hell that the so called "real world" celebrates 24/7 in its march to oblivion.

There wasn't any infighting at all until you decided to resort to making personal attacks instead of having genuine debate.

I will let people see for themselves who has personally attacked in a variety of ways directly, indirectly, sarcastically or whatever, other people. I see you being attacked by others all the time by the way also. I was never one of them. I never joked at the expense of anyone here. NEVER.

There are many ways to attack someone actually. You should know the processes already and what they imply for those that use them instead of directly speaking their mind while still caring about others.

You will never see me blast anyone about math or physics by the way. Instead you see a very different approach. And i have never told anyone here that is a long term poster that they dont know what they are talking about. Neither i have used parallels with sore vags etc...losing patience etc. I will never lose patience with people i respect unless they make trolling a permanent activity. And then the only form of patience loss they will experience is a complete decoupling of interactions... Very simple.

I will post soon my ideas about how people should interact with each other when their opinions, solutions to problems or general viewpoints about the world differ, how they should debate to avoid the mockery of the process that politicians and lawyers have created worldwide.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp, 30 July, 1816

I recently went back and read most of the post/convos with btm, it felt frictional the entire way (in dialog when it happened, not when reading them later), but I read them in a new light.

I appreciate them, not sure others would, yet it caused me to re read everyone's posts here. This place is a treasure. I have years of studying to catch up on, that you btm, Zeno, and others have been outlining along the way. I'd suspect they were harshest on me, but maybe they devoted that amount of time to others as well.

I've never heard you talk about cooperation, and being sort of against fighting. All I could do here is but heads with btm, which was probably useful nonetheless, but prob also suppressed some insightful dialog (mostly because I wasn't coming from the proper perspective).

Fighting, or whatever words we might use, might be a symptom of something else such as scarcity, imbalance, lack of clear indicators, or lack of a certain option or line to take.

Also could be a sign of boredom born from stagnation...

I never came here to fight, I just never expected to find a small "group" that could push me in ways I've always wanted but couldn't find.

I came back to ask a simple question, ill put in the homework section or something, but its not insignificant. Its basically "what is school for?" but its a little more complex. Not sure I know how to ask the question, or what i mean to ask but hopefully I will be allowed to ask it.

I realized recently, that I can fit in here quite well now, not because I think I am "smart" (if i even do), but because I won't be such a nuisance.

Well then they better be unintelligible for one and even then the ridicule is a cheap approach that is shared also by those that are unintelligible themselves and is most definitely topped by a more thorough kind approach where both parties can learn something and arrive at the truth together, now and in the future, where the majority of the benefit of such choice will be found.

The Athenian Aug 8 2014 AD.

In some significant way the above is bohm's thesis of on dialog... with your points on these things, I would be blown away to hear you feel his works are not incredibly significant.

Bohm is definitely one of the good guys! I may disagree with his political choices in early youth which may prove mostly a reflection on the experienced uninspiring form of capitalism of that period from his point of view (eg McCarthyism), without the benefit of observing up close how real communism was even worse where applied (eg China, USSR). I am confident his future efforts along the lines of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohm_Dialogue indicate he understood the failures of both systems. I am not sure i will agree eventually on his ideas about brain but i need to read more on that area of his later life's work. I enjoy reading his physics books and papers and he has a very interesting life in terms of physics. I find this more peaceful pattern of debating in most people that are very calm and secure. They can disagree and see it as an opportunity for all involved to learn more about their positions without engaging in cheap attacking methods, where the other party needs to be undermined or berated etc, instead of properly asked to explain itself and in the process recover the errors or further illuminate the merit of their positions.

I confess that I think this thread has become like a Rocky Movie. The quote from Thomas Jefferson aside.

I fixed my mowing tractor today after getting the parts I needed (I am also a very decent auto-diesel mechanic) and then unleashed the beast on weed, reptile, and insect infested land that I felt very good about laying waste to.

I was at the laundry mat yesterday doing a load of clothes and reading a section of The Antichrist, by Nietzsche. Not as much fun as masturbating to a Fanta Commercial; but it is within a whisper of such activity.

another seemingly significant confession might be that I abandoned the mathematical language, and any pursuit in its direction because I felt it was too limited. Now that Ive been through bohm's wholeness and implicate order I see that he attempted to redefine both our spoken language and our mathematical language. It seems to be quite sufficient for any complaints I would have had.

I have only suspected his works weren't received well, but haven't been able to confirm or deny the more I study/search.

I'm quite curious if we still use bohms works (maybe I more mean the wholeness book)and if we have extended them, or gone a completely or contradictory direction. (bell?)

People have attacked me? No.* They have attacked my ideas - sometimes vehemently. I'm not so egotistical that I think my ideas are me.

When I have an argument that is ill-formed or doesn't make sense to someone, or believe something that someone else considers to be false, or am lacking some piece (or loads of pieces) of information, I consider it the highest praise of my character if someone tells me that my argument is stupid/ridiculous/wrong, or lack knowledge.

Is that a Greek thing? I'm genuinely curious. If we are lucky I will have follow-up questions.

In America, it is considered a sign of being accepted if you are teased and jokes are made at your expense. There is also a strong "being able to take it as well you give it" component that is important in distinguishing people who are doing it as part of our friendship rituals (rather than just being mean). I'm sure that you have noticed that I make a great deal of fun of myself.

See above description of high praise.

You seem to think that lots of things that aren't trolling are trolling. Trolling is posting with the sole (or at least primary) purpose of upsetting someone or causing discord. I respect you too much to worry about your feelings. Your feelings aren't relevant to discussion of science or philosophy.

If I was worried about your feelings, I'd say something like "masque is my friend." I believe I have said exactly that.

As far as losing patience, imagine one of your colleagues (on of the ones that makes you realize that you aren't the smartest person in the room) bringing up the important part that Xena Warrior Princess played in the Iliad. You explain the problem with this. He continues to do excellent work in physics and math and is generally a pleasure to work with, but he keeps going on and on about Xena Warrior Princess and the Iliad in front of the impressionable young minds of Stanford.

I will argue with you and you will like it whether you like it or not. Where you make an unsupported claim, I will point it out so that you have the opportunity to offer supporting evidence or argument. Where you are just stating your (specifically your) feelings, I will point out the possibility of others who have different feelings. Where you make claims about human nature and human interaction, I will point out what I have learned or believe is true.

If you say something that I find particularly interesting or insightful, I will point it out.

I will do so with a certain amount of humor so that it is a more enjoyable activity for all. You will, I ask, not be offended when I say "only on planet masque" to indicate that you aren't taking into account actual human nature or are otherwise lacking realism. Instead, you will take it as a challenge to improve your argument or convince me otherwise. You will do so out of mutual respect for discourse. You will, I ask, not get offended when I request a comma here or there or a complete rewording because I can't discern what you are attempting to convey.

You will, where I am not clear or where you disagree with me, give me the same consideration. I will then (if my pussy is still sore from your recent behavior) tell you that you are a troll and call any argument you make an "argument" to subtly show my disdain.

*not counting those whose standard operating procedure is to use personal attacks.

He is an excellent example of a human being. He had some creative ideas and bothered to actually do the work of thinking them through. The second part is the rare part.

It happens to be completely wrong, but it is worth looking at to discover how creative people attempt to apply what they have figured out about one thing to other things.

If you think of it like a person who had discovered mechanical levers, they would, of course, try to imagine the mind as behaving like a bunch of mechanical levers. Utterly wrong, but worth exploring the idea to see if it holds water.

You better believe it they have attacked you in fact and not your ideas only. Hundreds of times. And i dislike it every time. And the same is true when you are having fun at others whether they deserve it or are lumped together with those that do.

If you think i ever said anything recently that compares with that Xena story then by all means point it. What was my crime against the impressionable minds of SMP? Are you aware how many problems i see with what you have said about IMO, IQ tests and getting a PhD at Stanford? You seem to think that getting a PhD is an indication of very high intelligence. HAHA. In fact its more like this; IMO top scorers>IQ over 145>avg PhD in Physics (all areas avg and i will even dare its a close inequality for theory too).

And last time i checked a test that calls itself Stanford Binet in books or websites of some 60 or so questions over many areas (that i briefly described there) is what most people have seen in their lives as IQ test. Whether its a bloody true IQ test in the sense of being entirely faithful to one administered by a professional or just similar to such ones is irrelevant for the purposes of the argument i was making in that thread. That argument is that those that will score well in that test (top 0.1%) that you call not a real IQ test (Raven included) will be extremely likely to have very high intelligence. Severe correlation. And those that will score poorly and are overall (adults) what you call normal people in normal modern societies (and who are not suffering by any condition) are very unlikely to be very smart at least at math. And all this prompted the opinion that i didnt know what i was talking about. Ok tell me what is the truth then and what is wrong about what i said to the point to be worth the expression i dont know what i am talking about and not say i know 90% of what i am talking about...and 10% is this and that instead...I am of course aware that a single test is not enough and that intelligence is a lot more than what people thought 100 years ago or even today. We can substitute IQ tests with puzzles of high school math problems that in principle should be accessible to all scientists anyway that have studied the entire material anyway no matter where they are now.

The further argument i am willing to make is that those that will score over 25/42 in IMO on their first trial are smarter than the average Physics Professor of most Universities of the planet. And those that will score 42 are smarter than most Nobel Laureates as well. We can see the examples easily.

Finally everyone learn this about me. When i am getting pi$$ed at what i call personal attacks, pointless sarcasm or endless debating for the win or fun of it, is an entirely rational frustration that is not founded at all on any need to be accepted or embraced, bruised ego etc. I could care less. I am at a field that you need to have failed thousands of times already to survive (how many times an idea or calculation will not work until you learn something if lucky/persistent, rejection is the daily rule), that you need to be maverick these days the way all has gone to hell anyway. Acceptance is the least of my concerns. What facking (a=u and always has been for you know why Brian) irritates the hell out of me is the realization of still how far away we all are finding ourselves from the advanced treatment we all deserved by each other in order to obtain a magnificent world. Its an irritation staring at the opportunity loss one more time. Thats all it is. Its a giant game theory fack up that is experienced one more time. But its not a failure to understand the human condition. Instead its the failure of current humans to see the inevitable future ahead with today's mindsets.

Where is the stuff on the brain of his found? Is it something I can just find and read? I think i would be quite surprised now to find he is off in this regard.

I am also quite curious which quantum theory dr. Nash is pointing to, in this lecture/paper http://*********************/~babu/nash/intereq.pdf:
I don't mean to disturb, im asking with the sincerest intention....might he be pointing towards bohm, or away?

Then it must be EXTREMELY relevant to bring up the apparent division in your and btm's alignment vs Krishnamurti/bohm's thesis ....

not sure if i even know why...but it just seems extremely significant.

MDZ's words are clearly (or seemingly) inline with Krishnamurti...I don't mean to put words in their mouth...but btm referred to k as a charlatan i believe...

but that is not inline with bohm.

I also wonder if btm's comment on K (if it happened and is true he means to say that)...implies that some of these types of speakers might be not charlatans (and obv if not then who might btm see as not a charlatans, that speak about the same type of content/topic).

I hope we can multitask here, I think some of the issue's mdz points at stems from or are symptoms of an inability to mix subjects in threads on forum and to not be able to have then multilevel and multi dimensional dialog.

(I thought everyone here thought bohm was a quack)

Can I ask about this as I am generally in sympathy with your views on most things.

Assuming fairly constant mindset and given the blind option of when to be born from 2000BC to 20000AD would you pick now as the best bet for a good life?

Maybe I'm far too much of an optimist but I'd say going for the future is a very easy choice. Do you disagree or are you more objecting to the things humans will do along the way?

This is where I see a need for multi level/dimension dialog. You are interested in MDZ's response specifically and so am I. Yet I see something I feel needs to be pointed to. If these threads could split, or both split and assume different heights their might be interesting results in terms of "dialog".

Masque points at the need, and or the inevitability (hopefully it is), of a collective movement. We clearly aren't moving optimally until this happens, in whatever direction would seem logical to go.

We might be talking spiritually, communication, economically, socially, politically, religiously... it doesn't really matter I think.

If you ask Masque this question, especially with the assumption they will be born with an equivalent intelligence or chance to help the collective peoples...then they might choose the earlier time. It might be terrible to want to live in the future...in other words " a better life" for them individually, might actually equate to a terrible unfullfilling one.

Its difficult of course to jump between conversation about the individual or the consciousness.

So I think I am pointing out your question is born of a non collective type mindset...it might not give you the understanding you are asking of them.

I may have put it clumsily but its totally blind except for a general idea of human progress to now and mindset.

Its not even personal, just at which time period (with a great deal of imprecision - cant chose specific nice bits) would a random person expect the best life.

thx. this is where my lack of language skills fails (whether 'logos' or mathematical).

I can just say if we are worried about the collective we are speaking on a different order. I've grown now some, I realize me and you can't/shouldn't hash out these lines.

I lack too much in too many relevant areas to make it worthwhile.

Kindness isn't necessary for effective teaching, and it is often counterproductive. If you want proof, just look at how we train people when learning is a matter of life and death. Look at how we train our warriors - our snipers and our seals. When they screw up, they aren't treated with kindness. They are treated to a severe tongue lashing and physical torture. Look at how we train our surgeons who will hold life in their hands. They are frequently put on the spot and subjected to public humiliation in front of their peers. Similarly for those who train to run nuclear reactors. Like avoidance of beatings, avoidance of humiliation and ridicule is a powerful motivational factor to learning. Pressure makes diamonds.

One of the primary characteristics of students is that they make lots of mistakes. Many of those mistakes are of a fundamental nature. If you respond to them too weakly, they will often fail to grasp the significance of their error. Onlookers, who are also here to learn, may fail to recognize that a mistake was made at all. When you call them out using strong words like "that's wrong", or "you're not getting a fundamental concept", or "that's a common error made by many beginners", it might hurt someone's feelings temporarily. That's too bad. They are far more likely to remember this error and never make it again.

I think you have only showed that if someone is only taught with content A, then the best teaching method is X.

It might be, under a better content, when the student has learned certain things...they no longer need to be taught with X style, and that it might not be optimal, or even relatively useful?

Here's an example at the highest level where rudeness succeeded, nicety failed, and an insistence on nicety would have been a hindrance to learning:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feynman#Manhattan_Project

This is why this seems important, significant, and relevant. Krishnamurti, doesn't really have this X style of teaching whatsoever (nor would bohm), and what Bohm extrapolated through Krishnamurti encompassed Bohrs work and beyond (according to Bohm).

I don't know if I need quotes, if anyone cares or it matters, or is correct.

But my understanding is that Bohm extended and modified our language and mathematical language to support higher orders of thinking (or abstracting, none of my words are right here).

He made it unlimited, or 'solved' or 'dissolved' the limits of it. This is interesting to me, because I never realized it could or should be done. I just know what he is getting at with these new tools.

Its my guess, or understanding, that we haven't understood 'wholeness and implicit order', and I suspect (although it could be right or wrong), that Nash has a tangible solution to set us on the proper path that Bohm laid out.

I thought it was useless talking about it here, because BTM did not receive this content well with me (although its largely my fault I admit), but MDZ and BTM comments do not agree on this subject...

But it cannot be more important, especially to the complaints of MDZ.

Or perhaps we have extended the book on implicit order, I just can't have much of a hope of finding the right person to talk to about it, and it seems it wasn't well received (world doesn't care?)

I am fairly certain that this will eventually get around to both of us hugging and Zeno laughing a bit and Bruce asking who was on top.

You are far more sensitive than most folk to such things. We must both be outliers. You can rest assured that I have escaped unscathed from whatever attacks you have seen. A litter of puppies play. An occasional ear gets bit too hard. I am quite sure that any supposed "attacks" have left me better than had I not been "attacked." I'm really not sure of what to make of your so called "argument."*

I would say that using the phrase "so called" is a sign of absolute disdain for a person. I certainly take offense to it.

I also take offense to rude use of quotes. You are guilty as any of showing disdain.

I am far more direct than you (so far).

I specifically asked you a question about Greek "culture." I'd appreciate an answer. I'm not really sure how to ask again without sounding like I have some ulterior motive. You have a somewhat unique experience of being there and now here. I admit that asking in different circumstances would be a bit more ideal.

The part that compares is what you just did again. I bolded it.***

I'd appreciate something easier to respond to, but you are a physicist, not an author, so I forgive:

You can't get the SB off of a book or a website. Period.

I'm possibly misunderstanding what you are trying to claim by bringing up "most people" (not rude to use quotes when quoting someone in the spirit that they meant it) but I wouldn't accept something as being true about physics or evolution because it was what most people thought or have seen.

Then I am entirely unclear what argument you could have been making. Can I make such claims about dual slit experiments because I've had a threesome of the good kind?**


Use paragraphs. It is a sign of intelligence.

Back at it... Apologies for needing to take frequent breaks.

Where have you seen this "severe correlation"? As they say, 99% of statistics are made up.

Anyway, IQ tests test for low-level academic skills (on purpose, because that is what they were designed for), not high-level intellectual skills. Being great at high-level intellectual skills would indicate that you are great at low-level academic skills, but the reverse is simply not true.

If rarity of skill in low-level functions were an indication of high-level functions, we would expect that the national spelling bee champion would be significantly smarter than your IMO participants.

Where did you find this strong correlation? Do you even know what the correlations are between the tests?

How about the Where's Waldo world champion, and the fastest Rubik's Cube guy?

No, we absolutely don't get to substitute. You were talking about IQ test scores. Those are obtained from taking IQ tests. None of the discussion is one about masque's ability to reason and use logic. You are doing well with that part. You have brought up some excellent hypotheses that are testable. Unfortunately, these hypotheses have actually already been tested!

That is because of what you personally think is intelligence. People tend to define it in terms of skills and abilities that they admire. If we limit our definition to mathematical problem solving skill/ability/knowledge, then I am pretty sure that I agree with your ordering. Peace prize and literature prize bringing down the average in the last group.

No need for you to be a farging icehole about it.