Philosophy Now Forum

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Greta wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
I know this is a fiction, but there is much truth in it.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/
Evolution is the consequence of reproductive success. As any fool can have a baby, or many babies; foolishness is as much an adaptive trait as any other.
If you have to pass an intelligence test before conceiving, then babies more likely to pass the same test would be born.

In some ways civilisation was no friend of preferred evolution, if your preference is smartness.

PS By LUCA do you mean Lucy? Clearly being a naked ape in a natural environment demanded only the smartest ape would thrive to be able to have successful progeny.

LOL no, not Lucy (fun movie). LUCA stands for "last universal common ancestor". Basically some very basic microbe, the opposite of Lucy.

Yes, any fool can breed, but most of them seem to be doing it tough. As in nature, small species with hazardous lives tend to breed rapidly and die young while the big and powerful breed slowly but live much longer. Ditto the rich and poor to some extent.

There's some merit to the idea of gross stupidity in the future based on the increased vapid descent into reality TV and shallow, overcooked display behaviours. Orwell and Huxley had roughly the same idea, but bear in mind that that's the LCD. By definition, they've never been too flash.

Specialisation, while making human groups more powerful, disempowers individuals. Specialised group members have strong abilities in a few areas but numerous deficits, as compared with the more rounded skills of ancient peoples. Heh, or of our great grandparents for that matter.

Okay - so the reason I did not recognise LUCA is that you are misusing the term. TO invoke such a concept you have to take TWO or more species and look back to the point in evolution where they diverged. Since you had not mentioned any species in particular then you've said nothing.
Additionally since you use the phrase "...the biosphere has done from "LUCA" to its current Holocene form." This implies you do not understand the term since LUCA cannot have a current form, but a multitude of forms in the present day; otherwise you are again not making sense.
Thirdly - LUCA cannot have an "opposite". Lucy could be a LUCA depending on what ever comparison you are making between two or more variations of human.

On the matter of specialisation; I don't think this problem applies somatically to humanity. It is however a serious problem introduced by civilisation at times of quick change, where people trained in specific skills end up on the scrap-heap. On an evolutionary scale the simple reason that babies are fairly blank slates, specialisation is no biggy. There are very few people who are not capable of a range of skills; its really mostly about learning.
Obviously some people are less capable of a range of skills acquisition than others.
For myself, I pride myself on being fairly Palaeolithic, being a generalist. My skills sets include art, craft, cooking, computer skills, growing vegetables, keeping animals for food, vehicle mechanics. I also have a Masters in Intellectual History and an interest in philosophy. I can play a drumkit, build stonework, and do carpentry. Sculpture alone encompasses a range of skills; most artists delegate their work to others, whilst I prefer to do the whole bang shoot.

My point was only to think of the first life forms and contrast with contemporary life. Since we can't identify the first species I opted for LUCA. Yes, it's a concept not a critter. Okay, the point can be just as well made replacing "LUCA" with "the first simple life".

I too am a generalist and I list amongst my major skills: long-winded pontification, confusion and overreaching . Then again, I don't tend to mistake "the map for the territory" but have a helluva hard time trying to derive territories from maps as evidenced by what is a good example of a modern deficit caused by specialisation - I'm navigationally challenged.

BTW I also play drums (a few musicians here, Felix plays bass and Alec, guitar) and I used to do some visual creative things like cartooning, digital art, graphic design and web design, and had a range of other jobs - data/performance analysis and reporting, OH&S, legal secretary, HR practitioner, payroll clerk, floor supervisor, workplace and technical trainer, optical dispenser and factory worker. That's more of the "old school" eclecticism coming out.

Being a generalist has often lead me to wonder about the depth of my thinking - why do I invariably get too bored with minutiae to specialise effectively? It would seem a lack of connection and focus, because that which we understand tends to be interesting (although that is also a reflection of prior leaning preferences and attention).

I've long thought of myself as a Jill of all trades but in recent decades specialisation has tended to provide the best job prospects today unless you have the kind of personality that's suited to management. Yet, as you say, the very specialist qualities that will win you a job make you more expendable when technology advances. My old data analysis work is all done by programs now. The bespoke elements of my human output were rendered trivial by the increased speed, reliability, functionality and cheapness of technology.

The situation reminds me of the promises made in the 70s and 80s about how automation will lead to a glorious new leisure age. Maybe in another few hundred years if nothing too exciting happens in the interim ...

ken wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:
I am sorry. But intelligence is definitely a hereditary trait. However there is a range within which that intelligence falls and the environment in which the person grows up will determine whether he or she will be at the upper or lower end of the range. And I think you are confusing doing stupid things and smart things with intelligence. Intelligence has to do with cognitive abilities. How you use your intelligence is decided by your temperament where again a lot of behavioural traits are governed by genetics.

By the use of the word 'definitely' in your "intelligence is definitely a hereditary trait" statement then that means you believe wholeheartedly that what I write is definitely wrong and what you think and/or believe and write is definitely right. Therefore, there is nothing i can say nor do to show otherwise. I accept that this is the case here for now.

Okay. Let me clarify something. If you plan to ignore the available data on the subject, then we really have nothing to discuss, because I cannot argue with anyone who ignores that. So instead of trying to prove me wrong, why don't you just check why I said that?

ken wrote:I am not confusing doing stupid things and smart things with intelligence. I just use the word 'intelligence' differently than you. There is no particular right or wrong way to use 'a' word. But if all the words I use, and the definitions of those words that I give, shows me a true and FULL big picture of Life and of a much more meaningful Life without any confusion at all, then I think this is better than using words that one is not really able to explain fully and will actually be shown to contradict what they are saying. For example;

Intelligence may have to do with cognitive abilities. But I will ask you, "What exactly are 'those abilities', and how exactly do they have to do with intelligence, to you?" And, "What by the way exactly is 'intelligence', to you?"

If we are communicating in a common language, then it is necessary that your usage of terms remains the same. If using different meanings for a word suits your purpose, fine, but you cannot expect to get any point across to other people who understand the word differently.

However, if a definition of a word contradicts your theory, I would suggest you revisit your theory rather than change the meaning of the word.

"Intelligence has been defined in many different ways including one's capacity for logic, understanding, self-awareness, learning, emotional knowledge, memory, planning, creativity, adaptive behavior, problem solving and self-control. It can be more generally described as the ability to perceive information, and retain it as knowledge to be applied towards adaptive behaviors within an environment or context." (This is copied and pasted from the first paragraph of the first page of the second search title from google. You could easily have done that to understand what I mean by intelligence. I use every word as it means in common parlance so that I don't confuse other people. The next time you need to know what I mean by a word, just look for the conventional definition or description.)

ken wrote:Let us start by you giving your meanings and definitions. I am very interested to learn and know what 'intelligence' is exactly, and how intelligence is definitely a hereditary trait. Please explain. i am all ears.Then, we can and will see who is actually confusing things.

Like I said above. My meanings and definition are what you will find used in conventional language. All you have to do is look at a dictionary or encyclopedia to know what I mean when I use a particular word. You don't have to ask me.

As far as intelligence being a hereditary trait is concerned, just go to google.com and type in the words "is intelligence a hereditary trait" in the search bar. You will find enough pages to satisfy you.

ken wrote:If by the way you start to feel you unable to explain, or that you are just not ready yet, or that you are starting to contradict yourself, in your definitions or in what you mean, then do not feel embarrassed nor ashamed. .

I am not unable to explain. You don't seem to understand that some of your questions are so basic, that it would take me months to explain to you what that word actually means or implies to the world. You have not done your homework. You need to use google more. Take for example your understanding of evolution. How on earth can I explain to you what I mean by evolution?I mean what the book says. I mean what data available says. It is a subject matter in itself. It is like asking some to explain what quantum physics is. If we want to discuss evolution you should have sufficient knowledge of the subject to negate it. How can you negate it without knowing what it actually is?

ken wrote:I can accept what every person does because I understand WHY every person does it, I may not like what they do and I seriously want to change those wrong behaviors that every person does, including ken, but I can not help them to change if they do not want to help themselves. Thus the reason I am here. By continually learning how to better express, i.e., be heard, I can then be better heard. I want to express what I see as being a way that people can find answers by themselves, and that is done by seriously wanting to change one's own wrong behaviors, but as duszek so rightly said,

Now you are in lecture mode. I don't want lectures. I have a wife for that.

ken wrote:"It seems to me that Truth and meaningful answers to questions like, "Who am 'I'?", "What is our purpose for being here?", etc., etc. are found not in the search for them but just by wanting to change one's self, for the better, in a truly open and honest manner. The truth is no person is perfect and so makes mistakes, i.e., does wrong. In the seeking of help in how to change myself, for the better, I "stumbled" across answers, which were revealed to me, by just being totally open and honest to and with everything that was happening around me. By truly listening ALL answers and Truth is revealed.

You are going by the assumption that I want to know my purpose for being here. A purpose signifies a source that sent me for the purpose. Well, if that sender was foolish enough to not tell me what my purpose was, why should I bother to find it? He or it sent me for a purpose. He or it had a job for me to do. He or it should have told me what it was if He or it wanted the job done. Now the job won't get done. Not my loss. His or It's loss. I am not going to waste my life looking for a purpose that the sender should have had the foresight to tell me.

As far as the "who am I" is concerned, my father taught me at a very young age to introspect. So I don't have any problem with that question anymore, though I learn something new about me frequently.

sthitapragya wrote:

ken wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:
I am sorry. But intelligence is definitely a hereditary trait. However there is a range within which that intelligence falls and the environment in which the person grows up will determine whether he or she will be at the upper or lower end of the range. And I think you are confusing doing stupid things and smart things with intelligence. Intelligence has to do with cognitive abilities. How you use your intelligence is decided by your temperament where again a lot of behavioural traits are governed by genetics.

By the use of the word 'definitely' in your "intelligence is definitely a hereditary trait" statement then that means you believe wholeheartedly that what I write is definitely wrong and what you think and/or believe and write is definitely right. Therefore, there is nothing i can say nor do to show otherwise. I accept that this is the case here for now.

Okay. Let me clarify something. If you plan to ignore the available data on the subject, then we really have nothing to discuss, because I cannot argue with anyone who ignores that. So instead of trying to prove me wrong, why don't you just check why I said that?

ken wrote:I am not confusing doing stupid things and smart things with intelligence. I just use the word 'intelligence' differently than you. There is no particular right or wrong way to use 'a' word. But if all the words I use, and the definitions of those words that I give, shows me a true and FULL big picture of Life and of a much more meaningful Life without any confusion at all, then I think this is better than using words that one is not really able to explain fully and will actually be shown to contradict what they are saying. For example;

Intelligence may have to do with cognitive abilities. But I will ask you, "What exactly are 'those abilities', and how exactly do they have to do with intelligence, to you?" And, "What by the way exactly is 'intelligence', to you?"

If we are communicating in a common language, then it is necessary that your usage of terms remains the same. If using different meanings for a word suits your purpose, fine, but you cannot expect to get any point across to other people who understand the word differently.

However, if a definition of a word contradicts your theory, I would suggest you revisit your theory rather than change the meaning of the word.

"Intelligence has been defined in many different ways including one's capacity for logic, understanding, self-awareness, learning, emotional knowledge, memory, planning, creativity, adaptive behavior, problem solving and self-control. It can be more generally described as the ability to perceive information, and retain it as knowledge to be applied towards adaptive behaviors within an environment or context." (This is copied and pasted from the first paragraph of the first page of the second search title from google. You could easily have done that to understand what I mean by intelligence. I use every word as it means in common parlance so that I don't confuse other people. The next time you need to know what I mean by a word, just look for the conventional definition or description.)

ken wrote:Let us start by you giving your meanings and definitions. I am very interested to learn and know what 'intelligence' is exactly, and how intelligence is definitely a hereditary trait. Please explain. i am all ears.Then, we can and will see who is actually confusing things.

Like I said above. My meanings and definition are what you will find used in conventional language. All you have to do is look at a dictionary or encyclopedia to know what I mean when I use a particular word. You don't have to ask me.

As far as intelligence being a hereditary trait is concerned, just go to google.com and type in the words "is intelligence a hereditary trait" in the search bar. You will find enough pages to satisfy you.

ken wrote:If by the way you start to feel you unable to explain, or that you are just not ready yet, or that you are starting to contradict yourself, in your definitions or in what you mean, then do not feel embarrassed nor ashamed. .

I am not unable to explain. You don't seem to understand that some of your questions are so basic, that it would take me months to explain to you what that word actually means or implies to the world. You have not done your homework. You need to use google more. Take for example your understanding of evolution. How on earth can I explain to you what I mean by evolution?I mean what the book says. I mean what data available says. It is a subject matter in itself. It is like asking some to explain what quantum physics is. If we want to discuss evolution you should have sufficient knowledge of the subject to negate it. How can you negate it without knowing what it actually is?

ken wrote:I can accept what every person does because I understand WHY every person does it, I may not like what they do and I seriously want to change those wrong behaviors that every person does, including ken, but I can not help them to change if they do not want to help themselves. Thus the reason I am here. By continually learning how to better express, i.e., be heard, I can then be better heard. I want to express what I see as being a way that people can find answers by themselves, and that is done by seriously wanting to change one's own wrong behaviors, but as duszek so rightly said,

Now you are in lecture mode. I don't want lectures. I have a wife for that.

ken wrote:"It seems to me that Truth and meaningful answers to questions like, "Who am 'I'?", "What is our purpose for being here?", etc., etc. are found not in the search for them but just by wanting to change one's self, for the better, in a truly open and honest manner. The truth is no person is perfect and so makes mistakes, i.e., does wrong. In the seeking of help in how to change myself, for the better, I "stumbled" across answers, which were revealed to me, by just being totally open and honest to and with everything that was happening around me. By truly listening ALL answers and Truth is revealed.

You are going by the assumption that I want to know my purpose for being here. A purpose signifies a source that sent me for the purpose. Well, if that sender was foolish enough to not tell me what my purpose was, why should I bother to find it? He or it sent me for a purpose. He or it had a job for me to do. He or it should have told me what it was if He or it wanted the job done. Now the job won't get done. Not my loss. His or It's loss. I am not going to waste my life looking for a purpose that the sender should have had the foresight to tell me.

As far as the "who am I" is concerned, my father taught me at a very young age to introspect. So I don't have any problem with that question anymore, though I learn something new about me frequently.

You have misconstrued and/or taken almost everything I have said out of context.

The definitions I have used for words I get straight from a dictionary. I usually use the most simplest definition so not to confuse the issue. Even when I write it down word for word from a dictionary's definition you still insist I am confused and have got it wrong.

If I am wrong, then so be it. At least I am not learning something new about 'me' frequently. I already know 'Me'.

ken wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:

ken wrote:
By the use of the word 'definitely' in your "intelligence is definitely a hereditary trait" statement then that means you believe wholeheartedly that what I write is definitely wrong and what you think and/or believe and write is definitely right. Therefore, there is nothing i can say nor do to show otherwise. I accept that this is the case here for now.

Okay. Let me clarify something. If you plan to ignore the available data on the subject, then we really have nothing to discuss, because I cannot argue with anyone who ignores that. So instead of trying to prove me wrong, why don't you just check why I said that?

ken wrote:I am not confusing doing stupid things and smart things with intelligence. I just use the word 'intelligence' differently than you. There is no particular right or wrong way to use 'a' word. But if all the words I use, and the definitions of those words that I give, shows me a true and FULL big picture of Life and of a much more meaningful Life without any confusion at all, then I think this is better than using words that one is not really able to explain fully and will actually be shown to contradict what they are saying. For example;

Intelligence may have to do with cognitive abilities. But I will ask you, "What exactly are 'those abilities', and how exactly do they have to do with intelligence, to you?" And, "What by the way exactly is 'intelligence', to you?"

If we are communicating in a common language, then it is necessary that your usage of terms remains the same. If using different meanings for a word suits your purpose, fine, but you cannot expect to get any point across to other people who understand the word differently.

However, if a definition of a word contradicts your theory, I would suggest you revisit your theory rather than change the meaning of the word.

"Intelligence has been defined in many different ways including one's capacity for logic, understanding, self-awareness, learning, emotional knowledge, memory, planning, creativity, adaptive behavior, problem solving and self-control. It can be more generally described as the ability to perceive information, and retain it as knowledge to be applied towards adaptive behaviors within an environment or context." (This is copied and pasted from the first paragraph of the first page of the second search title from google. You could easily have done that to understand what I mean by intelligence. I use every word as it means in common parlance so that I don't confuse other people. The next time you need to know what I mean by a word, just look for the conventional definition or description.)

ken wrote:Let us start by you giving your meanings and definitions. I am very interested to learn and know what 'intelligence' is exactly, and how intelligence is definitely a hereditary trait. Please explain. i am all ears.Then, we can and will see who is actually confusing things.

Like I said above. My meanings and definition are what you will find used in conventional language. All you have to do is look at a dictionary or encyclopedia to know what I mean when I use a particular word. You don't have to ask me.

As far as intelligence being a hereditary trait is concerned, just go to google.com and type in the words "is intelligence a hereditary trait" in the search bar. You will find enough pages to satisfy you.

ken wrote:If by the way you start to feel you unable to explain, or that you are just not ready yet, or that you are starting to contradict yourself, in your definitions or in what you mean, then do not feel embarrassed nor ashamed. .

I am not unable to explain. You don't seem to understand that some of your questions are so basic, that it would take me months to explain to you what that word actually means or implies to the world. You have not done your homework. You need to use google more. Take for example your understanding of evolution. How on earth can I explain to you what I mean by evolution?I mean what the book says. I mean what data available says. It is a subject matter in itself. It is like asking some to explain what quantum physics is. If we want to discuss evolution you should have sufficient knowledge of the subject to negate it. How can you negate it without knowing what it actually is?

ken wrote:I can accept what every person does because I understand WHY every person does it, I may not like what they do and I seriously want to change those wrong behaviors that every person does, including ken, but I can not help them to change if they do not want to help themselves. Thus the reason I am here. By continually learning how to better express, i.e., be heard, I can then be better heard. I want to express what I see as being a way that people can find answers by themselves, and that is done by seriously wanting to change one's own wrong behaviors, but as duszek so rightly said,

Now you are in lecture mode. I don't want lectures. I have a wife for that.

ken wrote:"It seems to me that Truth and meaningful answers to questions like, "Who am 'I'?", "What is our purpose for being here?", etc., etc. are found not in the search for them but just by wanting to change one's self, for the better, in a truly open and honest manner. The truth is no person is perfect and so makes mistakes, i.e., does wrong. In the seeking of help in how to change myself, for the better, I "stumbled" across answers, which were revealed to me, by just being totally open and honest to and with everything that was happening around me. By truly listening ALL answers and Truth is revealed.

You are going by the assumption that I want to know my purpose for being here. A purpose signifies a source that sent me for the purpose. Well, if that sender was foolish enough to not tell me what my purpose was, why should I bother to find it? He or it sent me for a purpose. He or it had a job for me to do. He or it should have told me what it was if He or it wanted the job done. Now the job won't get done. Not my loss. His or It's loss. I am not going to waste my life looking for a purpose that the sender should have had the foresight to tell me.

As far as the "who am I" is concerned, my father taught me at a very young age to introspect. So I don't have any problem with that question anymore, though I learn something new about me frequently.

You have misconstrued and/or taken almost everything I have said out of context.

The definitions I have used for words I get straight from a dictionary. I usually use the most simplest definition so not to confuse the issue. Even when I write it down word for word from a dictionary's definition you still insist I am confused and have got it wrong.

If I am wrong, then so be it. At least I am not learning something new about 'me' frequently. I already know 'Me'.

No, I have not. I have replied to each question you asked. There is no question of misconstruing anything you have said. You are the one who asked to explain my definitions of words, which implies that I have different definitions from the conventional ones.

And good for you if you know who you are. You are the first person I have encountered who says that.

Oh and FYI, these are your words: "I am not confusing doing stupid things and smart things with intelligence. I just use the word 'intelligence' differently than you. There is no particular right or wrong way to use 'a' word."

This suggests that you want to define a word your way, not the way the dictionary says. You also say, there is no right or wrong way to use a word. Which implies you can give your own definition to any word of your choice. So you cannot now claim that you use word meanings straight from the dictionary.

Ken, if you think you really know who you are, and have nothing more to discover about yourself, you've platformed, and are just not making the effort. Even though I believe my philosophy to be airtight, I am still discovering a new me, and will until I pass, and there is no me to contemplate anymore. Our consciousness is a forever onion of skins, peeled back bit by bit.

ken wrote:[

Sometimes this is necessary to be better understood.

I think not.

Greta wrote: The situation reminds me of the promises made in the 70s and 80s about how automation will lead to a glorious new leisure age. Maybe in another few hundred years if nothing too exciting happens in the interim ...

Yes, we still could have that. Sadly we have rejected Keynesian economics and adopted the Monetarism of Milton Friedman (Reaganomics/Thatcher) economics right through the political process from left to right, Labour to Conservative and Democrat to Republican.
This has increased inequality and the polarisation of wealth increasing poverty and squeezing all the money ever upwards to the rich.
Despite this system having catastrophically failed twice with increasing intensity in 2008, no one in power is seriously making moves to replace this with MMT that could deliver universal credits and leisure.

Part of the problem is that all university departments are now full of the Neoliberal robots spouting the same dogma they have for decades, and that few Economics degrees address their own history, which could demonstrate the foolishness of the current stock market assumptions.

Dalek Prime wrote:Ken, if you think you really know who you are, and have nothing more to discover about yourself, you've platformed, and are just not making the effort. Even though I believe my philosophy to be airtight, I am still discovering a new me, and will until I pass, and there is no me to contemplate anymore. Our consciousness is a forever onion of skins, peeled back bit by bit.

So you KNOW, for sure, that you will never discover who I am.

Fair enough. I can not argue with what you already KNOW.

sthitapragya wrote:
Okay. Let me clarify something. If you plan to ignore the available data on the subject, then we really have nothing to discuss, because I cannot argue with anyone who ignores that. So instead of trying to prove me wrong, why don't you just check why I said that?

I have NEVER ignored the available data on the subject.

If the Truth be known it is YOU, I think, who is misconstruing and/or taking out of context the word "fittest" in the saying "survival of the fittest".

If you WANT me to check why you said "that" (whatever "that" is), then why do you not just address some links for me to check? You could actually help yourself here.

sthitapragya wrote: If we are communicating in a common language, then it is necessary that your usage of terms remains the same.

Remains the same as what? To 'your' usage?

sthitapragya wrote:If using different meanings for a word suits your purpose, fine, but you cannot expect to get any point across to other people who understand the word differently.

Yes, I can get my point across if I show the definition I am using, which if looked at correctly it would be noticed that that definition is an already accepted definition. I use words in their already accepted usage, but of course I have to change or re-form the usage slightly to a point where it can be seen and understood what is be-coming "new" knowledge.

sthitapragya wrote:However, if a definition of a word contradicts your theory, I would suggest you revisit your theory rather than change the meaning of the word.

NOTHING contradicts 'My' "theory", obviously. If something did contradict, then obviously I would have removed the contradiction. To any person, if there is a contradiction in 'their' "theory", then they would obviously change it.

The reason I am here in this forum is so others can point out that what I do not yet see. If you see a contradiction, then just point it out to me. And, explain WHY it is a contradiction.

There is NO word that contradicts 'My' so called "theory". If what I write is new to some people, then that is just the way it is. New knowledge and new understanding does not come from past knowledge and past understanding. New knowledge also takes a lot longer to understand than old knowledge does.

sthitapragya wrote:"Intelligence has been defined in many different ways including one's capacity for logic, understanding, self-awareness, learning, emotional knowledge, memory, planning, creativity, adaptive behavior, problem solving and self-control. It can be more generally described as the ability to perceive information, and retain it as knowledge to be applied towards adaptive behaviors within an environment or context." (This is copied and pasted from the first paragraph of the first page of the second search title from google. You could easily have done that to understand what I mean by intelligence. I use every word as it means in common parlance so that I don't confuse other people. The next time you need to know what I mean by a word, just look for the conventional definition or description.)

Like I said above. My meanings and definition are what you will find used in conventional language. All you have to do is look at a dictionary or encyclopedia to know what I mean when I use a particular word. You don't have to ask me.

Why spend hours looking for exactly that what you want me to see? Why not just either say what it is that you want me to see or put a link to that what you want me to see? It is far, far easier for you to point me to old knowledge than it is for Me to point you to new knowledge.

Either way if you are going to say I am wrong, then expect to be questioned and challenged about it.

If you have not yet noticed I like to be told WHY I am wrong. But i do not like being told that I am wrong without any evidence to back up that statement. Just saying things like do your homework or look it up yourself is a totally ridiculous thing to say.

sthitapragya wrote:As far as intelligence being a hereditary trait is concerned, just go to google.com and type in the words "is intelligence a hereditary trait" in the search bar. You will find enough pages to satisfy you.

First one quote, let alone first page, i came across this:

"Like most aspects of human behavior and cognition, intelligence is a complex trait that is influenced by both genetic and environmental factors. Intelligence is challenging to study, in part because it can be defined and measured in different ways."

I am not sure if you have noticed but this says absolutely NOTHING at all. So, just to let you know AGAIN your assumptions, which are based on your previous experiences, are leading you to go from words like this and jump straight to conclusions like, 'Intelligence IS a hereditary trait'.

Again, this is what I have been saying all along. If you change the way you look at and view things, then the more you are able to see, and understand. In other words, if you stop looking from an intellectual person's perspective and changed so that you are looking from a truly intelligent person's perspective, then you will find not just the true and right answers that you are looking for but also the answers to ALL of those meaningful questions that you believed could not be answered, i.e., the Truth.

sthitapragya wrote:I am not unable to explain. You don't seem to understand that some of your questions are so basic, that it would take me months to explain to you what that word actually means or implies to the world. You have not done your homework. You need to use google more. Take for example your understanding of evolution. How on earth can I explain to you what I mean by evolution?I mean what the book says. I mean what data available says. It is a subject matter in itself. It is like asking some to explain what quantum physics is. If we want to discuss evolution you should have sufficient knowledge of the subject to negate it. How can you negate it without knowing what it actually is?



Now you are in lecture mode. I don't want lectures. I have a wife for that.




You are going by the assumption that I want to know my purpose for being here. A purpose signifies a source that sent me for the purpose. Well, if that sender was foolish enough to not tell me what my purpose was, why should I bother to find it? He or it sent me for a purpose. He or it had a job for me to do. He or it should have told me what it was if He or it wanted the job done. Now the job won't get done. Not my loss. His or It's loss. I am not going to waste my life looking for a purpose that the sender should have had the foresight to tell me.

As far as the "who am I" is concerned, my father taught me at a very young age to introspect. So I don't have any problem with that question anymore, though I learn something new about me frequently.

ken wrote:You have misconstrued and/or taken almost everything I have said out of context.

sthitapragya wrote:No, I have not. There is no question of misconstruing anything you have said.

Are you absolutely positively sure of this?

sthitapragya wrote:I have replied to each question you asked.

You have certainly NOT replied to each question I have asked.

sthitapragya wrote:You are the one who asked to explain my definitions of words, which implies that I have different definitions from the conventional ones.

NO it does not imply that at all. If i ask you to define, and then explain, then all that means is I am asking you to show the definition you are using, conventional or not, and then explain that definition. Your assumptions are misconstruing or taking what I have said out of context.

sthitapragya wrote:And good for you if you know who you are. You are the first person I have encountered who says that.

Is being the 'first' also meant to "imply" anything at all?

If I am the first, and I can back that up that I KNOW who I am, then all that means IS I am the first.

sthitapragya wrote:Oh and FYI, these are your words: "I am not confusing doing stupid things and smart things with intelligence. I just use the word 'intelligence' differently than you. There is no particular right or wrong way to use 'a' word."

This suggests that you want to define a word your way, not the way the dictionary says. You also say, there is no right or wrong way to use a word. Which implies you can give your own definition to any word of your choice. So you cannot now claim that you use word meanings straight from the dictionary.

HOW can what I have said here even slightly or remotely "suggest" or "imply" that I want to define a word 'my' way, not the way the dictionary says, and that I can give my own definition to any word of my choice? Your assumptions are really blinding you to what I actually have written and do write.

I have already VERY CLEARLY stated;

'Intelligence', means the ability to learn, understand, and reason. And,
'Intellect', means the knowledge that has already been gained.

Two very simple and straightforward definitions i have already given, which were obtained straight from a dictionary. You really do NOT see what I write or you seriously misconstrue and/or take what I say out of context.

By the way if i said that I might need to change or define word/s 'my' way, then that would suggest and imply that that is what I am going to or want to do. BUT certainly my words, "I am not confusing doing stupid things and smart things with intelligence. I just use the word 'intelligence' differently than you. There is no particular right or wrong way to use 'a' word." does NOT suggest NOR imply what you are trying to say they do.

The definitions 'I' have given so far are far simpler and easier to look at, discuss, and understand then 'your' definition given, which is:

"Intelligence has been defined in many different ways including one's capacity for logic, understanding, self-awareness, learning, emotional knowledge, memory, planning, creativity, adaptive behavior, problem solving and self-control. It can be more generally described as the ability to perceive information, and retain it as knowledge to be applied towards adaptive behaviors within an environment or context."

Now if we want to break this down, look at it more thoroughly and try to understand what it is that you are actually trying to get at here, one being that intelligence IS hereditary, then we will be here FOREVER.

You get to your conclusions from 'your' definitions. With a "conventional" definition like 'yours' one could make up a multitude of conclusions.
I get to my conclusions from 'my' definitions. With a "conventional" definition like 'mine' the choice of conclusions are far less.

Your own words:

"I am not unable to explain. You don't seem to understand that some of your questions are so basic, that it would take me months to explain to you what that word actually means or implies to the world. You have not done your homework. You need to use google more. Take for example your understanding of evolution. How on earth can I explain to you what I mean by evolution?I mean what the book says. I mean what data available says. It is a subject matter in itself. It is like asking some to explain what quantum physics is. If we want to discuss evolution you should have sufficient knowledge of the subject to negate it. How can you negate it without knowing what it actually is?"

You say you are not unable to explain, but also ask the question, "How on earth can I explain to you what I mean by evolution?" Very contradictory and EXACTLY what i have been pointing out all along. You say things like, "I mean what the book says", YET the book can be interpreted in as many ways as there are people. What is so hard to understand about that last sentence?

You say i have not done my homework but the more homework i do the more i see that you are unable to just post links to what you want me to see let alone explain that what you want me to see.

By the way I think, after my inquiring questions from you and my "extra" homework that i am doing, then you could find that 'your' meaning of darwin's evolution is NOT necessarily actually what darwin was meaning him self. In that 'fittest' did NOT have to do with physical strength at all but rather with reproductive successiveness.

Encyclopedia brittania:

“survival of the fittest” was the basis for organic evolution (the change of living things with time)."

"The individuals that are best equipped to survive and reproduce perpetuate the highest frequency of genes to descendant populations. This is the principle known colloquially as “survival of the fittest,” where fitness denotes an individual’s overall ability to pass copies of his genes on to successive generations. For example, a woman who rears six healthy offspring has greater fitness than one who rears just two."

Just as I said 'fittest" refers to, wikipedia: "Survival of the form that will leave the most copies of itself in successive generations." 'Fittest' does NOT refer to that what you believe it does, i.e., fit or unfit bodies. sthitapragya wrote:

"an extremely unfit human body might not survive long enough to procreate. In fact, very few will survive against a very large number of extremely fit human bodies. And natural selection will ensure that the extremely unfit human bodies are weeded out."

Although this is NOT what 'fittest' means in the 'the theory of evolution' I have still already provided arguments against what you have written here.

So, after all your confusing writings, inability to just answer my questions and your accusations that I am wrong and just changing the definition of words to suit 'My' "theory", in fact it appears to me that you yourself are reading into 'the theory of evolution' what you have already prior thought and believed it was rather than what it actually states.

Actually you asked the question, "How can you negate it without knowing what it actually is?

It appears you were directing the question to yourself because you are proving here that you are unable to negate it because you are the one who actually is not knowing what it is.








The Universe, It Self, is the One form that will leave the most copies of It Self in successive generations. The survival of that form is, i think, contrary to what you believe, eternal.

In one of its most basic forms 'evolution' is creation, and, 'creation' is evolution, working together as one. I KNOW that will baffle you to bits but that is actually how the Universe is continually changing or creating Its Self. Evolution = change, and, change = Creation. If some thing is changed in shape, then it is a new creation. Therefore, the Creator is the Universe, It Self, which always appear anew, and could in all ways.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

ken wrote:[

Sometimes this is necessary to be better understood.

I think not.

I know so.

ken wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:Ken, if you think you really know who you are, and have nothing more to discover about yourself, you've platformed, and are just not making the effort. Even though I believe my philosophy to be airtight, I am still discovering a new me, and will until I pass, and there is no me to contemplate anymore. Our consciousness is a forever onion of skins, peeled back bit by bit.

So you KNOW, for sure, that you will never discover who I am.

Fair enough. I can not argue with what you already KNOW.

How does that relate to the advice I gave you, exactly?

But hey, take it or leave it as you will.

ken wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:
Okay. Let me clarify something. If you plan to ignore the available data on the subject, then we really have nothing to discuss, because I cannot argue with anyone who ignores that. So instead of trying to prove me wrong, why don't you just check why I said that?

I have NEVER ignored the available data on the subject.

If the Truth be known it is YOU, I think, who is misconstruing and/or taking out of context the word "fittest" in the saying "survival of the fittest".

If you WANT me to check why you said "that" (whatever "that" is), then why do you not just address some links for me to check? You could actually help yourself here.

sthitapragya wrote: If we are communicating in a common language, then it is necessary that your usage of terms remains the same.

Remains the same as what? To 'your' usage?

sthitapragya wrote:If using different meanings for a word suits your purpose, fine, but you cannot expect to get any point across to other people who understand the word differently.

Yes, I can get my point across if I show the definition I am using, which if looked at correctly it would be noticed that that definition is an already accepted definition. I use words in their already accepted usage, but of course I have to change or re-form the usage slightly to a point where it can be seen and understood what is be-coming "new" knowledge.

sthitapragya wrote:However, if a definition of a word contradicts your theory, I would suggest you revisit your theory rather than change the meaning of the word.

NOTHING contradicts 'My' "theory", obviously. If something did contradict, then obviously I would have removed the contradiction. To any person, if there is a contradiction in 'their' "theory", then they would obviously change it.

The reason I am here in this forum is so others can point out that what I do not yet see. If you see a contradiction, then just point it out to me. And, explain WHY it is a contradiction.

There is NO word that contradicts 'My' so called "theory". If what I write is new to some people, then that is just the way it is. New knowledge and new understanding does not come from past knowledge and past understanding. New knowledge also takes a lot longer to understand than old knowledge does.

sthitapragya wrote:"Intelligence has been defined in many different ways including one's capacity for logic, understanding, self-awareness, learning, emotional knowledge, memory, planning, creativity, adaptive behavior, problem solving and self-control. It can be more generally described as the ability to perceive information, and retain it as knowledge to be applied towards adaptive behaviors within an environment or context." (This is copied and pasted from the first paragraph of the first page of the second search title from google. You could easily have done that to understand what I mean by intelligence. I use every word as it means in common parlance so that I don't confuse other people. The next time you need to know what I mean by a word, just look for the conventional definition or description.)

Like I said above. My meanings and definition are what you will find used in conventional language. All you have to do is look at a dictionary or encyclopedia to know what I mean when I use a particular word. You don't have to ask me.

Why spend hours looking for exactly that what you want me to see? Why not just either say what it is that you want me to see or put a link to that what you want me to see? It is far, far easier for you to point me to old knowledge than it is for Me to point you to new knowledge.

Either way if you are going to say I am wrong, then expect to be questioned and challenged about it.

If you have not yet noticed I like to be told WHY I am wrong. But i do not like being told that I am wrong without any evidence to back up that statement. Just saying things like do your homework or look it up yourself is a totally ridiculous thing to say.

sthitapragya wrote:As far as intelligence being a hereditary trait is concerned, just go to google.com and type in the words "is intelligence a hereditary trait" in the search bar. You will find enough pages to satisfy you.

First one quote, let alone first page, i came across this:

"Like most aspects of human behavior and cognition, intelligence is a complex trait that is influenced by both genetic and environmental factors. Intelligence is challenging to study, in part because it can be defined and measured in different ways."

I am not sure if you have noticed but this says absolutely NOTHING at all. So, just to let you know AGAIN your assumptions, which are based on your previous experiences, are leading you to go from words like this and jump straight to conclusions like, 'Intelligence IS a hereditary trait'.

Again, this is what I have been saying all along. If you change the way you look at and view things, then the more you are able to see, and understand. In other words, if you stop looking from an intellectual person's perspective and changed so that you are looking from a truly intelligent person's perspective, then you will find not just the true and right answers that you are looking for but also the answers to ALL of those meaningful questions that you believed could not be answered, i.e., the Truth.

sthitapragya wrote:I am not unable to explain. You don't seem to understand that some of your questions are so basic, that it would take me months to explain to you what that word actually means or implies to the world. You have not done your homework. You need to use google more. Take for example your understanding of evolution. How on earth can I explain to you what I mean by evolution?I mean what the book says. I mean what data available says. It is a subject matter in itself. It is like asking some to explain what quantum physics is. If we want to discuss evolution you should have sufficient knowledge of the subject to negate it. How can you negate it without knowing what it actually is?



Now you are in lecture mode. I don't want lectures. I have a wife for that.




You are going by the assumption that I want to know my purpose for being here. A purpose signifies a source that sent me for the purpose. Well, if that sender was foolish enough to not tell me what my purpose was, why should I bother to find it? He or it sent me for a purpose. He or it had a job for me to do. He or it should have told me what it was if He or it wanted the job done. Now the job won't get done. Not my loss. His or It's loss. I am not going to waste my life looking for a purpose that the sender should have had the foresight to tell me.

As far as the "who am I" is concerned, my father taught me at a very young age to introspect. So I don't have any problem with that question anymore, though I learn something new about me frequently.

ken wrote:You have misconstrued and/or taken almost everything I have said out of context.

sthitapragya wrote:No, I have not. There is no question of misconstruing anything you have said.

Are you absolutely positively sure of this?

sthitapragya wrote:I have replied to each question you asked.

You have certainly NOT replied to each question I have asked.

sthitapragya wrote:You are the one who asked to explain my definitions of words, which implies that I have different definitions from the conventional ones.

NO it does not imply that at all. If i ask you to define, and then explain, then all that means is I am asking you to show the definition you are using, conventional or not, and then explain that definition. Your assumptions are misconstruing or taking what I have said out of context.

sthitapragya wrote:And good for you if you know who you are. You are the first person I have encountered who says that.

Is being the 'first' also meant to "imply" anything at all?

If I am the first, and I can back that up that I KNOW who I am, then all that means IS I am the first.

sthitapragya wrote:Oh and FYI, these are your words: "I am not confusing doing stupid things and smart things with intelligence. I just use the word 'intelligence' differently than you. There is no particular right or wrong way to use 'a' word."

This suggests that you want to define a word your way, not the way the dictionary says. You also say, there is no right or wrong way to use a word. Which implies you can give your own definition to any word of your choice. So you cannot now claim that you use word meanings straight from the dictionary.

HOW can what I have said here even slightly or remotely "suggest" or "imply" that I want to define a word 'my' way, not the way the dictionary says, and that I can give my own definition to any word of my choice? Your assumptions are really blinding you to what I actually have written and do write.

I have already VERY CLEARLY stated;

'Intelligence', means the ability to learn, understand, and reason. And,
'Intellect', means the knowledge that has already been gained.

Two very simple and straightforward definitions i have already given, which were obtained straight from a dictionary. You really do NOT see what I write or you seriously misconstrue and/or take what I say out of context.

By the way if i said that I might need to change or define word/s 'my' way, then that would suggest and imply that that is what I am going to or want to do. BUT certainly my words, "I am not confusing doing stupid things and smart things with intelligence. I just use the word 'intelligence' differently than you. There is no particular right or wrong way to use 'a' word." does NOT suggest NOR imply what you are trying to say they do.

The definitions 'I' have given so far are far simpler and easier to look at, discuss, and understand then 'your' definition given, which is:

"Intelligence has been defined in many different ways including one's capacity for logic, understanding, self-awareness, learning, emotional knowledge, memory, planning, creativity, adaptive behavior, problem solving and self-control. It can be more generally described as the ability to perceive information, and retain it as knowledge to be applied towards adaptive behaviors within an environment or context."

Now if we want to break this down, look at it more thoroughly and try to understand what it is that you are actually trying to get at here, one being that intelligence IS hereditary, then we will be here FOREVER.

You get to your conclusions from 'your' definitions. With a "conventional" definition like 'yours' one could make up a multitude of conclusions.
I get to my conclusions from 'my' definitions. With a "conventional" definition like 'mine' the choice of conclusions are far less.

Your own words:

"I am not unable to explain. You don't seem to understand that some of your questions are so basic, that it would take me months to explain to you what that word actually means or implies to the world. You have not done your homework. You need to use google more. Take for example your understanding of evolution. How on earth can I explain to you what I mean by evolution?I mean what the book says. I mean what data available says. It is a subject matter in itself. It is like asking some to explain what quantum physics is. If we want to discuss evolution you should have sufficient knowledge of the subject to negate it. How can you negate it without knowing what it actually is?"

You say you are not unable to explain, but also ask the question, "How on earth can I explain to you what I mean by evolution?" Very contradictory and EXACTLY what i have been pointing out all along. You say things like, "I mean what the book says", YET the book can be interpreted in as many ways as there are people. What is so hard to understand about that last sentence?

You say i have not done my homework but the more homework i do the more i see that you are unable to just post links to what you want me to see let alone explain that what you want me to see.

By the way I think, after my inquiring questions from you and my "extra" homework that i am doing, then you could find that 'your' meaning of darwin's evolution is NOT necessarily actually what darwin was meaning him self. In that 'fittest' did NOT have to do with physical strength at all but rather with reproductive successiveness.

Encyclopedia brittania:

“survival of the fittest” was the basis for organic evolution (the change of living things with time)."

"The individuals that are best equipped to survive and reproduce perpetuate the highest frequency of genes to descendant populations. This is the principle known colloquially as “survival of the fittest,” where fitness denotes an individual’s overall ability to pass copies of his genes on to successive generations. For example, a woman who rears six healthy offspring has greater fitness than one who rears just two."

Just as I said 'fittest" refers to, wikipedia: "Survival of the form that will leave the most copies of itself in successive generations." 'Fittest' does NOT refer to that what you believe it does, i.e., fit or unfit bodies. sthitapragya wrote:

"an extremely unfit human body might not survive long enough to procreate. In fact, very few will survive against a very large number of extremely fit human bodies. And natural selection will ensure that the extremely unfit human bodies are weeded out."

Although this is NOT what 'fittest' means in the 'the theory of evolution' I have still already provided arguments against what you have written here.

So, after all your confusing writings, inability to just answer my questions and your accusations that I am wrong and just changing the definition of words to suit 'My' "theory", in fact it appears to me that you yourself are reading into 'the theory of evolution' what you have already prior thought and believed it was rather than what it actually states.

Actually you asked the question, "How can you negate it without knowing what it actually is?

It appears you were directing the question to yourself because you are proving here that you are unable to negate it because you are the one who actually is not knowing what it is.








The Universe, It Self, is the One form that will leave the most copies of It Self in successive generations. The survival of that form is, i think, contrary to what you believe, eternal.

In one of its most basic forms 'evolution' is creation, and, 'creation' is evolution, working together as one. I KNOW that will baffle you to bits but that is actually how the Universe is continually changing or creating Its Self. Evolution = change, and, change = Creation. If some thing is changed in shape, then it is a new creation. Therefore, the Creator is the Universe, It Self, which always appear anew, and could in all ways.

Oh, screw this. Whatever. Have fun. I am truly incapable of handling so much crap at one go. you win. I lose. You are the most brilliant man in the world. You know everything. We all should learn from you. You know evolution. You are one of the four people in the world who understand the big bang theory. In short, you are it. I am your student, you are my master. And I hereby quit school. Sorry sir.

Dalek Prime wrote:

ken wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:Ken, if you think you really know who you are, and have nothing more to discover about yourself, you've platformed, and are just not making the effort. Even though I believe my philosophy to be airtight, I am still discovering a new me, and will until I pass, and there is no me to contemplate anymore. Our consciousness is a forever onion of skins, peeled back bit by bit.

So you KNOW, for sure, that you will never discover who I am.

Fair enough. I can not argue with what you already KNOW.

How does that relate to the advice I gave you, exactly?

But hey, take it or leave it as you will.

Honestly I did not even notice any advice that you supposedly gave me.

But on re-reading are you suggesting that I should make more of an "effort"?

If so, then that is ridiculous. For example if 1 + 1 = 2 is true and I know this already, then I do not need to make any more "effort".

By the way how much "effort" do you think it takes to discover the Self?

Also, once something is discovered then no more effort is needed.

ken wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:

ken wrote:
So you KNOW, for sure, that you will never discover who I am.

Fair enough. I can not argue with what you already KNOW.

How does that relate to the advice I gave you, exactly?

But hey, take it or leave it as you will.

Honestly I did not even notice any advice that you supposedly gave me.

But on re-reading are you suggesting that I should make more of an "effort"?

If so, then that is ridiculous. For example if 1 + 1 = 2 is true and I know this already, then I do not need to make any more "effort".

By the way how much "effort" do you think it takes to discover the Self?

Also, once something is discovered then no more effort is needed.

Okay, you know yourself. Enjoy.

Dalek Prime wrote:

ken wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote: How does that relate to the advice I gave you, exactly?

But hey, take it or leave it as you will.

Honestly I did not even notice any advice that you supposedly gave me.

But on re-reading are you suggesting that I should make more of an "effort"?

If so, then that is ridiculous. For example if 1 + 1 = 2 is true and I know this already, then I do not need to make any more "effort".

By the way how much "effort" do you think it takes to discover the Self?

Also, once something is discovered then no more effort is needed.

Okay, you know yourself. Enjoy.

By the way dalek what is your airtight philosophy?