Lol this is nonsense. You're literally saying my intelligence is capped because i have no interest in physics? Fwiw I find physics intellectually far more boring than philosophy.

If you ACTUALLY truly believe what you said in the quote is truthful and won't admit to hyperbole then I'll make the following observations.

A) Your social intelligence is low for your inability to perspectivise and understand how outlandish you're being as well as a complete inability for concession,
B) Your mathematical intelligence is low due to the obv logical errors in the quote. *You can enroll in a first year crit thinking or logic subject to rectify this.

I recognise, through my uncapped social intelligence that what I have said is very hypocritical since essentially I'm kneedling you with your own mistakes but it gets my point across nonetheless. The point is that I'm being intentially ridiculous.

I'm saying you're much more likely to be in the lower intelligence group if you find physics boring.

No in fact I'll gladly double down. Nearly every highly intelligent person I've met has an interest in physics and finds it intellectually fascinating. Even if to study it full time would be boring or not where they want to go in life.

But I admit it's partly cultural. In Europe for example, physics is highly regarded by intelligent, attractive girls from good families. You can almost see them get moist. In parts of the US and Australia, people are intellectually backward/yobbish, and the reaction is the opposite.
I understand your perspective very well. Mainly because I know where you live.
It's a personal observance over a lifetime meeting many intelligent people from many different cultures. It's not a logical deduction.

Okay lol. Way to dismiss an entire continent's intellectual credibility. Guess I'll just go back to reading Peter Singer and meddling in sorrow for myself because of how anything I say is discounted beyond relevance based on my entire country's culture. Enjoy your debate!

i brought facts that disproves some of your claims and then you still quote random sentences from those portions as if you still have legs to stand on. you dont. and i have brought facts earlier e.g about psychopaths iq and manipulation that you simply avoid talking about. it tells me that you are intellectually dishonest. you also talk about stuff as if i dont understand them. i understand many things and i have concepts and ideas about what is meant that you have no clue of. i have even in this very thread talked about how context and meaning is sometimes more important than clear definition, actually makes me wonder if you are gobbeling up whatever you can learn when i post. also this all started by me disproving and discrediting a few of your original claims, which you tried to support with random data that didnt support those claims at all. still you are resisting like a drunk sailor, rather try to land on your feet, its better for you. the thing about you is that you throw out positive statements like its nothing. you have zero support for most of you claims, and when i get into a discussion with you everything snowballs, new claims and positive statements just gets hauled out like its christmas. its impossible to follow when you are this dense. i actually doubt you even touched physics or mathematics in the university yourself, people that did usually dont do these silly mistakes. (i had these subjects for 5 years)

and then you burp out amazingly ignorant claims about professors. to be honest i think its almost incredible how ignorant of a person you are. also in you discussion with meale you just act like a total baby.

there is a number of intelligent people around here and im sorry to say it but you are not one of them. you really want to be right, its like nothing is more important to you. but you are just too disconnected to be able to say anything interresting. literally nothing you are able to say is interresting. therefore i had enough of you, you are going into my filter as the second person from this forum.

That's in large part because most of the 95% are not trying. You need to compare the very intelligent person trying to get good vs everyone else trying to get good.

Then it would be much harder to get into the top 5% because even people who are a bit above average can easily learn nearly all of what works. The clever bit is coming up with the original ideas but then you put them in a book that any fool can buy.

Plato, who one can say is a philosopher, had as a prerequisite( or felt that) the study of mathematics before entering into his school. The reason being is that mathematics has a structure which is unerring and in its study one gains a character which is able to "hold back" the various thoughts, feelings, and actions which can lead one down the wrong path.

A man who has trained in mathematics will, by and large, be a clear headed thinker but of course it is possible to be a clear headed and structurally strong thinker without the aid of mathematics.

This leads to understanding that goes beyond the original question as to the natures of philosophy and physics and actually as a hint one can say that "modern physics" or the world of the atom is the philosophical "occult" study of the material.

The occultist, so to speak, looks for the "hidden" in nature and man which does not lend itself to our everyday senses.

I use "occult" in the sense that one who looks "underneath" or "behind" matter, carries an "occult" feeling or "mood of soul" into the study of his work. The atoms are "underneath" or "behind" , so to speak, and in this we have one(1) philosophical point of view.

It is possible to be an "occult materialist" or one who seeks the "material" underneath the world of matter but it is equally possible to be an "occult mathematist" who seeks the structural mathematical underneath the world of his study.

The point is that the perspective of "materialist" or "mathematist" are two different philosophical "looks" at the world and of course there are graduations and variations for it is doubtful that modern physicists would ever try to separate the two but nonetheless they are different views merged into a tenor of soul , or "feeling soul" called the "occult mood of soul".

There are others, within and without physics, and I hope to return to clarify the same.

I'm not giving you hard time. I'm saying that the reason you might not find these subjects interesting is because Australia, and especially BVegas, is a yobbo culture and fairly anti-intellectual. Things that have lower social utility because of your local culture tend to be less interesting, especially if you're young.

Anyway. To get back on topic. I would like to hear a case for why philosophers are more intelligent than physicists, and what evidence you could provide (if any - arguments are good too) for same.

Intelligent about what? Who proposes more intelligent questions?

Philosophers, like psychologists, and shamans, and random ordinary folks ask questions beyond the approximate descriptions of the physical and therefore have more potential intelligence than intelligence limited to forming approximate physical descriptions. The good news is even physicists can qualify as random ordinary folks.

That's what I actually meant. On the other hand people are overestimating the 95 percentile among those who are trying. That's still not very good. In golf for instance we are probably talking about a 90 shooter. And because of the bell curve the small extra improvement mathematical analysis will add is enough to bring you up to that number. Poker is an obvious example.

I do agree the effect is lessened in those endeavors that have good books about them as long the non intelligent are willing to read them.

I also want to reiterate that my point is more about the subjects of science of math rather than the people who are good at them. I contend that most endeavors can be improved fairly substantially if you apply probability, formal logic, possibly physics and sometimes other types of math and science to them. I could give many examples. They could be improved to the point that an average practitioner who isn't applying them could get to about the top 5% if he did apply them well. But if a math illiterate had a smart buddy who he would listen to, he could do that as well.

Why are we even talking about the 95 percentile? Sklansky could have maybe played high school basketball or maybe gotten a physics degree, but that shouldnt change our opinion about Lebron or Lisa Randall

Another philosophical "look" is the "rationalist". The mathematist may say that since I can glean the various wave lengths of the various colors mathematically or in idea, then it becomes apparent that "I can do the same with those perceptions that are outside myself".The thinker then deals only with those things that are apparent to the senses and he becomes a "rationalist".

Following along we can proceed to the thinker that gains his ideas only from the moral or intellectual realm and lives within the "idea" and he is an "idealist". This realm of "ideas" is more akin to Plato's realm of "ideas" and not so much the modern idea of earthly perfection as desired or negated by some.

And so "idealism" is a well known philosophical virtue as this is seen in Hegel in which he brings to light a "mood of soul" called "logicism". Within the works of Hegel one finds thoughts tied together in a realm of sense free thinking which is buoyed by the "logicism" of the creative in Hegel.

A further philosophical approach with which many, in our times, are befuddled is called "spiritism". It can be called the opposite of the philosophy of materialism as it deals with the realms of the "spirit", that to which the materialist is not aware. In ancient knowledge there are seekers who speak of the hierarchies of spiritual beings and the "spiritist" would be a philosophical thinker within this realm.

As the spiritist delineates the various spiritual realities the "pneumatist" would also be a philosopher in the realm of the spirit but would speak generally of the "one spirit" . One could liken it to the seeing a large black cloud in the distance which the "pneumatist" would perceive while upon closer examination the spiritist would see individual insects that make up that particular cloud.

Backing up if one is an "idealist" and then states that the "ideas" appreciated within the thought realm have "being" then one is a "psychist" or purveyor of "psychism". Psychism can naturally lead to "pneumatism" which can follow through to "spiritism". Different variations of the supersensible, so to speak.

Another "mood of soul" which just about everyone is familiar with is "empiricism". This "soul mood" can just about work within any of the philosophical endeavors being the "sun" aspect of these various philosophical approaches. the "empiricist" accepts what is given to him and can be equally at home as materialist, mathematist ,idealist, or even spiritualist. the "empiricist" in the realm of "empiricism" accepts the "given" in his particular realm of philosophy.

So far" Philosophical Approaches" "Moods of Soul"

Materialism "space" Occultism
Mathematism "space" Empiricism
Rationalism "space" Logicism
Idealism
Psychism
Pneumatism
Spiritism

There are five (5) more philosophical approaches and four (4) more "moods of soul" in which I hope to finish.

Carlo,
Just want to say how much I enjoy your use of language, and how you tie all these concepts together with how the modern world views philosophy.

Thanks Tooth, just trying to solidify, in my mind, this particular set of lectures by Steiner in 1914. Anthroposophy 101..LOL

Good to have you back, we need more of you than of "them".

Carlo's gibberish once again proves how easily some are deceived. A useful example.

Are you speaking as a mod or as a poster ? I have to speak to Mat and Mason about you even if there is no relief. Your style is better in politics where you're not wanted.

It was simply pointing out the facts. I believe that is acceptable behavior for a human who is playing almost any role, including moderator of a forum.

Too bad, i was beginning to like you.

Well I for one have learned something from this "gibberish". Carlo often says exactly the same things you or I do, using very different language. Language that ties back into how philosophy was viewed in the past.

An eternal golden braid of gibberish, if you will.

I think he's a learned man with a generous spirit and curious mind.

That is a mistake that seems to occur with great frequency.

Somewhat, it is hard to decipher. Carlo is allowed to preach for his hero Rudolf Steiner, as I am allowed, as a poster, to give my opinion that I think it is mostly gibberish. It is also a bit off topic and he continually weasels this stuff into any thread he can. As the mod I have allowed it. I think I've been more than fair.

Nothing more to add. Discussion ended. If someone thinks they have been abused or for further discussion please PM the Mod, this refers to any forum by the way.

Carry on.......

Speaking as the Mod - If you have a complaint send a PM to me, that is the first step. Thanks.

Yeah. Mods are regular posters and allowed to say & insult who they wish just like any other poster when not actively modding. It's not like you're paid.

Anything can be called gibberish. I guess the philosopher would beat the physicist and the mathematician in a contest to accurately describe how and why some collection of ideas is gibberish or not.

I would take the exact opposite position on that.

I've met philosophy graduates who believe in 9/11 truth. Who don't understand simple concepts like conversation of energy. Who think that most of the evil and destruction in the world is caused by corporations. They are frequently ardent communists (go talk to some Eastern Europeans philosophy graduates - of which there are many).

I've met philosophy majors with all sorts of wacky ideas - ideas they wouldn't hold near as commonly if they'd even been subjected to the mental rigor of something like physics.