On the bright side, undergrad physics classes are boring as hell.

Thanks. So what is the principle of least action not a coincidence with?

I meant its not a coincidence due to the math we are using the way we formulated it them. I mean that Newton didnt know about it but his laws are consistent with it when derived differently with other math. The principle is not an artifact of calculus of variations although it connects with it very well. And the fact that quantum mechanics also has a place for it the exact way it does is remarkable. I think it plays a key role in everything and that today it is treated worse than originally when they add all kinds of terms into Lagrangians (making it almost a tautology) in order to fit the theory/experiments but it didnt happen that way originally.

You can arrive at Maxwell's equations in electromagnetism without the action principle but with it it all makes even more sense. It opens the door to relativity too.

The mathematical connections between different formalisms seem to me universal not artifacts of our culture.

Lets just say that eg (in an equivalent but immediately simplistically seen way) properties of prime numbers have nothing to do with the system of representations of them ie decimal vs hexadecimal etc.

I bet there are connections that prime numbers have with even physical phenomena that higher complexity is not involved.

Here are some of the "top" contemporary philosophers.

Kripke: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l93aeOO6fug

Quine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2fLyvsHHaQ

Putnam: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kH785oawwkk

Putnam, Kripke, and Burge on Externalism:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2D3koWLyh8

No, and it's not even close.

Some things can't be understood because they are intellectual garbage. Derrida is just crap.

Just close the thread. Derrida has no merit whatsoever.

Biology is intrinsically much more complex than physics. That doesn't make biologists smarter than physicists

Is it possible for an intelligent person to care about whether a top physicist or top philosopher is more intelligent?

This is really what we're all asking, and a far more interesting question.

Also, is it possible for the intelligent to care about being recognised as superior to another? Is intelligent action motivated by egotistical motives? If it is, then we maybe ought to redefine intelligence.

Yes, in my experience intelligent people are often interested in questions of ranking. They serve as a focal point for fleshing out other ideas.
It's not only possible, it's common.
Yes, much intelligent action is motivated by egotistical motives.
Why? Intelligence is a capacity for processing information, modelling complexity in a functional way, creating abstraction, parsing meaning, etc.

It has nothing to do (or not do) with ego or any other human emotional or character traits. It's a capacity/ability, like hand/eye coordination or VO2 max. It is only tangentially related to wisdom.

Because it seems to be a catch-all nowadays. Most don't know what it actually is, but they do know to associate it with something positive. Why?

Intelligent people are just as capable, if not more capable, of immoral action with devastating consequences.

An excellent person may care for excellent physicists and excellent philosophers without caring how anyone else ranks them in comparison, simply because they like excellence. They also may have excellent adventures on occasion.

Intellectual capability is a positive thing, all of itself.

And so because of that we have to go all social justice warrior and redefine a word? As if redefining a word will stop bad intelligent people from getting what they want?

All the leftists need a good beating up. They're bat**** insane. You can't define your way into the world you want (or not being beaten).

Intelligence is not insecure at all. It knows it is not the "best" in some whatever metrics intelligence the universe created likely and that it doesnt have to be that to make on occasion a difference that the other intelligence will never make and that if both make it and the other intelligence does it better the world will be even better anyway so why is scoring top the most important and not scoring together better than alone more important?

Intelligence knows that AI will be more intelligent anyway so who is the smartest really but the one that makes AI that is supremely ethical possible first?

Smart people can be insecure too.

Negative feelings, such as insecurity, are just problems. Intelligent people are supposed to be good at solving problems.

Seems you've got something you have to get off your chest.
Unfortunate it has almost nothing to do with what I'm saying.

This.

But a point could also be made that we're both mistaking intelligence for wisdom. To differentiate the two, I am reminded of something Aristotle said in the Nicomachean Ethics.

You can have a mathematical prodigy at a young ripe age of 18-22 and you can have a clever and funny comedian too. You will however never find someone wise at this age, for wisdom requires experience (para-phrasing).

He then goes on to define wisdom in more precise ways, and often refers to overcoming character deficiencies or excesses such as cowardice, recklessness and so on. I really recommend everyone read this masterpiece, as dry and pedantic as it may get sometimes.

Problem-solving of the type that yields ego-death is perhaps more in the purview of wisdom than intelligence.

Wisdom is just intelligence applied to the problems of living. Experience is required, but it is nearly impossible to not gain experience as wandering around and interacting with the world is endemic to living.

It seems clear that someone who would be described as intelligent would apply their intelligence to problems that are important to them. Even unintelligent people find that their well-being to be important.

I cannot imagine that an intelligent person would find their own well-being to be an unimportant problem not worthy of effort.

In general I would agree with this. However there would also be exceptional cases of people with wisdom who have very low intelligence but high levels of openness to new experience (and some luck).
Most people are happy to work 9-5 at the same job/s and lock themselves up behind their white-picket fence, with their 2.3 children, 2 cars and a once-a-year vacation: living out the exact same life that has been lived a billion times before. There is little, if any wisdom, to be gained in this way of life. Their character may indeed develop, but it certainly won't be exceptional.
We're on the same page here. Our conception of intelligence should incorporate, to some degree, our character and its tastes that flow from that. It is in poor taste, and reflective of an under-developed character, to desire to know whether a philosopher is more intelligent than a mathematician.

Oh well, look around and see nature, yourself, and the cosmos and you'll see wisdom. Wisdom is all around and within us and in so far as we are able to bring forth this wisdom Man is in growth .

Man's wisdom is nature's gift , a virtue in the progressive improvement of the human being.

I don't think these people exist outside of the imagination.

There is plenty of wisdom to be gleaned from that. If "most people are happy to" <insert x here> then you just described (for the "most peoples") a quite fine life.

I'm not sure whether your claim about "most people" is true, but if it is then they are living intelligently and wisely.

You misread me. A person who has (literally) a ****-eating grin is grinning. It is not my place to determine whether they should enjoy eating ****.

If they bang on about it, then they probably will be annoyed by others banging on about their poor tastes in dining options. So there is that.

Trees seem pretty wise.

I feel like leaving this here:



Some of you might like the lyrics

Most people are happy to pray to an invisible deity and donate money in its name. They're also happy to focus much of their life around their faith.

Wisdom, to me at least, requires a little more than a mere accumulation of 'comfortable' experiences. Interpretation of those experiences, pursuit of challenges and character development for example. Many older men I work with have been around far longer than me, but they're still as impatient, stubborn, cowardly and jealous as they've ever been. Lacking focus on the types of experiences that challenge you to change and develop your character does not typify wisdom to me. Nor can much be learned from such a deficient approach to living.