It doesn't matter whether you like the definition or not. It is what it is.

If you'd like the word for "all around nice guy" we have several words for that.

Not sure how I could possibly be trying to save face here, btw. Please explain.

An intelligent person tends to find the best solution for what problems they want to solve. That often tends towards non-violence, but it is not a rule.

You'd not say that cattle are smarter than coyotes, would you?

In case it matters, I don't think that I'd have much of a problem shooting Hitler in the face if I had had the opportunity. Quite violent and unintelligent of me?!?

Only at the edges.

Actually, you can be wrong ... That's the whole point.

No, morality doesn't have to be relative.

Genghis Kahn - right? Your an intelligent guy ... Use the coconut and think it through...

I disagree on all points.

is nearly the perfect confession that either there is objective morality that is unknowable or that it is relative.

Unknowable objective morality = relative morality. At least for all intents and purposes. Come back when you find this objective morality. I'd be curious to see what it is.

I did use my noggin. Actually make an argument against it. Show me your absolute morality that holds true across time and space and species and circumstance.

At best, you will discover that we both don't like Hitler very much and find no difficulty agreeing that he was a big meanie poopy butt.

LDO. Read some Adam Smith.

Yes I learned that from you, and others here, and from watching some of Feynman's lectures. I didn't understand it before, how you could have strong logic, but jump past the issue of not having a foundation for it. I get it now, it works, but it can't be shown to be correct beyond that.
We don't have a moral foundation to really get into what nice is though. Other than our assumptions and cultural beliefs.

I don't mean you are trying, but you do save face by saying 'by definition' intelligence is. This world is ******ed, ridiculous, and the entire human population acts in a completely irrational way. Our definition of intelligence has lead us here. It leads us to allow Hitler to be intelligent and allows intelligent people to exploit others. Its a contradictory definition, but you didn't come up with it, thats how you end up saving face.


I think that the definition of intelligence should include the direction of the persons wants. Or that an intelligent person is in control of their wants, and once in control 'wants' take a completely different form and allow the individual to have a completely different paradigm. Someone who has an inferior control over their wants is controlled, and that cannot be intelligent by either my or your definition.

I think we would have to debate the definition of violence as it changes its context too, eating for survival or naturalness may not be violent. I don't think two people who agree to fight under the rules of a sport is necessarily violence either. If intelligence were judged in not helping others both might have the same nut low score.


I don't think its violence in the way that you might save more people etc. If you do it out of anger then I would suggest its unintelligent. Immoral peoples are a product of this world, our unintelligent world. They were not taught well (academics might disagree), they have unfortunate events they were not able to understand and cope with. They don't understand the human condition, and cannot be called intelligent just because they can patternize concepts well.

Under your definition Hitler deserves to be punished, and thats logical. Under mine, we are each responsible for his actions. We are also each the persons that he wished to expel from this world. Yours creates hate and unnecessary violence thats spreads for generations and fuels at least the enemies side of the war (prob both side). Mine creates compassion, awareness, and understanding.

How could the former be intelligent?


Can you expand this or define the edges? I understand what you mean but I can't articulate on it.


Which aspects does this refer to? TWON? or something else. I really feel like we have used his writings in the wrong context. I also heard that he tried to have all his books burned and only very few were saved.

To the Mongolian people, he is considered a hero, like we consider George Washington in the US only more so. Many name their kids after him. Are they all unintelligent? Many are his direct descendants (as are as many as 1 in 200 people on earth according to geneticists!). A good friend of mine is from Mongolia. She's the sweetest, kindest person you'll ever meet. She was a doctor in Mongolia and supported herself in the US by taking care of old people for next to no money and actually enjoyed making them happy. Yet she regards Genghis Khan as a hero. I'm sitting here now with leather painting of him on my wall with 2 rabbits feet that she gave me. She's aware of the atrocities he committed, some of which are truly disturbing. She gives him a pass because of the times he lived in. So go figure.

At the very least, we can at least imagine that our words have some bearing on reality. It is helpful to have common words that we all use meaning at least roughly the same thing.

So, an intelligent person is defined as someone who can learn and problem solve if the feel like it. It is separated in definition from them being motivated to learn or problem solve because some people could learn calculus but haven't taken calculus yet and other just want to paint pretty pictures or whatever.

Yes. It is a hard thing to get your head around. What is "nice" (trying to rise above the assumptions and cultural beliefs) is who is friendly at you.

The people who love me most know that I am not "nice." I'm not generally nice (I eat), but I am specifically nice (I protect those under my care and prevent them from being eaten).

The world is what it is. No need to call it names.

What the world is has led us to the definition, not the other way around. We can look at an enemy (if we are bright enough and not pained enough to lose all objectivity) and say "wow, very good problem solving."

We have other words to describe that sort of thing. You are trying to paint things with too broad a brush. We can look at our enemies and not call them bald if they have hair.

We could, but as an ex-boxer and goal keeper, I can tell you that it is violent and that I didn't appreciate being punched or kicked at. Sort of a Genghis view is correct.

I can't imagine the possibility of violence being unconnected with anger without it being horrific.

I'm more for stopping/preventing than punishing from a philosophical perspective. I'm all for communicating "don't **** with us or we will destroy you" through punishment within certain bounds (we created the conditions in which Hitler was inevitable following WWI). I'm exceptional on trying to understand (I assume that he had his reasons). I wouldn't have been the type he was trying to expel though. He would have loved me. Blond hair, blue eyes and all.

I just don't like people who **** with my friends.

Then how can we denigrate our poor hedge fund quant for not wanting to fix the hunger problem?

I mean that there are base wants that are deeply ingrained (either through nature or nurture). You can't simply decide what you find disgusting or amazing.

He cared for his own. Horrific from a certain perspective. Wonderful from another.

Yes this is what Feyman explained eloquently. And you explain it very direct as well.

This I question as well. By our definition it fits on one hand. But by the same definition such a person could be 'robot' type student that simply knowns how to work a problem solving algorithm well. It can't be that smart to be so 'programmable'.
I think if the issues in this world CAN be solved, then it is a better world for the individual to solve them. Is there any reasonable utility that doesn't benefit from a utopian world?

But we said your lady friend thought Genghis was nice in his ways. I think two sides of conflict have the opposite definition of nice.

That assumes that having enemies still holds some amount of intelligence.


I don't think intelligent societies fight.



But you liked it (wanted) in some way because you did it and chose to do it?


thats clockwork orange right?



I guess you mean we were to harsh with the treaties? What I mean is along the lines of the probability in this society of having a Hitler. It reminds me of a short story 'the lottery' (wrong name?) where unbeknownst to the class reading it the lottery really means winning a public stoning to death.

Believe that we are separate from the cause of Hitler is the ignorance that fueled such a hateful man. Or nationality, because there is an us vs Germany there can be war between two sides. We are all responsible for that, and the awareness of such false distinctions is the dissolution of the ability to have war.
See then you see it as a Jewish problem that we all witnessed. But I see it as a human problem, where humans were being slaughtered. I recognize and respect each individuals identify and beliefs, but in the context of the past, to see it as a Jewish problem (not the worlds) is the same ignorance that created the problem.

The same goes for blacks and whites. 'Whites' should not apologize to 'Blacks'. That was the issue, the world saw a false division. We should view it as a human problem, and that humans were bad to humans. Otherwise we are stuck in the same false paradigm.


I dont' in a sense either, but I understand if they had better teachers they would **** with your friends. And in that I admit its societies fault, and I am society.


I lost the context of this, I said 'how can the former be intelligent' where the former was punishment for crime (which you admitted isn't so much your view).


Ah right examples. I think we can manipulate what we find disgusting, and if nothing else we are inexperienced and ill-informed at doing so. Amazing too, like developing appreciation for art. Are there more concrete examples? Even the want to live seems easily manipulatable.


I'm not sure if you are referring to TWON. I see it as an objective view of world in a vacuum with no unnatural forces. To me we missed its use slightly. It gives us the ability to see how things work without intervention and therefore we can spot immoral activity in the form of manipulation.

You are talking about what people do. Putting it all down to intelligence and ignoring motivation is correct except for two small flaws.

but the solution i.e how much chooclate cake someone eats depends on such factors as how much they like chocolate cake.

This is clearly just rubbish.

"Warped happiness" - wft
"abuse cannot be a source of happiness" - You really are just making it up.

Incorrect ... you are offering a false dichotomy. Our morality maybe provisional and incremental - that does not make it any less the result of objectivity.

Again - as I have already stated, we have no direct access to any mind independent world. You want to hold ethics and morality to a standard that isn't even required of science, would you say that science lacks absolutes so science = relative? I don't think you would (though I could be wrong).

So, you are committing a logical fallacy in saying its either entirely one or the other. As I said above its a false dichotomy - absolute v. relative. We do not have access to a mind independent world, yet to deny the movement towards objectivity disregards the evidence of our experience. So our knowledge of the world is not absolute, yet not completely relative.

We could say that based on our observations of what may be considered sentient life, sentient life seems to move away from a state of discontent, towards a state of contentment.

May I suggest some Williams James, John Dewey, Thomas Nagel, RM Hare, Patricia Churchland and the 14th Dalai Lama (specifically, Beyond Religion).

Kinda of like how we give a pass to some of the lacking qualities of GW, TJ, Franklin, etc ...

Its an easy to give people a pass - well, its just the time and the politics or whatever ... I guess the real question is should we?

Anyways, if we take my assumption that our ethics are the result of objectivity, which is provisional and incremental - we could say that we know better now.

Feel free to substitute chocolate cake with whatever ...


Nope - a source of happiness, would be a source of happiness and not unhappiness (or suffering).

I wasn't giving a definition on how people think. We mentally manipulate ideas (facts, numbers, etc.) to arrive at a solution. A person who can learn an algorithm to solve a problem is smarter than one who can't. Part of what is necessary to being smart is being able to remember how to solve problems.

Obviously the person would be a bit smarter if they can solve new problems that they don't have proper training (programming) on than if they were only capable of memorizing a set of rules to solve a problem.

That is a misreading of human nature and reality.

Human nature: We are partly competitive and partly cooperative. We are partly individualistic and partly socially (collectivistic). Even the nutcase radical libertarians feed their kids, which is basic like communism.

Reality: Andrew Carnegie wouldn't have been richer if he had paid his employees more.

That was Bruce's friend, but, yes, in a conflict, "nice" indicates that the person is on your side.

So Britain would have shown itself to be smarter had it just let Hitler rule over them?

Or, more to the point, name a society that doesn't fight with some other society. There aren't any, except for the ones who are too weak to fight and they are eventually doomed.

I like competition as well as cooperation.

Yes. More than that though, I think. If someone lashes out in anger, presumably there can be a resolution. There isn't much hope of one if they simply think of you as prey.

You mean the United States having its version of a Hitler (with the same power)? I doubt it is likely. On the other hand, we aren't exactly a peaceful nation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timelin...ary_operations

No, I see it as I was exactly what he was trying to promote. There are sides to any conflict. It is helpful to have names for them.

You are a tiny part of society. You can speak up.

I'd shoot him because he was my enemy and doing yucky things that I don't like. My views on this is that it isn't punishment. We often require the threat of violence to keep others from doing yucky things (like bombing our friends or ethnic cleansing), and that threat is only meaningful if we are willing to follow through.

I doubt that you can bring yourself to enjoy a plate of poop. If you mean that you can learn to like raw oysters, of course you can. They are yummy and just take a bit of getting used to.

As far as developing a taste for art, there are many things in which repeated access causes greater appreciation. The first time I had beer, I didn't like it.

Think about what brings you to try new things. Curiosity, maybe wanting to see what all the fuss is about, maybe trying to fit in. Upon finding it not living up to expectations and hearing "it is an acquired taste" more curiosity sets in. Eventually, if others are correct in it being an acquired taste, the taste will be acquired.

I was replying to the wrong part of the post... Adam Smith was just an all around good guy.

Both that and The Theory of Moral Sentiment. Individuals attempting to act in their own best interests collectively tend to come to distribute the workload correctly. Basically, if the guy wants to work for a hedge fund, it isn't your right to call him names. If you'd like to solve world hunger, it isn't his right to call you names.

There are no universal moral facts. "Killing is wrong" depends on context, species, culture, time and situation. Sometimes killing is right. Every other supposed universal moral fact is the same. This dependency makes it relative.

Say "stealing" and I say "Robin Hood."

Say "cold blooded murder" and I say "Stauffenberg."

Say "don't commit incest" and I say "what about the royals?"

I'll make it easier for you. Show that there is any indication that there are moral laws that are not relative.

Wasn't hard for us to figure out that there are indications that photons exist and that light bulbs make light.

No fallacy. If you'd like to say that morality has some commonality across cultures and leave it at that, I'd easily agree. You could even bring up that dogs seem to have a sense of what is fair and what isn't. That is still moral relativism. See Haidt's work. It is good.

That is just motivation derived from the homeostatic emotions. Has nothing to do with whether our denigrated math genius turned hedge fund guy is doing wrong, as he is certainly following those motivations.

Funny, but none of the above are moral objectivists. James is my favorite btw.

If you are just trying to make the smaller claim that if you believe in preference utilitarianism and if you also believe in universal prescriptivism that it might be a good idea to figure out what people, like I doubt you'd get much disagreement.

Of course, this would put your genius hedge fund manager clearly on the correct side of morality.

You are talking about what people do. Putting it all down to intelligence and ignoring motivation is correct except for two small flaws.

I could list all the things that applies to but its everything.


You have just made that up. And its obviously rubbish.

So intelligence can be taught then, or no?
Isn't this what separates us (for now) from machines?
Does human nature change if we teach everyone to only act in the name of cooperation and they do so? Maybe you refer to instinct as our nature?
Not sure I understand this. If he paid his employees more he creates a further divide in the world. Also I'm not sure he would agree with you so much in some way, I think he might feel that is how he was so successful. Also money wasn't his only form of payment surely (not sure if relevant).


This becomes and important observation because of the below i think.


No I think that is where our conditioning leads us, and conditioning can never be intelligence because its just control. In response, we cannot then validate such false divisions by observing the problem in the context of our side vs hitler. It is the very paradigm we fight against.

Hilter's problem or fault was he saw a false division in this world.

Instead hitler was an unintelligent unfortunate and lost soul, that represents humanities conditioning to divide itself and create conflict. He is not separate from us, that was HIS view. To kill him to save populations seems still justifiable and warranted, but we can do so without falling victim to the same divisive paradigm that he projected. Whether on the good guys side or the bad, they are both wrong (noting we are always on the good guy side).

There is only ever one society, i have absolutely no idea how none of you can see this. The moment you divide it, there is conflict. There isn't always conflict, there is always conflict if you validate false division.


You might keep them feed otherwise.


No, now that I suggest the world is one society you must understand how I view the world. United states is a false concept. The world had its hitler, many times, in many generation. Perhaps he is the 'worst', but it is bound to happen in this world. Should we shun him only, or shun ourselves for being contributors to this breeding ground of war.

Blaming solely him, creates conflict war suffering violence, and fuels ignorance compassion understanding and integration.

Each of us seeing that "i" am not separate from the problem changes the world in a way that cannot be done with nuclear arms. But it takes admitting that we are responsible for all the pain in the world, as well as we are each the victims of all suffering. Until then Godwin's law will always hold true, as Hitler is our moral foundation (reversed to show what is bad).



Naming them creates division.


I am the entirety of the human condition, no one is separate from it.
This mentality creates lame dogs it comes from the assumption that others will respond as we would.


I'm sure its happened in a jack ass type way. I'm not interested in being right here.
repeated yes but also taught. And as humans we have never pushed the boundaries of the skill of change such likes. I'm still not clear of that monk that burned himself while crosslegged is real. But it wouldn't surprise me

repetition with emotional commitment I think bruce lee described it.

ah good, thought I misunderstood his point.

This is with no unnatural forces, such as unintelligent peoples.
I feel we clearly misapplied his ideas because of the assumption of an uncontrolled population.

or you feel control and conditioning is natural in regards to such observations smith wrote about?
That is in a vacuum, we don't live in a vacuum. I do agree tho I have no right to call him names, I simply point out that intelligence is see the world without previous conditioning. And to do that is to erase the divisions between "I' and them, and that tends towards peace and dissolution of conflict, the more capable of problem solving you are (imo obv).

Skills and methods can be taught. I can even teach you things that will help you perform better on IQ tests.

Using your brain also makes your brain work better. Intelligence is not a totally innate thing.

Possibly. Don't know. I can usually identify machines because they don't have people parts, and I think that separates them as well. No different than I can tell that a cat is a cat and a dog is a dog. Just different things.

We can limit competition in the name of cooperation, but it hasn't really worked out so well when we have tried to take it to extremes.

He was a capitalist. If your boss gave you a raise, would you find it problematic and divisive?

Show me this conditioning that you like so much to talk about. The reason we believe we are separate is because we are. If I eat two dinners, you won't be full because of it. Simple correspondence between action and effect.

No. His problem was that he was a big meanie poopy butt looking for scapegoats for his country's problems, and who thought his country could take over the world.

Whether he was intelligent or not has nothing to do with it. A sign that he wasn't super smart was that he made tactical errors.

Intelligence : Kindness :: Compassion : Has Hair

The rest is a bit off. We are always right in protecting ourselves. Usually right in protecting our friends. Usually right in trying to make new friends. Usually right in trying to convert our enemies into friends.

There has always been conflict and cooperation. Therefore there must be separation.

What you want is for there to be no separation. That is nice. Doesn't make it true.

No point to it if they are just me though. It would be my fault for being prey and I should accept that the most reasonable thing would be to be eaten since that is what happens to prey.

Also, I wasn't talking about Hannibal Lector literally.

The United States is a construct. Not the same thing as a false concept.

It is an important construct. If you fail to understand the construct, you will find yourself arrested for driving on the wrong side of the road if you decide to travel.

Who says we don't read history looking for our own mistakes?

Feeling full from my first dinner yet?

I'm more for figuring out how Hitler came to power so as to avoid it in the future than denigrating him, if that helps. Important to denigrate him a bit so as to tell the kids that we will not be proud of them if they act like that though.

No it doesn't. No more than it makes my big toe fall off if I call it a big toe.

No, you are not. You'd be full from my dinner if you were.

At best, you are concerned for humanity. That is nice. But, being concerned for or feeling empathy for is not the same thing as being the thing you have those feelings for.

You are claiming nothing more than that my left front tire is my car.

No. I'm only making a claim about myself.

Everything is natural and most people aren't particularly intelligent. If you are continuing to use "intelligent" to mean "unkind" it would make the conversation go a lot smoother if you would just use the standard word of "unkind."

It isn't misapplying his ideas that is the problem. We use them. It is the foundation of capitalism.

"Conditioning" means learning. Not sure what problem you have with it. If it is an RTG thing, you should probably drop it before I start talking about you being an artichoke.

The bolded is word soup that makes absolutely no sense. Conditioning means learning. Only incredibly stupid people don't learn.

If you are making (in the rest) the small claim that making friends is nice and that empathy is a good thing, I agree. If you are trying to say that you are full from my dinner, or that I could possibly eat enough in lieu of you eating to keep you from starving, or that you don't mind if I sleep with your girlfriend, I don't believe you.

The girlfriend part is particularly important as if you do mind, you certainly don't believe what you claim to believe.

would that higher performance indicate someone has a higher iq then? Are you raising the persons intelligence when you teach them to pass a certain test? (I'm more just asking than arguing, I've never understood this)

Right, I should hope not. Does Kim Peak have a high IQ? I'm not sure how the standards work, but he has an incredible capacity for information but can't function well with it.

I think then future technology will skew our beliefs on our ability to make statements that a programmable person is intelligent.


It has never been tried as a whole, only ever as a part, which gains conflict vs the other part.


Yes. It would be hypocritical not to think so. I might still take it, because of my conditioning and because of the way the world works. But I don't think it helps. Also I've walked of many jobs. And finally settled into poker. But again poker is just conflict, and represents the same issues in the world. I don't try to gain for myself tho.


I am actually quite content with having reasonably shown the boundaries of what I am trying to say, without sounding completely trollish or like total moron. I feel like I have grown slightly in the regard, and I didn't know I had to until I started dialog with others on here about these issues. I feel I can be more diplomatic about it. Not sure if you can read that change, or if its big, but I appreciate it.

I can actually show you around this but its not worth your time to start there.
Yes this is causality and I don't subscribe to it. I am capable of using it, but also capable of functioning without it, in our truer realm. If we can assume time travel for a moment we might have a glimpse that future past and present are concepts of thought, thought we can end, and time with it. When we reflect to see if time is there, it comes back. But that is just though justifying thought. Again we've touched on that I think and I dont' expect it is worth your time to delve into. I'm more interested in you understand my 'viewpoint' than seeing from it or agreeing.



But a country by definition cannot take over the world right? Is it really that much of a stretch for me to suggest we all came from the same place and will all end up there, and that nothing is separate from the totality of what this all is? I suppose I might be asked to prove it, but I'm in shock that anyone could find a way to believe that is not true.


In a vacuum I think that might be partially true. I'm not sure the sides were as black and white as we were taught, nor were the motivations of each side.

Ugh, I don't know the notation and I can't really google "::" ( i did).
Yes the reason people find a reason to disagree is the actions are logical, but if we feel 'they' are not 'us' then they come out of a wrong root. For example: putting a pedo in jail out of punishment is not intelligent (and inhumane). But we do have to protect the children. A better example might be Castro (new rape slave case), if his victim grew up to latter abuse her own children...might we then say she deserved what happened to her before? Or should we consider the life that led them to such awful acts? (I hope that made sense the way I put it)

I think that is only as far as history shows, and history is a product of one sides story after conflict. History doesn't cover very much of mans timeline. Especially if we consider time travel.

I don't think we can suggest therefore there must always be separation either. I do think we've been taught that though.

No it wouldn't. But if for one small moment, we can see a glimpse of the whole, we can realize there is no separation but the false separation created by thought.


I think some eastern religions would agree. They might point out how silly it would be to resist such a thing rather than accept it, and how much more peaceful it would be, and that peace is really the goal. Like a fish in a bowl, what is better, for it to try to escape (and succeed), or be content with the bowl. We might each feel we are arguing for the contentment in the bowl though.


Thats fine, construct is just as well, its merit is based on thought, and only thought is there to validate itself.

Truish, but we don't need separate countries to establish such things. One might argue this is how one ends up driving on the wrong side of the road in the first place.

Thats the ideal, but I think its clear we manipulate history and continue to make that same mistake. Given that history is our teacher (past and causality), I think its not even clear we can rise above such mistakes while studying and learning from the past.



I guess without getting into we I can mention its more about whether the food was there and you ate it, or if you just 'feel' full now. Memory and thought will argue, but I would ask that we look at the puzzle without thought or reflection and then talk about what we see.

Well perhaps academics feels it knows, certain economic conditions, politics, upbringing, countries etc. But I don't think we are much more ahead in that regard from that time. I watched an experiment a teacher did where he slowly started enacting nazi rules. The students followed suit and quickly began to take things out of control. I don't think we have changed in that regard at all, and are just as susceptible to it. It seems to me, that calling it a German problem IS the root cause. We are not them was the issue, and continues to be. I suppose I have not shown that is true tho.

Cut it off and don't have thoughts on it. Words are external thought in this sense. And I do think this is like the monk setting himself a blaze.


It doesn't prove me wrong to start from the paradigm I am wrong (therefore we are separate) and the show an example of separation. It creates a false positive. And that is where the issue is and why it takes much time to get through the conditioning. All things point to you being correct if you see with such lenses, and those lenses (or the paradigm of causality) can never reveal the truth of no lens (or non causality).
Well I am not concerned for myself. Self is easy, we all die, my life will never be as tragic as most of the people in this world. But I see a logical solution (as long as you don't assume individuality, then there is no solution), I also see great uneeded suffering, I also see incredible ignorance in the form of individuality. I also see that schools re enforce individuality.
Yes allan watts talk about this right, breaking down our concept of what actually constitutes a car. At what point is a car just its parts etc.


I understand you, but it wouldn't because as we said kind is relative just as well.

I don't think so. I think it is the foundation of capitalism in a vacuum. It is not our foundation of capitalism. Our economic system have been unnaturally manipulated since the beginning of history (or economics). From what I understood, it is how things should or would work, but not a representation of our real world.


No its not an RTG thing, it could be but I know better than to express it that way. I agree with the present definition of learning. But I do not think a computer learns in a meaningful way when we install a program. To me learning, of the true and intelligent form, is unconditioning. So that the mind is free and unbiased, and can see the thing for what it is, unclouded of its own conditioning and biases.

( I missed 'ing' but I think you understood me). I realize that academics suggests you are right. But compartmentalizing the mind to me is the opposite. In order to expand and function at its highest capacity the mind needs to function freely, and to do that requires breaking down the barriers that hinder it.

I am simply suggesting that individuality is a conditioned assumption. And that any reflective proof is just false validation that will always show true because of the assumption. If you start with no such assumption then there can be no movement as evidence to show individuality is a fact. It seems absurd to the individual, obviously, but that shouldn't stop the experiment I think. But we do not need to get into it.
Girls don't appreciate the opposite of individuality as a root belief, it doesn't allow me to act as an alpha.

IQ is a score on a test. It is not the same thing as intelligence.

But, yes, your intelligence can change, and your IQ can change. Teaching someone stuff makes them more intelligent, thinking and problem solving makes them more intelligent. Teaching them methods of problem solving that are helpful on IQ tests makes them score higher on IQ tests. No different than lifting weights can make you stronger, or teaching someone how to hold a baseball makes them throw a ball better.

He would be judged as having a low overall IQ, with wide dispersion of specific abilities.

We've done communal living with 100% sharing of resources. Conflict arises within the group inevitably.

So, you don't practice what you preach.

Also, if you are not "gaining for yourself" I presume that you are donating your winnings. Precisely as divisive as giving your factory workers a raise.

You aren't being undiplomatic. Never thought you were. Did find you a bit trollish in the past when you pretended you couldn't understand simple concepts.

Consider it a simple "yes" or "no" question. Did you get full from the dinner I at last night? Does me eating cause you to not starve to death?

You have absolutely no ability to do anything if you don't ascribe to causality. Try to play poker later today without ascribing to it. Try to eat lunch without ascribing to it.

You can't even make a reasonable statement without ascribing to it.

Properly defined as a functioning government and a military (amongst other things such as a "population"), yes, it can.

No different of a constructs of "family" and "relationship."

You had bad teachers then.

Intelligence is to kindness as compassion is to having hair.

Basically, I am telling you to stop calling kindness intelligence. They are as different of concepts as compassion and having hair.

Many philosophers ascribe that moral statements must be person neutral for them to be valid.

Anyway, if you don't ascribe to causality, then you can't say that she deserves anything at all. Her abusing her kids wouldn't cause her kids to be abused.

We don't consider time travel. Not sure whether you think you are making an interesting statement. Everyone knows that all stories are told by the winners. I am pretty sure that they teach this in grade school history.

We aren't taught that. We are generally taught to cooperate.

You learn that your body has boundaries by learning how to walk and what hole the food goes in to make you full. No teaching is necessary.

No. That would just be not paying attention to the individuals that make up the whole of society. Not any different than me pointing to my car and saying "car" instead of listing out its various components. That does not make my left front tire the same thing as the car.

We aren't a fish in a fish bowl. They (the eastern religions) also war with each other. Lots of them even teach interesting fighting techniques.

No. You just made another meaningless statement.

We have countries. They serve a useful purpose.

Just because something isn't perfect, doesn't mean you throw it away. We've figured out that ignoring history guarantees that we make the same mistakes.

I would ask that we don't. It is nonsense. There is perfect correspondence between putting food in my mouth and me getting full and it happens in a certain order with perfect consistency.

It never happens that I eat and you become an artichoke.

Now, if you are just saying, "meals are more enjoyable if you just enjoy them instead of thinking" I'd agree. Fairly sure that nearly everyone already knows that though. It isn't like I sat down and thought to myself "I feel hungry and have discovered that when I am hungry if I cook a steak to a nice rareness and cut it into bits and shove it in my mouth that my hunger goes away." I just went into the kitchen, grabbed a steak and threw it on the grill.

We are far ahead of where we used to be. Steven Pinker wrote a nice book about how less violent today is compared to the past. A very large part of that is functioning governments.

[quote]Cut it off and don't have thoughts on it. Words are external thought in this sense. And I do think this is like the monk setting himself a blaze.

I will not cut off my toe. That would be a silly thing to do.

I'm not starting from any paradigm. I figured out where I begin and end the first time I noticed that you eating didn't make me full or sustain my body. Actually, quite a bit before that (sometime during infancy) and there was no thought or teaching or paradigm needed to realize that it must me true.

And none of it is particularly interesting. Reductionism is sometimes useful and sometimes it isn't. I am fairly certain that nearly everyone already knows that. When I drive up north tomorrow, I won't be thinking much of the individual components (even though they are there) unless one of them does something that makes me nervous.

That has nothing to do with my request that you use words in the standard manner.

To make it easier, I will use whatever words I would like to in the following sentence that roughly translates to "I am going to have a nice day today because one of my friends is coming over.":

Monthly seldom is margarine slathered meat mentions mighty monkeys.

You will note that if I talked like that, we'd hardly be capable of having a conversation.

No such thing as "unnaturally." I have absolutely no idea what you could be talking about. There is no "unnatural manipulation."

He simply showed that the public benefits from people pursuing their own interests.

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages."

I don't think we need to concern ourselves with computers here.

Your bolded sentence is word soup. Psychologists have come up with a list of biases that people tend to have. There is a list of them here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases. There are others. There is also the 'fundamental attribution bias' which explains so much of how people think of each other (and why it isn't naming that is the problem). There is a wiki article on that (and lots of links to things like the "just world hypothesis").

Not "academics," studies. A little like you would recommend if you thought about it, studying reality is important if you want to get a grasp of it. Having a belief is all right, I guess. No one reasonable is going to accept it without unbiased studies showing that it is true. It is the entire point of science - to check whether our ideas are correct.

Also, the mind functions freely just fine by itself. We discussed in an earlier thread the limits of knowledge (you can't "prove" that you aren't an artichoke, but that doesn't mean it is worth your time to consider it).

One of the things I would suggest is that you need to (to become free) stop relying on books that you enjoy, and believing things because you'd like the world (and humanity) to be special.

If you want to start from a non-biased condition, drop the following assumptions: We aren't just animals. We are special. The world is not completely mundane. Feelings of belonging are more than just feelings of belonging.

If you happen to discover some magic, so be it, but you can't start with the assumption of specialness and magic or you will be destined to arrive at the conclusion you like best (rather than one with a relationship to reality).

It is conditioned by reality. I can tell the difference between my stubbing my toe and you stubbing yours. I can even tell the difference between you stubbing your toe and Chez stubbing his.

So, you are single. How about if I just eat your lunch then? You believe in individuality sufficiently to go to the grocery store, right?

So does the teacher then have a higher IQ than the students' they raise?

It might be different if we feel one cannot raise one's own IQ?





My point is this was a divided group from the whole of humanity, and will therefore create conflict. But further more, I don't except the peoples in this group were free from the conditioning of conflict even if they agreed to communilism.

I don't exactly claim to, however if you had read my threads on turning poker into a cooperative game that leads to the game theory needed to end conflict in this world, you might not thing I'm so hypocritical to play poker.

Unless my winning go towards brings resolution to the world?

I still take issue with those concepts I just realize you can't go shouting it out in the middle of a forum.

No. However you have not capture the context I have given, and to do so takes quite some time to wade through the conditioning. But I'm not here to do that with you. More so to understand what I would be up against, or how you might perceive things from an academic point of view. More along those lines.

Yes, the I cannot move without causality. But I wonder if you would admit there is a 'beyond causality'. We don't need to get all RTG about it, but I think we agree the I cannot move beyond causality. If we agree, we might see the issue of time travel and the 'paradox' of time travel and perhaps the path I would propose to dissolve the paradox.

yes I play poker in general without time our thought. But tangibly (so as not to get booted to rtg), we might agree that poker is not played by a causal clock, but instead a clock that ticks decision by decision?

Try to eat lunch without ascribing to it.
No I cannot, by the standard definition of reason, because reason stops there.

A country that took over the world would no longer have the boundaries needed to define a country.

I think they begin to lose their meaning if they describe the world as a whole.


Earlier in life yes, later I had bruce lee and JK, and I can't find better anymore. Of course a student doesn't always have the capacity to judge prospective teachers.



It is true, unless I used logic to come to the conclusion that intelligence leads to non violence, and the logic is sound. But again I realize the limits there, and we don't need to debate it.


Yes they also believe in the divisions that create individuality.

Yes, its not me that suggests we have any moral ground for punishment, I'm not interested in showing its logic, but moreso a clear rep of my view, whether obv wrong or not. But for those that subscribe to causality, and suggest that a rapist be raped or put to death, there logic falls when we see a victim become a rapist because of their previous suffering.



Yes so we don't know if there was a time of no conflict, because after the first war was won, such history would be buried, or sunk.


That sir, is crazy talk. We are taught survival of the fittest and that capitalism is ideal.


Yes you describe society, and I describe the truth that is beyond any ideal of what this (life) is. Again I just want to paint that line, i don't wish to change your view etc.

Well the human condition seems to me to be the desire to change our circumstances, or better said the suffering that comes from that desire. War comes out of that it seems.

It was bruce lee that pointed all this out to me. I'm not sure why you pointed at this, but its interesting to me, and that most (fighters) think he had not much worthwile to say. You might argue they do, but I'm confident they throughout 90%+ of what he said, and twisted the remaining 10%

Thats so relative especially in the context of war in this world. I might feel that Canada is useful since its peaceful here, however thats just using the false boundaries to separate myself from the world I think. Especially when our ignorance pays for the wards.

I mean to point out that if history being our guide IS the mistake, then we are screwed until we stopping validating it as our teacher.


We won't, thats why I said "I would ask"

By Feynmens explanation of what is useful, no I don't. But by the edge of physics talking about multiple dimensions, I think we cannot say that for certain yet..


Ah, sort of but its def towards the point. Thinking "this is enjoyable" wrecks the act of enjoyment, it seems we agree. If we do, I have simply extended that understanding to infinite (logically, I may still be hypocritical in its application).

No I think most have not realized it, I would be suprised to here they mostly have. They might agree though once they understand.
yes that is how I play poker, or strive to.


Ok ill read that and we'll come back to that, because I think its a ridiculous suggestion. But I'll read it first before we bother.

I'm confident my perspective is what allowed the monk to calmly do such a thing, and invalidation of self by not naming it with thought. But I'm still not sure its a real picture, no one seems to argue it though. You might suggest it was meditation, and I do believe they are one and the same.
Well I think you started with the conclusion of the "I" that can possibly be separate from the whole.


In terms of things perceived by thought, they can never not be dissolved by reductionism. Maybe you simply agree with that though.



I sometimes forget that I do that (or don't), but I try to point it out if I don't (or make it obvious I'm using the word how I want)

Yes I think if we were more intelligent in either of our meanings of it, such language barriers would not be a problem. Much like countries difference languages give us a false perception that each language is separate and not just different dialects of the same language. I have much to say on language, but we should save it for a year or so.


No such thing as "unnaturally." I have absolutely no idea what you could be talking about. There is no "unnatural manipulation."

And that was the mantra that was incorrectly quoted at being nash's eq right? I do believe what we hid from ourselves (from lack of intelligence by either of our definitions) is that he gave us a basis to judge a natural world on. Its an equilibrium to analyze deviation.

yes my theme is that by taking a part, we have missed the point which can only be seen from the perspective of the whole. It seems reasonable to me society would do this, and it seems reasonable smith wanted all his intelligent books burned for fear of there use for corruption. It is a recipe for power, with no moral implications or ground.

Well I just think that our ability to be programmed to be a smarter person by someone else, should not reflect a capacity for intelligence, but instead the quality of teacher. But see, we don't judge teachers this way either.

Yes and it seems to me intelligence by your definition, would lead one to absolve their own bias's.


To study reality, means to see it as it is, not through a construct or a patter to compare it to. I mean to ACTUALLY study it, not to study it from an academic perspective. To study something requires zero bias. I realize I cannot show my 'belief' to science. We talk about this, and why bohm was ultimately rejected (plus the key thing) for his dealings with K.
I agree the mind function freely by itself, you have almost directly quoted lee. However I don't believe thought is mind, and I believe thought bogs down mind. I don't see it as belief but thats how you all talk.


Well I started reading random books somewhat randomly, I'm not sure if thats what you meant. We are at an impasse here, because by my own (what you call belief) observation, I realize the world is a whole incorrectly divided. From there my path is clear. It is not a goal on paper, or a calculated step by step direction, but simply to see it as a whole, and let whatever comes of that come of it.....here I am.

I'd love to get into specifically dropping our bias's eventually (maybe months or years from now).
No of course you can't start with such assumptions. But the world being here seems to be at the very least at the level of 'magic'.

If we denounce causality the experiment holds true, well we got into this already, but it just means our memories change to validate our present observations. Much like the opposite way that back to the future suggests changing the past alters the present. By your view on time, time travel is creates a paradox, by mine, it all fits.


Looking to this world to justify causality always creates a false positive. Its illogical (by std. definition) I know. But although you maybe right, such logic cannot bring me back down.

I don't expect to convince you, but I think I can show you such logic cannot bring me back to your side of the river.

I appreciate such dialog a lot, we can always stop anytime, but you should know I feel I have learned greatly from you, and will continue to do so, thx.

The either-or you are proposing is false. Just because Killing is not always wrong doesn't mean, doesn't mean the guidelines are any less the result if objectivity. At the very least I hope you have thought through the problem of when it might be right to kill.

Again, you are working from a false premise...
I don't think you are making a claim of absolutes in scuence, are you? Actions do have consequences. Do you not try to think through your actions.

Yes, you are offering only an either or choice, when there are alternatives.

[QUOTE]
Funny, but none of the above are moral objectivists. James is my favorite btw.
[QUOTE]
I don't know about all that - some maybe, some maybe not. Doesn't matter so much...
Nope... Again you are saying its all one thing and not the other.

The best argument for tolerance is awareness of our ignorance. We could disapprove of certain acts but, still tolerate things of no great harm and even with the possibility of some good. But it would seem that there is a limit to tolerance when act seems to lead to harm. That is, our judgem lent of acts are dependent on not only the perceived situation, but also our ability to judge in an objective manner. Or, you could say, using our intellect to discern consequences.

Sorry. Found other things to do.

You are a nutter. I think a nice nutter, but my card is full.

(Zeno, give me an infraction for laziness when you get a chance)

Since the thread is dead anyways I just wanted to add this response to the subject of the illusion of individuality and the question of if "I" eat how come "You" don't get full. Doesn't need a response but anyone can feel free to.

Non causality (NC) is there and cannot be touched or tethered by causality (C). NC comes about when we put C in its place.

In regards to the eating experiment, we test this C proof by either a projection into the future or a conjecture about the past. If "I" am to watch you eat and ask "Am I experiencing this food that you are eating? (Am I you?)" this is not observation-this is thought. Thought invalidates the NC/C experiment by skewing what is and invoking the foundations of C time.

To see the act without thought means we cannot bring the experiment with us for true objective seeing. True seeing is in the moment, and the moment of pure seeing does not have a separate past or future created by thought. It is not able to divide a separate self from another separate self. This true seeing or thoughtless observation is the only 'experiment' that is valid to 'test' NC.

It's like adding something back into the equation we canceled out a long time ago: (x) + (-x). It seems useless and arbitrary but NC allows us to put C onto its proper foundation rather than using C as its own foundation and leaving countless unsolvable and "unexplainable" paradoxes.