Albert Einstein

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 8931
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Albert Einstein

Post by FlashDangerpants »

ken wrote: how do you then logically follow and jump from the first sentence, to, Einstein was the most stupid person on the planet ever?
And, if that is not the case, then I am therefore wrong?


I put them in bold so they are easy to notice. Obviously, to you, I am clearly not as intelligent as you, therefore that is probably the reason why I can not see the logical leap from your first sentence to your second sentence
He presented you with a very simple syllogism Ken.

All intellects are not equal.
Einstein is not more intelligent than any other person
Therefore Einstein has the least intellect.

You are using the wrong approach to argue against him. You can't try and make a stand that the second and third parts are foolish because the second part is your claim, and the third logically follows if the first two are true. Your only way out now is to show that all intellects are equal.
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8360
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Albert Einstein

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

ken wrote: Oh I nearly forgot. You never did finish explaining by answering My two last questions: ?
Jesus!!!

If you were half as intelligent as you think you are you'd still be twice as intelligence as you appear to be.

I explained this in full already.
I explained it in a way a small child would have understood.


Now, before you go into hysterics, the argument is very , very simple. I am puzzled why you have not grasped that. Maybe you need to apply that wonderful and homogenous intelligence you claim that all humans share and read back what has been said,

But you will clear this up simply by supplying a definition of intelligence that conforms to the claim that we all have an equal amount of it. Until you do, you are, and shall remain, WRONG.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Albert Einstein

Post by ken »

surreptitious57 wrote:
ken wrote:
To me the open Mind is limitless in Its capability to imagine. This is obviously proven by every human made creation
But those creations were not the product of limitless imagination since if they were they would not need to be improved upon
If that is what you say, then so be it.
surreptitious57 wrote:Future generations of minds capable of doing that obviously possess greater imaginations than the previous generations before them.
Your definition of 'Mind' is obviously totally different than Mine. It was you who stated that the Mind is not separate from the brain right?
surreptitious57 wrote: This is why your use of limitless in describing imagination is wrong since it is demonstrably not so.
If you insist I am wrong, then you must know what is right. I accept that is what you believe.
surreptitious57 wrote: Imagination certainly increases over time. But there is no point at which it becomes absolute. Which is what the term limitless imagination suggests
Okay I accept that also is what you believe.

I have never said I have come to this forum to prove what I am saying. I have just come here to learn how to express and communicate better with human beings.

I have continually stated I do not want people making assumptions about what I write and them also having beliefs. I can not have discussions that way. It just takes way too long. I want My views, which by the way are just views and only what I think is right, to be challenged with clarifying questions. Obviously if people want to tell Me that I am wrong, then so be it. I have already explained My views about right and wrong.
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8360
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Albert Einstein

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

FlashDangerpants wrote:
ken wrote: how do you then logically follow and jump from the first sentence, to, Einstein was the most stupid person on the planet ever?
And, if that is not the case, then I am therefore wrong?


I put them in bold so they are easy to notice. Obviously, to you, I am clearly not as intelligent as you, therefore that is probably the reason why I can not see the logical leap from your first sentence to your second sentence
He presented you with a very simple syllogism Ken.

All intellects are not equal.
Einstein is not more intelligent than any other person
Therefore Einstein has the least intellect.

You are using the wrong approach to argue against him. You can't try and make a stand that the second and third parts are foolish because the second part is your claim, and the third logically follows if the first two are true. Your only way out now is to show that all intellects are equal.
Actually I am not presenting any syllogism, though yours does encompass the problem. My objection is empirical. The claim being mad is that "Einstein is not more intelligent than any other person". This is so obviously false as we all know that intelligence varies. If it varies then that would make (as you say) Einstein the most stupid. OR "Intelligence" is not quantitatively variable.

Ken's only solution is to offer an explanation of his definition of intelligence that could be used to support his claim.
He has refused to comply with this simple request, and has not bothered to otherwise support his argument in any other fashion except to claim that I have not explained myself.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 8931
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Albert Einstein

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Yeah, I'm not sure that technically counts as a proper syllogism either.

I probably just wanted to join in!


Have I been infected with a nasty case of Willtrack? I might need scrubbing with Dettol and a wire brush.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Albert Einstein

Post by ken »

FlashDangerpants wrote:Ken, if your claim is that you are every bit as intelligent as Einstein (or even our resident genius Hexhammer - notoriously the only clever person around these parts!), it's not unfair to ask you to explain this apparent anomaly by giving an account of what intelligence is.

You can surely recognise that the suggestion is highly unintuitive. And being as clever as everyone else, you can see what we can see - which is that it needs justification.

You may feel that HC has demonstrated bad manners in his method of asking. But that remains to be seen, as if all people are, counter-intuitively, equally smart; perhaps this same logic will apply and we may turn out to all be equally polite as well. Either way, the question is dangling and we all would like to know ASAP if we are truly our own private little Einsteins!
Besides the assumptions made in the first sentence, thank you very much for asking for clarification.
To Me 'intelligence' just means the ability to learn, understand, and reason. The ability to, is the main part, and can only come from the open Mind because what has already been learned, understood, and reasoned is already held or stored within the brain. Of course My perspective of Mind and brain is different and unintuitive to others, but that is for later.

As for "little einsteins", i think, we ALL have this ability to learn, understand, and reason. It is, to Me, what separates human beings from all the other animals. The first human being to imagine the wheel for example certainly did not come to imagine that by just using the already gathered knowledge in the brain. Obviously if something has not been invented yet, then imagination is needed first for it to even be conceptualized. That person who first imagined a wheel had to think "outside of square" literally. This way of thinking or imagining outside of and/or beyond and past the "normal" or intuitive thinking comes from the open Mind. 'Intuitive', for this thread, is the knowledge that we have already stored in the brain. To Me "unintuitive" is the brand new ideas, beyond any known knowledge. This can only come from imagining or imagination.
'Intellect' is the already gathered and stored knowledge one person has. This is what is used to pass exams, tests, etc. and to gain qualifications. How intellectual a person is absolutely not level. Every person has different amounts of intellect, all depending on how much knowledge and what types of knowledge they have stored/remembered.
'Intelligence', however, is just the ability to learn, understand, and reason. This ability is what is needed to discover, invent, and create any thing new. To Me, every human being is equally able to learn, understand, and reason. Besides the very obvious and extremely rare cases each human being is able to learn, understand and reason something that is beyond our basic survival instincts. This idea has to also be looked at from the perspective of ALL human beings as a species also. As it has already been alluded we need to look at over time human beings' the ability to learn, understand, and reason newer things all the time.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 8931
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Albert Einstein

Post by FlashDangerpants »

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.

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?
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Albert Einstein

Post by ken »

surreptitious57 wrote:
ken wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote: You presumably think then that intelligence is uniform rather than across a spectrum?
How therefore do you account for the apparently obvious differences in intelligence?
Are you making a distinction between potential intelligence and actual intelligence?
If everyone is of equal intelligence are exams and qualifications rather superfluous?
Yes that is My view but obviously that has to be taken into perspective
( Also I like how you assumed what My answer would be before I gave it )
No I do not see a distinction between potential and actual intelligence. Intelligence is intelligence
What do exams and qualifications have at all to do with intelligence? To Me those things only have to do with intellect
I was not assuming your answer but trying to see what your reasoning was since your position is unusual is it not?
That seems funny to think of one's own position as unusual, so the obvious answer is no, but of course it would be totally unusual to any person who usually thought the other or opposite way. By the way what I am saying here is not on its own. It needs to be looked at in conjunction with everything else to see where it is all coming from and where it logically leads. But all of that is way too big for the short replies allowed here. I have already been ridiculed for writing too lengthy posts. Also, not that it really matters in this case your first question was asked obviously from a presumptive thought and your second question was asked from the assumed answer to the first question, to Me.
surreptitious57 wrote:I like the distinction you make between intellect and intelligence but do you not think they are inter connected?
Yes, 'intellect' is what has been already learned, and, 'intelligence' is the ability to learn. One example is a strongly held belief, of what has been already learned, can stop completely the ability to further learn more or newer.
surreptitious57 wrote:And are not some exams a means of measuring intellect rather than intelligence and do you think they are valid?
Depending on the exam, of course, i would guess most exams are measuring intellect rather than intelligence. I think you might find on most IQ tests there are quite are few intellectual questions, which will not really expose how much intelligence one is using. If people want their doctors or pilots to know their "stuff" then taking exams to measure how much they actually do know, intellectually, on their proposed profession i would think is very valid indeed.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Albert Einstein

Post by ken »

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
ken wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:Please tell me what your definition is of intelligence such that all humans are equally blessed with the same ability.

...
But did you or did you not just reiterate that: "It really does not matter at all how you define intelligence - you are still wrong to say we all are the same in that respect."

You are confusing the readers here. What is you actually want? Why would I give you My definition of 'intelligence' when it really does not matter at all - and I would still be wrong, no matter what I said?

You have said that I am wrong. I just hope you will stand on exactly what you said and can back it up also like Me.
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.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Albert Einstein

Post by ken »

FlashDangerpants wrote:
ken wrote: how do you then logically follow and jump from the first sentence, to, Einstein was the most stupid person on the planet ever?
And, if that is not the case, then I am therefore wrong?


I put them in bold so they are easy to notice. Obviously, to you, I am clearly not as intelligent as you, therefore that is probably the reason why I can not see the logical leap from your first sentence to your second sentence
He presented you with a very simple syllogism Ken.

All intellects are not equal.
Einstein is not more intelligent than any other person
Therefore Einstein has the least intellect.

You are using the wrong approach to argue against him. You can't try and make a stand that the second and third parts are foolish because the second part is your claim, and the third logically follows if the first two are true. Your only way out now is to show that all intellects are equal.
I was NOT trying to argue against him. I was only asking a clarifying question.

I think people have Me wrong here. I am NOT saying nor insisting anything i say here is right. They are only views I have, which I think are right, but could also be just as easily wrong. If there is anything wrong then I would like to know about it. Obviously I do not see the wrongness otherwise I would not write the way i do. Just point out WHERE that wrongness is and most importantly WHY it is wrong. If it makes sense to Me and follows on further to what I want to achieve then I will acknowledge that, accept it, and agree with it. But I will still not say it IS wholeheartedly right because then I am not open to others showing Me the wrongness, if there is any, in what I further write.

By the way in the syllogism how did the word 'intellect' get into it? Is it because the word 'intelligence' does not work in the first sentence, or some other reason? I know you say it is a very simple syllogism and I know that I am very simple also, but I can not follow it.
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?
Therefore, how could and does einstein suddenly become the least?

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.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 8931
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Albert Einstein

Post by FlashDangerpants »

ken wrote: 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.
ken wrote: 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.

Consider it as array of numbers. Alice = 10; Bob = 11; Carol = 12.
If the numbers in the array are not equals, and if Einstein is not > than any other person, then Einstein must = 10 or lower.
ken wrote: 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/intellect

So you are going to need to cope with the tendency of other people to treat intellect and intelligence as pretty much synonymous.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4257
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Albert Einstein

Post by surreptitious57 »

ken wrote:
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
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Albert Einstein

Post by ken »

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
ken wrote: Oh I nearly forgot. You never did finish explaining by answering My two last questions: ?
Jesus!!!

If you were half as intelligent as you think you are you'd still be twice as intelligence as you appear to be.

I explained this in full already.
I explained it in a way a small child would have understood.
That is a huge claim. I hope you could and would back that up if needed to.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Now, before you go into hysterics, the argument is very , very simple. I am puzzled why you have not grasped that. Maybe you need to apply that wonderful and homogenous intelligence you claim that all humans share and read back what has been said,
I looked back and could only find this:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
ken wrote:
Talking about getting some clarification; who is the 'we', and, who are the 'others' in your first sentence? And, how do you then logically follow and jump from that, to, Einstein was the most stupid person on the planet ever?
And, if that is not the case, then I am therefore wrong?
For fucks sake! Really?

"we" is humanity. and Einstein is one among millions of "us". We all have different abilities and capabilities.
It really does not matter at all how you define intelligence - you are still wrong to say we all are the same in that respect.

I think you just said something poorly considered, and have made this ridiculous step of trying to defend a stupid comment.
But I'll play along..."
There is NOTHING in there that I can see that explained it in any way, let alone in full, besides explaining the first sentence, which I have already said you did already. I can not see anything at all that could closely resemble that you "explained it in a way a small child would have understood". You do know you have to answer the questions first, before you can claim that you have explained it already, do not you? Maybe I missed it on my searching. Of course it is not up to Me to find and show where you say you did something. I just can not find it, but of course that does not mean you did not do it, that just means if you want to prove that you did, then it is up to you to show all of us here whereabouts you actually say you did do it. I am sure others would like to see your "explanations" also otherwise your statements like this; "If you were half as intelligent as you think you are you'd still be twice as intelligence as you appear to be." are looking more stranger all the time. Remember I NEVER said I was intelligent. I have just implied, and open to be discussed, that every human being has equal intelligence. Therefore, making what you assume i am doing very wrong.

By the way, why would you also assume I would go into hysterics? I am just reading what you are writing, and not writing what you say you did, and just replying. There is no need for emotional language to try to sideline the issues here.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:But you will clear this up simply by supplying a definition of intelligence that conforms to the claim that we all have an equal amount of it.
Of course that is what I would and will do. I will cut and paste one from a dictionary if you like. Where do you get your definitions from?

Are you suggesting by your statement here that you simply supply definitions to a word(s), which would NOT conform to what you claim? What else could you imply by that statement? What else would you think I would do?
Hobbes' Choice wrote:Until you do, you are, and shall remain, WRONG.
Thank you for pointing that out to everyone AGAIN, for the third time now in this thread. I really do enjoy when people make assumptions, especially in the open on a forum like this, before they gain any clarification.

And, what is more interesting and amusing to witness is when their beliefs will override them to not look at and see anything else other than the WRONG in others, and only the RIGHT in what they themselves believe is RIGHT.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Albert Einstein

Post by ken »

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
FlashDangerpants wrote:
ken wrote: how do you then logically follow and jump from the first sentence, to, Einstein was the most stupid person on the planet ever?
And, if that is not the case, then I am therefore wrong?


I put them in bold so they are easy to notice. Obviously, to you, I am clearly not as intelligent as you, therefore that is probably the reason why I can not see the logical leap from your first sentence to your second sentence
He presented you with a very simple syllogism Ken.

All intellects are not equal.
Einstein is not more intelligent than any other person
Therefore Einstein has the least intellect.

You are using the wrong approach to argue against him. You can't try and make a stand that the second and third parts are foolish because the second part is your claim, and the third logically follows if the first two are true. Your only way out now is to show that all intellects are equal.
Actually I am not presenting any syllogism, though yours does encompass the problem. My objection is empirical. The claim being mad is that "Einstein is not more intelligent than any other person". This is so obviously false as we all know that intelligence varies.
If 'one does not know' that intelligence varies, then 'we all know' that, is false.
I do 'not know' that intelligence varies.
Therefore, if "einstein is not more intelligent than any other person" is still open for discussion.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:If it varies then that would make (as you say) Einstein the most stupid.
'Not more intelligent' does NOT mean 'less intelligent'. Although I may not have stipulated it, I can not recall, but just because a named person is said to be 'not more intelligent' than any other person, then that in no way infers that they are 'less intelligent' in any way whatsoever.
Hobbes' Choice wrote: OR "Intelligence" is not quantitatively variable.

Ken's only solution is to offer an explanation of his definition of intelligence that could be used to support his claim.
He has refused to comply with this simple request, and has not bothered to otherwise support his argument in any other fashion except to claim that I have not explained myself.
I had NOT refused any such thing. I just waited for the "right" time to respond. Your inability to wait, even after your claim of:
"I'm waiting...."

IS telling.

I had thought I had made it very clear by now that I am a very slow and simple one, so I may take a bit longer than others to reply. I also did not know if there is a time limite to respond or not.
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8360
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Albert Einstein

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

ken wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
ken wrote:


But did you or did you not just reiterate that: "It really does not matter at all how you define intelligence - you are still wrong to say we all are the same in that respect."

You are confusing the readers here. What is you actually want? Why would I give you My definition of 'intelligence' when it really does not matter at all - and I would still be wrong, no matter what I said?

You have said that I am wrong. I just hope you will stand on exactly what you said and can back it up also like Me.
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?
Post Reply