Albert Einstein

[ken]

When you wrote "Einstein did not have more intelligence than any other human being" you may not have left yourself room to sneak in that "very obvious and extremely rare cases" exception.

Yes I did not leave any room at all actually to "sneak" anything in my first quote. But, when I wrote the last "sneaked in" quote I purposely did not give any examples because I could not think of any. I will leave that up to others, who I know will love to provide many examples.

The normal definition of intelligence includes application and use of acquired skills and knowledge. In your schema, that application is not a reflection of intelligence?

I love the use of subliminal words like "normal definition". What makes the actual definition, which you are referring to, the "normal" definition? Or, is the word "normal" just used to put the idea into others that 'My' definition is not normal and therefore more likely to be wrong, while 'your' "normal" definition would be appearing as to be more obviously right?

If my schema is supposedly not a reflection of intelligence, then what exactly is a and the "normal" reflection of intelligence?

Is there one particular dictionary that provides more "normal" reflections of words than other dictionaries do?

[Hobbes' Choice]

I love the use of subliminal words like "normal definition". What makes the actual definition, which you are referring to, the "normal" definition? Or, is the word "normal" just used to put the idea into others that 'My' definition is not normal and therefore more likely to be wrong, while 'your' "normal" definition would be appearing as to be more obviously right??

Better to have a normal definition than fail to have ANY definition at all.

All we have from you is "intelligence" is something that Einstein did not have more of than any other.

Pretty poor.

[ken]

all of that is way too big for the short replies allowed here. I have already been ridiculed for writing too lengthy posts

Do not limit your responses upon the basis of negative criticism from others. The only limitation is the actual number
of words a post can physically contain. This is a philosophy forum so sometimes long responses are necessary in order
to elaborate a position as clearly as possible. You appear to be a left field thinker that thinks a bit outside the box so
be as comprehensive as you like as it is how one achieves clarity. Do not seek character limitation. This is not twitter

Thanks for this reply. I always thought that to elaborate a position fully, especially a philosophical discussed position, then limiting words would be seen as unnecessary and improper actually, so thanks again for your view. I was bemused at being called a dickhead for writing a lengthy reply. Obviously my inability to write succinctly is very clear to some, and although unnecessary and wrongly placed words can be very annoying to read, I have already explained that I am here to learn how to write better. But given the depth of some of the different and unintuitve views I am trying to express here, long responses, i thought, would be understood as being necessary sometimes.

I think the trouble I have to elaborate one position as clearly as possible is that I have to elaborate another position first, in order to understand the former position better, and then to elaborate those two positions better another position needs to be elaborated upon also, and so on. So, until I can find the "magic" formula that can and will very succinctly explain all I want to explain, I apologize in advance that there will be some very boring and lengthy replies, to some people, beforehand.

[ken]

By the way in the syllogism how did the word 'intellect' get into it?

At the point I wrote that I had no idea there was going to be a big divide between intelligence and intellect. As far as I have always been concerned they reference the same thing.

I know there a lots of words that have many different, and even opposing, definitions, but I am not sure how many times there are two words that reference the same thing.

Second sentence I agree with. But, just because the named person is not more intelligent than any other person that does not mean that einstein is less intelligent than all the others, does it?

In context yes. In the first line represents HC's claim, which runs counter to yours: Not all people have equal intelligence.
The next line is your claim: Einstein is not more intelligent than any other person.
The third line is the result of that: Therefore Einstein would have to be the dumbest person in the world. (This being a result of Einstein not being smarter than any other person)
It was just a differently worded explanation of Hobbes' point.

Ah okay I can see that. But that would of course depend on if all human beings have equal intelligence or not. And, I should have also written it in a way to make it quite clear that to Me einstein is not less intelligent than any other person also.

Also, the word 'intellect' in the last sentence throws the whole thing out further. We were discussing 'intelligence' prior to this syllogism. I would think einstein had a lot more knowledge, or intellect, than most people. But that certainly does not distract from having the same ability or intelligence.

In my defence, if I resort to using a dictionary to look up a meaning for Intellect, it includes these
2.
capacity for thinking and acquiring knowledge, especially of a high or complex order; mental capacity.
3.
a particular mind or intelligence, especially of a high order.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/intell ... /intellect

You do not need to defend your view with Me. I understand perfectly if you have a completely different view and perspective of absolutely any thing, including any word. It is perfectly normal for every human being to have differing views. The reason WHY this is and does happen is totally understandable and acceptable.

So you are going to need to cope with the tendency of other people to treat intellect and intelligence as pretty much synonymous.

One major cause of all the disagreements, disputes, arguments, and fighting in the world among human beings is their inability to cope with the tendency of other people to treat any and all words differently than they do. If we all found and discussed the definition of the word/s being used in the discussion, then all agree upon and accept the definition/s first before the actual discussion begins, then half the battle is already over. World Peace is nearly half way reached.

All people are most welcome to treat any word or words any way they want to. But the dictionary definitions i will and do provide leads to the placing of all the pieces of and in "the puzzle of Life" together, correctly, to fit as one perfectly, and will thus show a big picture of Life.

If people want to show another picture or do not want to look at and see the picture I am painting, then that is fine. But I will question what is that you are trying to express or show with 'your' definitions?

[Hobbes' Choice]

In context yes. In the first line represents HC's claim, which runs counter to yours: Not all people have equal intelligence.
The next line is your claim: Einstein is not more intelligent than any other person.
The third line is the result of that: Therefore Einstein would have to be the dumbest person in the world. (This being a result of Einstein not being smarter than any other person)
It was just a differently worded explanation of Hobbes' point.

Ah okay I can see that. But that would of course depend on if all human beings have equal intelligence or not. And, I should have also written it in a way to make it quite clear that to Me einstein is not less intelligent than any other person also.

You addition means nothing.
You are claiming that Einstein was no more, nor less intelligent than ANY other person. QED all humans have the same intelligence.
But you are not saying what you mean by intelligence.

Here are some of the consequences of your claim.
1) You are as intelligent as Einstein
2) I am as intelligent as Einstein.
3) a person with half of his brain removed is as intelligent as Einstein, is as intelligent as you and me.

You have the intelligence of a person with half a brain.

[ken]

Come on then. You are claiming that none of us are more intelligent than any other.

So please supply your definition of intelligence that complies with that claim.

I'm waiting....

If you had said anything like you could be wrong or you will most likely be wrong, and thus shown Me at least some sort of openness, then I would have given My definition the first time. But if people are going to tell Me "I would still be wrong", then what is the use in discussing with such a closed viewpoint? The more open a person is the more willing to provide information.

This is embarrassing.

Please supply your definition of intelligence that complies with that claim!!!
You are just making a fool of yourself.

Let's put it another way.
You used the word "intelligent" above. What do you mean by it?

Am I missing something here? Did I not provide My definition already? Wait I will go back and check.....Ah there it is. Page three, six posts down.

So, what exactly is embarrassing?

And, your statement; "You are just making a fool of yourself." may actually be true, right, and correct. That is of course depending on who's perspective it is coming from.

[Hobbes' Choice]

If you had said anything like you could be wrong or you will most likely be wrong, and thus shown Me at least some sort of openness, then I would have given My definition the first time. But if people are going to tell Me "I would still be wrong", then what is the use in discussing with such a closed viewpoint? The more open a person is the more willing to provide information.

This is embarrassing.

Please supply your definition of intelligence that complies with that claim!!!
You are just making a fool of yourself.

Let's put it another way.
You used the word "intelligent" above. What do you mean by it?

Am I missing something here? Did I not provide My definition already? Wait I will go back and check.....Ah there it is. Page three, six posts down.

So, what exactly is embarrassing?

And, your statement; "You are just making a fool of yourself." may actually be true, right, and correct. That is of course depending on who's perspective it is coming from.

You are making a fool of yourself.
Summary: "Intelligence = ability to learn".
We do not all have the same ability to learn.
It is different for all of us both qualitatively and quantitatively.
You know that, I know that and anyone reading this knows that.
This is why some people given all the opportunities achieve little and why some given few opportunities achieve much.
It is how some people contribute intelligent inventions and innovations, and how others, given every chance, having massive confidence and massive opportunities amount to nothing.

[ken]

I love the use of subliminal words like "normal definition". What makes the actual definition, which you are referring to, the "normal" definition? Or, is the word "normal" just used to put the idea into others that 'My' definition is not normal and therefore more likely to be wrong, while 'your' "normal" definition would be appearing as to be more obviously right??

Better to have a normal definition than fail to have ANY definition at all.

All we have from you is "intelligence" is something that Einstein did not have more of than any other.

Pretty poor.

And you reading of course would not be "pretty poor", would it?

Everything that has happened here is always My fault and not yours, from your perspective, am I right?

What you have from Me is what I have given.

If you would like to go back and check before making wrong assumptions again and jumping to wrong conclusions like this, then maybe you will stop proving with evidence what I am consistently suggesting is a better thing do, i.e., stop making assumptions without proof.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Everything that has happened here is always My fault and not yours, from your perspective, am I right?

What you have from Me is what I have given.

If you would like to go back and check before making wrong assumptions again and jumping to wrong conclusions like this, then maybe you will stop proving with evidence what I am consistently suggesting is a better thing do, i.e., stop making assumptions without proof.

It's nothing to do with "fault". This is not a church. This is a philosophy forum.

It's about you making an unconsidered remark, and then going to ridiculous lengths to support it with a definition that is nonsense.

[ken]

In context yes. In the first line represents HC's claim, which runs counter to yours: Not all people have equal intelligence.
The next line is your claim: Einstein is not more intelligent than any other person.
The third line is the result of that: Therefore Einstein would have to be the dumbest person in the world. (This being a result of Einstein not being smarter than any other person)
It was just a differently worded explanation of Hobbes' point.

Ah okay I can see that. But that would of course depend on if all human beings have equal intelligence or not. And, I should have also written it in a way to make it quite clear that to Me einstein is not less intelligent than any other person also.

You addition means nothing.

That is okay if that is what you believe is true. I certainly do NOT want to change your beliefs if you do not want to change them. I have already numerous times explained what the better thing to do here regarding beliefs and believing.

You are claiming that Einstein was no more, nor less intelligent than ANY other person. QED all humans have the same intelligence.

Yes, that is exactly what I am claiming, as long as you change the word 'person' to 'human being'.

But you are not saying what you mean by intelligence.

Not true. You have either overlooked what I was saying what I mean by 'intelligence', forgotten what I wrote, in too much of a rush to prove that I am "wrong", or just plainly refuse to accept what I mean and so disregarded it completely.

Here are some of the consequences of your claim.
1) You are as intelligent as Einstein
2) I am as intelligent as Einstein.
3) a person with half of his brain removed is as intelligent as Einstein, is as intelligent as you and me.

You have the intelligence of a person with half a brain.

I like the way 'your' conclusion only includes 'Me' and does NOT include 'you'. Yet the premises lead to otherwise. lol

Anyway, are you able to and do you know the answer to "Who am 'I'?" If not, then proposing what 'you' and 'I' are as intelligent to any other thing would NEED to be looked into much greater depth and looked at into much greater detail.

The actual consequences of My claim is within ALL human beings the capacity for intelligence is equal. So, there is no need to label any person. All human beings, from birth till death, are ALL equally the same in this regard. That is of course depending on HOW a person is observing, i.e., either looking from the brain or from the Mind.

[Hobbes' Choice]

, i.e., either looking from the brain or from the Mind.

Okay - we can conclude that you have the intelligence of a person, or human being (makes no difference), with half a brain.
Good.
Have a nice day!

[ken]

This is embarrassing.

Please supply your definition of intelligence that complies with that claim!!!
You are just making a fool of yourself.

Let's put it another way.
You used the word "intelligent" above. What do you mean by it?

Am I missing something here? Did I not provide My definition already? Wait I will go back and check.....Ah there it is. Page three, six posts down.

So, what exactly is embarrassing?

And, your statement; "You are just making a fool of yourself." may actually be true, right, and correct. That is of course depending on who's perspective it is coming from.

You are making a fool of yourself.

Why does your goal here in this forum appear to be to degrade others to make you look superior to them?

Summary: "Intelligence = ability to learn".

Finally you went and actually checked up BEFORE making another wrong assumption again. Congratulations. I wondered how long it would take you.

We do not all have the same ability to learn.
It is different for all of us both qualitatively and quantitatively.
You know that, I know that and anyone reading this knows that.

Therefore, according to you, I am WRONG. You have finally proven you are right. However, what is the purpose of you "proving" this? What does this lead to? What is the actual point that you are trying to make and show others?

Your "valid, sound" argument that,
We do not all have the same ability to learn, BECAUSE
The ability for all of us is different both qualitatively and quantitatively, AND BECAUSE
I know that, you know that and anyone reading this knows that.
Surely does prove that I am wrong and you are absolutely right.

Your argument here alone proves all this all by itself. Your attempt at an argument by the way just happens to coincidentally agree wholeheartedly with you have already gained and maintain as your beliefs, which were already stored within that brain, before you even looked at this, i.e., the already obtained and stored knowledge, which you continue to choose to believe as absolute truth, could not and would not have effected your ability to learn and understand what I have been saying, would it?

By the way I wonder if you had noticed at all, which others have and will notice, that you are doing EXACTLY what I have been pointing out all along here in this thread from the very first page and which einstein actually was also referring to in the OP of this thread, i.e., you are NOT using imagination, from the open Mind. You are ONLY using the limited knowledge, from the brain. That knowledge from which you obviously could NOT become any wiser with or from.

"Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world."

Do you ever wonder what einstein was meaning by this, or do you already believe you know exactly what he meant here?

"Imagination comes from the open Mind.

Knowledge comes from the brain.

Using imagination FIRST is needed to see newer or further things, and then he and we can use our already learned knowledge to verify its correctness.

Looking from the open Mind, where imagination exists, is more important than looking from the brain, where limited and limiting knowledge exists.

Obviously we can not discover newer and further knowledge from the knowledge that we have already gained, so it is far more important to learning to use the limitless imagination.

Einstein did not have more intelligence than any other human being. Einstein just used imagination first to look at the "world", prior to looking from his already gained limited knowledge.

What knowledge we already have and know is far too limiting to see the Universe the way It truly is."

This is why some people given all the opportunities achieve little and why some given few opportunities achieve much.
It is how some people contribute intelligent inventions and innovations, and how others, given every chance, having massive confidence and massive opportunities amount to nothing.

Okay thanks for "enlightening" Me further here. I had "NEVER" considered any of these things, before I wrote what I did. And, from your truly "wise" perspective here I can and will be able to now lead a much more knowledgeable life.

Could there be any thing further in this issue? Or, is what you wrote absolutely true, right, and correct, and enough evidence and proof has been provided, therefore there is nothing else nor no need to look at or for any thing else?

Are you saying here that every human being is born the way they are, each with varying degrees of ability to learn? If so, then because you believe I am making a fool of myself there is nothing I could achieve, no matter what, and all I will always amount to is nothing? Could a fool really achieve anything at all?

By the way, you have stated that you are clearly more intelligent than Men, so what IS the definition of 'intelligence' to you?

[Hobbes' Choice]

Am I missing something here? Did I not provide My definition already? Wait I will go back and check.....Ah there it is. Page three, six posts down.

So, what exactly is embarrassing?

And, your statement; "You are just making a fool of yourself." may actually be true, right, and correct. That is of course depending on who's perspective it is coming from.

You are making a fool of yourself.

Why does your goal here in this forum appear to be to degrade others to make you look superior to them?

Summary: "Intelligence = ability to learn".

Finally you went and actually checked up BEFORE making another wrong assumption again. Congratulations. I wondered how long it would take you.

We do not all have the same ability to learn.
It is different for all of us both qualitatively and quantitatively.
You know that, I know that and anyone reading this knows that.

Therefore, according to you, I am WRONG. You have finally proven you are right. However, what is the purpose of you "proving" this? What does this lead to? What is the actual point that you are trying to make and show others?

Your "valid, sound" argument that,
We do not all have the same ability to learn, BECAUSE
The ability for all of us is different both qualitatively and quantitatively, AND BECAUSE
I know that, you know that and anyone reading this knows that.
Surely does prove that I am wrong and you are absolutely right.

Your argument here alone proves all this all by itself. Your attempt at an argument by the way just happens to coincidentally agree wholeheartedly with you have already gained and maintain as your beliefs, which were already stored within that brain, before you even looked at this, i.e., the already obtained and stored knowledge, which you continue to choose to believe as absolute truth, could not and would not have effected your ability to learn and understand what I have been saying, would it?

By the way I wonder if you had noticed at all, which others have and will notice, that you are doing EXACTLY what I have been pointing out all along here in this thread from the very first page and which einstein actually was also referring to in the OP of this thread, i.e., you are NOT using imagination, from the open Mind. You are ONLY using the limited knowledge, from the brain. That knowledge from which you obviously could NOT become any wiser with or from.

"Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world."

Do you ever wonder what einstein was meaning by this, or do you already believe you know exactly what he meant here?

"Imagination comes from the open Mind.

Knowledge comes from the brain.

Using imagination FIRST is needed to see newer or further things, and then he and we can use our already learned knowledge to verify its correctness.

Looking from the open Mind, where imagination exists, is more important than looking from the brain, where limited and limiting knowledge exists.

Obviously we can not discover newer and further knowledge from the knowledge that we have already gained, so it is far more important to learning to use the limitless imagination.

Einstein did not have more intelligence than any other human being. Einstein just used imagination first to look at the "world", prior to looking from his already gained limited knowledge.

What knowledge we already have and know is far too limiting to see the Universe the way It truly is."

This is why some people given all the opportunities achieve little and why some given few opportunities achieve much.
It is how some people contribute intelligent inventions and innovations, and how others, given every chance, having massive confidence and massive opportunities amount to nothing.

Okay thanks for "enlightening" Me further here. I had "NEVER" considered any of these things, before I wrote what I did. And, from your truly "wise" perspective here I can and will be able to now lead a much more knowledgeable life.

Could there be any thing further in this issue? Or, is what you wrote absolutely true, right, and correct, and enough evidence and proof has been provided, therefore there is nothing else nor no need to look at or for any thing else?

Are you saying here that every human being is born the way they are, each with varying degrees of ability to learn? If so, then because you believe I am making a fool of myself there is nothing I could achieve, no matter what, and all I will always amount to is nothing? Could a fool really achieve anything at all?

By the way, you have stated that you are clearly more intelligent than Men, so what IS the definition of 'intelligence' to you?

Please refer to the post I made earlier today.

[ken]

Everything that has happened here is always My fault and not yours, from your perspective, am I right?

What you have from Me is what I have given.

If you would like to go back and check before making wrong assumptions again and jumping to wrong conclusions like this, then maybe you will stop proving with evidence what I am consistently suggesting is a better thing do, i.e., stop making assumptions without proof.

It's nothing to do with "fault". This is not a church. This is a philosophy forum.

But you are the one who kept accusing Me of NOT providing a definition. So, you were blaming Me thus saying it was My fault for not providing an answer. When the truth is I did. You, for some reason, did not (want to) know this fact.

You do realize what 'philosophy' was once based upon?

It's about you making an unconsidered remark,

Another completely wrong assumption.

It will be discovered that I have considered this and the rest far more than you could ever have imagined.

and then going to ridiculous lengths to support it with a definition that is nonsense.

Are you suggesting a dictionary's definition of intelligence is nonsense?

Again what is 'your' sensible and normal definition of 'intelligence'? Which when looked at in reference to every other thing will that lead to and provide an accurate picture of life as it really is? Will it further humans knowledge in producing a better more meaningful life for others?

What you have provided here only leads back to the exact same old questions and problems that human beings have been trying to answer and solve for millenniums.

As I have stated previously you seem to be here only to make others, especially Me, look stupid and foolish.

[ken]

, i.e., either looking from the brain or from the Mind.

Okay - we can conclude that you have the intelligence of a person, or human being (makes no difference), with half a brain.
Good.
Have a nice day!

Who is 'we'?

There is a huge difference between a person and a human being. You say it makes no difference so what is the definition of 'person' and 'human being'? But I guess you only need to provide one definition because it "makes no difference", to you.

Again, an attempt at an insult. To put others down your hoping that will build you up?

By the way have you provided the definition of 'intelligence' yet?