Albert Einstein

[ken]

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.

That sentence simply cannot be true or else it would be literally meaningless.

Again another person who is looking at what I write FIRSTLY from the knowledge that they already have gained, BEFORE, they actually discover what I am saying and meaning. Thus, they are expressing that they already KNOW what is right, true and correct, and, therefore jump to the conclusion that I am wrong. This would obviously be the conclusion you would come to from the perspective you are looking at if from now.

All conflicting views or new ideas always appear wrong or can not be true on first glance from the perspective of one's already gained knowledge. The sentence "the earth revolves the sun can not be true" because ... BEFORE what was actually meant by it if and when people only knew and believed otherwise. It could not be any other way when looking from ONLY already gained knowledge. But only from the open Mind, what is actually true, comes to light.

Suppose we didn't agree on any particular word within it. For instance, if I were to say "I have a tendency, it has five fingers" you would say that I either don't know what tendencies are, or I don't know what fingers are.

Now that is completely WRONG, and I will explain WHY.

Firstly, I will NOT do what you assume and say I will do. I certainly would NOT say either of those two things. Your Assumption based on Previous Experiences (APE), which has come from that already preconceived knowledge within the brain, which is where you are looking at this from, has stopped your imagination and inquisitiveness to actually ask clarifying questions to Me, and thus you are NOT able to learn what it is that I am actually saying and meaning here.

Secondly, if we did not agree on the definition of any particular word within it, BEFORE, we started the discussion, then we are not really going to get anywhere of significance.

Thirdly, I would find out what the outcome is that you want to show, by providing the statement/argument in the discussion we are about to start having. If the outcome is of no importance to Me, then there is no use in us both wasting each other's "time and energy".

Fourthly, If the outcome is of importance to me and it is you who is saying you can show me how to reach or achieve that outcome, then I WILL agree with and accept your definition of the words that we will be using in the discussion.

If that was the only word I was unable to use correctly, it would be fine, you could tell me what 'tendency' means and we could continue the discussion.

But no person can correctly and accurately tell another person what a word means. Each and every word only means what we each individually place in or put on to that word. What we can do correctly and accurately, however, is come to an agreement on what a word means, and then accept that meaning throughout 'that' discussion. And, I would think who ever was wanting to "prove" a point or show how to reach a conclusion or outcome would NEED to be the one who decides on the definition of the words to be used. If others do not like those definitions, then they will decide it what was to be shown is really of any importance to them.

But what if I didn't know what any of these words meant either: "disagreements, disputes, arguments, and fighting in the world among human beings is their inability". I might tell you with absolute sincerity that "disputes are trouser under ferret diaphanous banana" and you would say, shit, that guy doesn't make any sense at all.

Your assuming leads to wrong conclusions. I would NOT say that.

What I might do is ask a clarifying question like; what do you mean by that definition and HOW did you come to get that definition, that is of course if I was really interested in learning and knowing. I would also probably ask if there was an actual message, a point, or an outcome that you wanted to show Me, from that definition, or if you are just telling Me how you define 'disputes'. If it is the latter, then I would probably just say something like, "So be it". I certainly do not care what definitions and meanings people give to words. There is no such thing as right and wrong regarding definitions. If there was there would be only ONE 'book of Life', which defines all things in one unambiguous and indisputedable way.

Language works because we are able to trust as a rule that other people understand more or less what we do by the words we use.

Yes very true, but what I have found is that people do not actually know that people understand each other. We each have an "idea" of what a word means but we actually do NOT understand and know what others mean more or less by that same word. And, in fact, we ourselves are not actually able to express what many words mean without actually looking up what they mean. For example it was not until I actually did look up what a word meant that was being expressed to me that I realized that I actually had a completely different understanding and definition of the word then they "may have had". (I was going to write, "... then they did", but then I just realized that, to this day, I still do NOT know how they actually understand that word themselves.) Anyway, after this discovery I realized there are multiples of words that if asked by others, and even by myself, I actually could NOT know how to express their definition(s) if I had to. Even when I write here in this forum there are countless words that I have had to look up its definition first before I write it down. Even in My quote above I was not such if to use the word 'arguments' or not because of two of its completely contradictory and opposing definitions. 'Arguments' can actually cause and create a war-torn destructive "world" as well as cause and create a truly loving and peaceful world for everyone. 'Language' can work both ways, which is unfortunate really, because language is what we use to learn, understand, and reason every thing actually.

The way the "world" is taught, and learned, is through words and their defined meanings. What is truly amazing is how all children, including us when we were young, actually learn this. Very young children are truly OPEN to learn absolutely any thing that they are surrounded by. Including all the words and their definitions. Now consider how many words that a child of say five or six years old actually knows, and they have also somehow obtained the meanings/definitions of those words, without ever actually being taught those definitions. And, depending on what a young child is exposed to they are able to learn more than one language and so doubling the words they are able to learn, which could even mean quadrupling or more the amount of meanings/definitions they also learn and understand. Now given the "time and energy" that it would take to actually explain every word and all of its many definitions, which many words have, to each and every child we have there would not be any time left in the day to do any thing else. But children know what words mean, or do they?

Now, go and ask any older child what many words mean and a general response you might get, beside some very exceptional at memory children, is something like "you know". Now, you probably do know what they mean and you yourself also probably know what is means, but actually going to express and/or write down the actual definition of what a lot of words means is much harder to do than most realize. Very young children are SO OPEN to learn absolutely any thing, that they can and actually do learn the meanings/definitions of words passed on down to them when they just hear words being used by their parents/"caregivers", etc. I have not done any study into it but I think it might be discovered that when the parents/"caregivers" are more able to know and express the ACTUAL definition then the children might be able to do this much more also. But, if you are a parent like me who actually has no clue whatsoever what the definitions of many words are, then it might be discovered that our children are also not able to express the definitions successfully also, but of course this is depended upon how much influence they have had from other people.

So, we can "trust" and really and truly "hope" that other's understand us, but the actual case can be very different from what we hope it is. The truth is some of us do not even understand what it is we are actually saying ourselves, because we do NOT actually know what the actual meaning/definition of some words are, so we are not really able to trust as a rule that other people understand more or less what we do by the words we use. If we do not what we are actually meaning by the words we ourselves use, then we can not trust other people understand us. This has been proven many times throughout this forum when I ask people to clarify what is they are actually saying by providing the definition for the words they are using and they continually REFUSE to do so.

This isn't nitpicking grammar nazi stuff, I'm not suggesting that if we allow split infinitives all id lost for human communication. shared meaning of at least the common, useful and necessary words in every day use makes language possible. How people use the word - any word whether it is 'house' 'dog' or 'intelligence' - is how we expect that word to be understood by others, and that ultimately is how any word gets its meaning.

To Me, there is no such thing as nitpicking grammar nazi stuff in philosophy, but "expecting" that a word to be understood by others, the same as we do, is a big ask is it not? Just one word by itself can have very many different definitions/meanings so how would another understand and KNOW which definition we are actually giving to word? Then adding on to this is in what is the actual context of the sentence, paragraph, chapter, and story is the word being used?

Of course in general every day discussions on things that are really that important at all then we can and do generally trust, hope and accept others understand us. However, in all philosophical topics (and dare I copy willtrack and say, in "this very important philosophical discussion") it is very important that absolute accuracy and total understanding of each and every word is completely understood, so that no confusion is left between any one.

We do NOT know the shared meaning of any word if we do not discuss that before or during the discussion. This ha obviously been proven by what has just happened in this thread alone. This also can be observed throughout discussions all around the world.

In common with all the people I typically converse with, if I call somebody stupid, I mean they have low intelligence, and if I call somebody smart, I mean that they have high intelligence. If I see man trying to eat soup with a fork, I am liable to say he is not intelligent, and if I see a man successfully eating soup with a fork I will say he is dead fucking smart.

Okay that is what you would say, and if I was a person that you typically converse with I would have a general enough idea of what you are meaning and just accept it. However, if I am truly interested in what you are saying here, and/or we were in a philosophical discussion, then I would ask a clarifying question like, "What do you mean by 'intelligence'? And, "What do you mean by 'smart'?

And then I would wait for your response.

Now if you are planning to say the world at large is wrong about what intelligence means, you may do so, but there will necessarily be qualifications.

I am pretty sure if you look back you will find that it was NOT Me who said anything about anyone being wrong about what intelligence means. I think you will find that it was someone else who said that I was wrong. Of who I asked for qualification, but was not provided anything satisfactory.

I am the last one who would ever even suggest that the meaning of any word is wrong or right let alone say it is. In fact I suggest "Absolutely everything is relative the observer". The perspective an observer is looking from influences what is seen, including what is right and wrong.

I have never asked a psychologist what they mean in any special psychological context by intelligence - I am dimly aware that they don't really go with the vernacular smart / stupid thing. But if that is correct, they would be using a different and special definition of the word that always comes with the implicit caveat 'intelligence (in our specific usage of the term)'

Not sure why or how a "psychologist" could supposedly give any more insight? But, at the time in my life when I was doing a lot of intro and retro-spection I was looking in a dictionary and saw that one definition of 'intelligent' meant having the ability to learn, understand, and reason, which at the time made perfect sense. Then with that definition and seemingly every other thing that I was seeing, learning and discovering, more and more things were all fitting together to just make more and more sense. Until they all fitted perfectly together to show me a big and True picture of Life. The main reason why I am here in this forum is to learn how to express this in the way that I gained it, from My perspective. So, when a person says that a certain definition I give is wrong, which actually came from a real dictionary, then I accept that and will not spend hours refuting it. Any person can believe anything they want to. I will just continually suggest it is better to remain open, then to believe in what you already believe in.

Philosophy has many examples of these special words. If I describe somebody as an idealist in an ordinary conversation, I likely mean that they are some sort of political idealist who believes very strongly in sort of principle. But if I refer to George Berkeley as an idealist, I obviously mean something completely different by that word.[/quote]

Just for your information that was NOT obvious to Me at all. I do NOT know any george berkeley so I obviously would NOT know what is meant by the word 'idealist' here.

Likewise, whenever I proposition a lady, I damn well don't mean the same word as I would when referring to propositions in any other context round these parts. I'm not that perverted.

Again there are quite a few words here that if discussed and looked into further it could (and would?) be shown how the definitions you give to those individual words could very easily be completely different to others, and so the whole content could actually be taken out of context, and thus be completely different to each other person.

So you can use 'intelligence' to mean anything you want by it. But you must recognise as you do so that you are opting out of the standard definition, you aren't showing the world that our word is inferior to yours. And you certainly won't get far simply inserting it into conversation with your special Ken meaning.

Not sure what you are getting at and meaning in the last sentence and not really interested, but any person can use any word to mean anything they want by it, just look at the word 'Life' for example and how many different meanings that word is given and used by, because there is NO standard definition. Also, if a dictionary can NOT supply a "standard" definition, then I do not know where you will find one.

I think it was you who was the only other one here who provided a dictionary definition of the word 'intelligence', but you only provided one or two definitions from only one dictionary. There are many other dictionaries and definitions you could have also chosen and used. The difference is yours are not leading us anywhere unlike mine do.

It might have been forgotten but the OP was just a quote from einstein. I have just provided what it meant to Me, and I have given the reasons WHY it meant that. There is NO right nor wrong in what any thing means to any person. This is starting to feel like I am being judged for committing some inexplicable crime to all of humanity for just saying imagination comes from the open Mind and this is where intelligence comes from, which we all share equally. If looking at things differently is such a wrong thing to do, then so be it. I could become robot like and see things exactly how human beings want Me to, but I KNOW that is NOT going to happen.

If it were not for looking at things differently through the OPEN Mind and Intelligence, by some, than how the majority or all others were looking, then nothing new would ever be imagined, invented, discovered, and created, and then this would NOT be able to become learned, understood, and reasoned by the others.

[ken]

''Obviously a newly born, non-believing human being uses far more intelligence than that of a fully fledged, believing adult human being.''
If you are referring to belief in 'god' then truer words have not been spoken.

I was not referring to that actual example in particular but that is a great example of what I am getting at. Holding onto and maintaining a belief or believing in absolutely any thing stops a person from having the ability to learn something else. Any prevention of having the ability to learn is lacking intelligence. When looking at the definition of the word 'intelligence' to mean the ability to learn, then no matter what the belief and the believing in is, the exact same thing happens. That person will be lacking in intelligence. If a belief is held so strongly as to not allow a person to learn anything else, then that is a person being an unintelligent person. Depending on the degree of the belief and the believing in influences how intelligent or not they are.

Look at any newly born baby, it is open to absolutely any thing. They look at the environment around them ONLY through the perspective of the open Mind. Thus, they are able to learn absolutely any thing. Just look at how quickly, for the sake of this discussion, 'any' child is able to learn any language in just a relative very few short years, and then they go on to learn any sort of religion or teachings that they are surrounded by. In fact while they are open they can not be influenced by what is happening around them. Also, the more a child trusts, respects, etc, its parent(s)/caregiver(s) or even the other adults around it, from its community, then the more that child will start believing in what it is being taught. Obviously what is taught, and thus learned, all depends on what culture and what period of time a child is brought up in.

Now, fast forward a few years to when a child is an adult. Once those things that are being believed in become strongly held beliefs, then that now adult looks at the environment around them MOSTLY through the perspective of those beliefs. They are looking at things from the perspective of the knowledge that they already have. Thus, they are NOT able to learn any thing else. As I have been consistently saying throughout this forum it is better to look at anything first from the perspective of the open Mind BEFORE using that already gained knowledge to see the actual truth in what is being said. It is obvious when a person is looking from the open Mind because they are eager to learn, which is shown by their inquisitiveness and their clarifying questioning, which is usually WHY? However, and unfortunately, on nearly every occasion nearly all adult people look at things firstly from the perspective of their already attained knowledge. This is what I call 'intellect'. Adults can be extremely intellectual people and show this by expressing their extremely vast amount of already gained knowledge that they already have, but at the same time they can be extremely lacking in intelligence, to the point of stupidity. 'Stupidity' just shown by lacking intelligence.

The ability to learn remains with us, all all the time, but only if we choose to look at the environment around us (any thing) intelligently or intellectually. 'Intelligence' comes from the open Mind and provides the ability to learn (imagine and create) any thing new. 'Intellect', on the other hand, comes from within the brain (the storage unit for information) and only provides what knowledge that has already been gained. Nothing new nor further knowledge can be learned nor gained from there.

All of this and more I can show how it exactly works, and in conjunction with how the Mind and the brain actually works also. However, I can only show and prove this to people who are willing to look at this from the perspective of the open Mind. I am unable to show and prove any thing to people who believe they already know what is true, right, or correct, and also insist "you are wrong" BEFORE I even begin a, or at any time, during the discussion.

I know an agenda when I smell one.

What is the alleged "agenda" that you can "smell"?

That's not what an 'open mind' is.

Okay fair enough you can see it or any thing any way you like. But let us forget about the word 'open' for a while, and concentrate on the Mind. What does the word 'Mind' mean, to you? Where is the 'Mind'? What does the 'Mind' do, and, how does the 'Mind' work?

It's the religious who have a closed mind.

Only the religious?

What does 'religious' mean to you?

They believe without evidence, and get enraged when anyone else doesn't share their irrational beliefs. An open mind is what you have BEFORE you view the evidence.

The open Mind exists always. If a person chooses to use and look from the open Mind or not is another thing.

After that it becomes an informed opinion based on evidence and observation. If there's no evidence then only an idiot keeps an 'open mind'.

What are you saying here? It is better to keep a 'closed-Mind'? Or, to start believing in something else, which is closing the Mind off anyway?

By the way what is an 'idiot', to you?

There's also the fact that some beliefs are just so absurd that they don't require a concerted hunt for evidence. e.g. I don't bother to look for evidence of fairies. I suppose they might exist, but I would be astounded if they do, and if they do then it would be have to be some kind of natural phenomenon--meaning they aren't fairies at all, since a fairy is a supernatual being.

Why do people use the word 'supernatural'? 'Supernatural' actually implies/means something that literally could NOT exist, does it not?

I feel the same way about gods.

If 'gods' refers to some supernatural thing, then you could not feel any other way.

If any person believes or disbelieves in a god/s, then this is a perfect example of how the Mind and the brain can actually work in opposition of each other and keeps the Truth hidden.

'Beliefs', believing and/or disbelieving (in) some thing/s, which is only held within the brain, IS what causes lacking intelligence, which can only come from the open Mind.

WHY so many things have not yet been discovered, have not yet come to light, nor have not yet been revealed to some human beings yet IS because of the very way their own intellect stops and prevents intelligence from taking place to discover, see, and find those things. No person is able to see the Truth from their own intellect. Only from the open Mind is there the ability to learn.

By the way WHY did you bring the word 'religious' and religious issues here? Do you believe any thing here is related to any thing religious?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Because based on the evidence you seem to have a religious agenda. Others on here appear to love these long-winded 'pseud' discussions. I'm afraid they leave me cold. I 'believe' in evidence, logic, reason and critical thinking. And yes, that is exactly what 'supernatural' means. There's no implication involved.

[ken]

Because based on the evidence you seem to have a religious agenda.

I think the "evidence" you are referring to was and is in fact NOT evidence at all. I can assure you I have absolutely NO religious agenda. If anything I am less religious than any person is. I think you will find where you are mistaken is in the word 'God'. The way I use that word and what It means to Me is, as far as I am aware, different from how others use It and what It means to them.

Others on here appear to love these long-winded 'pseud' discussions. I'm afraid they leave me cold.

Not very exciting news, but I will acknowledge that they leave you 'cold', whatever that means. At least you now know that others will know this information also. By the way you did not have to remind Me again. I was already aware of your view of long responses after you called Me a "dickhead" for writing a "long" reply.

I 'believe' in evidence, logic, reason and critical thinking.

If you want to believe that is your choice, and you can believe in whatever you want to. Enjoy, but I have enough times already gave My view of what happens to a person when they choose to 'believe' (in) any thing.

And yes, that is exactly what 'supernatural' means. There's no implication involved.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Because based on the evidence you seem to have a religious agenda.

I think the "evidence" you are referring to was and is in fact NOT evidence at all. I can assure you I have absolutely NO religious agenda. If anything I am less religious than any person is. I think you will find where you are mistaken is in the word 'God'. The way I use that word and what It means to Me is, as far as I am aware, different from how others use It and what It means to them.

Others on here appear to love these long-winded 'pseud' discussions. I'm afraid they leave me cold.

Not very exciting news, but I will acknowledge that they leave you 'cold', whatever that means. At least you now know that others will know this information also. By the way you did not have to remind Me again. I was already aware of your view of long responses after you called Me a "dickhead" for writing a "long" reply.

I 'believe' in evidence, logic, reason and critical thinking.

If you want to believe that is your choice, and you can believe in whatever you want to. Enjoy, but I have enough times already gave My view of what happens to a person when they choose to 'believe' (in) any thing.

And yes, that is exactly what 'supernatural' means. There's no implication involved.

Aaagh! You need to find someone with a lot more patience than I have. None of that means anything. Nonsense and babble. I don't mind a 'long reply', as long as it's readable. I love to read readable stuff.

[ken]

Because based on the evidence you seem to have a religious agenda.

I think the "evidence" you are referring to was and is in fact NOT evidence at all. I can assure you I have absolutely NO religious agenda. If anything I am less religious than any person is. I think you will find where you are mistaken is in the word 'God'. The way I use that word and what It means to Me is, as far as I am aware, different from how others use It and what It means to them.

Others on here appear to love these long-winded 'pseud' discussions. I'm afraid they leave me cold.

Not very exciting news, but I will acknowledge that they leave you 'cold', whatever that means. At least you now know that others will know this information also. By the way you did not have to remind Me again. I was already aware of your view of long responses after you called Me a "dickhead" for writing a "long" reply.

I 'believe' in evidence, logic, reason and critical thinking.

If you want to believe that is your choice, and you can believe in whatever you want to. Enjoy, but I have enough times already gave My view of what happens to a person when they choose to 'believe' (in) any thing.

And yes, that is exactly what 'supernatural' means. There's no implication involved.

Aaagh! You need to find someone with a lot more patience than I have.

That is totally understandable if you do not have enough patience, but I am not looking for someone. You quoted Me, so I just replied back to you. If a person does not like long replies and especially mine, then I suggest not talking to Me. I, unfortunately, do you not know how to explicitly explain brand new ideas succinctly, yet.

None of that means anything. Nonsense and babble. I don't mind a 'long reply', as long as it's readable. I love to read readable stuff.

So, when you said, "Is that long enough? What a dickhead.", you were actually not calling Me a dickhead just because it was only a 'long reply'. You were calling Me a dickhead because what I write was long as well as meaning nothing to you, as it is just all nonsense and babble, is that right?

Always good to be clear about what it is that I am actually being criticized about and for. I can not improve if I do NOT know exactly what I am doing wrong.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

You shouldn't hide your agenda if you don't want criticism.

[FlashDangerpants]

In common with all the people I typically converse with, if I call somebody stupid, I mean they have low intelligence, and if I call somebody smart, I mean that they have high intelligence. If I see man trying to eat soup with a fork, I am liable to say he is not intelligent, and if I see a man successfully eating soup with a fork I will say he is dead fucking smart.

Okay that is what you would say, and if I was a person that you typically converse with I would have a general enough idea of what you are meaning and just accept it. However, if I am truly interested in what you are saying here, and/or we were in a philosophical discussion, then I would ask a clarifying question like, "What do you mean by 'intelligence'? And, "What do you mean by 'smart'?

You are discussing language as if you should also be asking "what do you mean by soup", "what do you mean by fork", "what do you men by see"?

But the question becomes impossible to ask because it needs to start with "what do you mean by what", What do you mean by do", "what is your understanding of mean"?

You are basically arguing that language is not a framework of shared meaning for which we are all responsible, that all words are arbitrary individual containers in the speaker's minds which only coincidentally overlap with similar sounding containers in the listener's minds.

[ken]

You shouldn't hide your agenda if you don't want criticism.

Why did you now jump to two, wrong, conclusions here?

Having to ask people here why they are always assuming seems to be never-ending.

What agenda are you talking about?

And, who says I do not want criticism?

I just got through saying, "Always good to be clear about what it is that I am actually being criticized about and for. I can not improve if I do NOT know exactly what I am doing wrong." Did you not read that part?

I love and enjoy being challenged, asked clarifying questions, and being criticized. I can improve much quicker and easier with those things. And, by the way I have NO hidden agenda here whatsoever. I have already on numerous occasions already explained what My agenda is for being here in this forum. That is; To learn how to express Self better. And, an unintentional consequence of being here is that through the discussions I am having with others, I can now use these discussions as evidence to prove what it is that I actually will say and express.

[ken]

In common with all the people I typically converse with, if I call somebody stupid, I mean they have low intelligence, and if I call somebody smart, I mean that they have high intelligence. If I see man trying to eat soup with a fork, I am liable to say he is not intelligent, and if I see a man successfully eating soup with a fork I will say he is dead fucking smart.

Okay that is what you would say, and if I was a person that you typically converse with I would have a general enough idea of what you are meaning and just accept it. However, if I am truly interested in what you are saying here, and/or we were in a philosophical discussion, then I would ask a clarifying question like, "What do you mean by 'intelligence'? And, "What do you mean by 'smart'?

You are discussing language as if you should also be asking "what do you mean by soup", "what do you mean by fork", "what do you men by see"?

You or any person can take it as far as you or they like. But I certainly did NOT say nor suggest anything about "should also" be asking about those things. I have already explained how far this goes depends on how important the discussion is between the people involved in the discussion.

But the question becomes impossible to ask because it needs to start with "what do you mean by what", What do you mean by do", "what is your understanding of mean"?

Well if it becomes impossible, then obviously you have taken it too far. People would only take it as far as it is necessary to go.

You are basically arguing that language is not a framework of shared meaning for which we are all responsible, that all words are arbitrary individual containers in the speaker's minds which only coincidentally overlap with similar sounding containers in the listener's minds.

NO I AM NOT ARGUING THAT AT ALL.

Obviously ALL words CAN BE arbitrary individual containers to ALL individual persons, however, just as obvious is, there is a shared meaning for which we are all responsible for. But, we would never know, for sure, if we have that shared meaning right if we never clarify with each other about it, would we?

I would think truly responsible people would discuss and find out if the shared meaning is agreed upon and accepted before the discussion took place. Otherwise we do know for sure what can happen, i.e., messages can and do get misinterpreted, taken out of context, misconstrued, etc., etc.

[Hobbes' Choice]

''Obviously a newly born, non-believing human being uses far more intelligence than that of a fully fledged, believing adult human being.''
If you are referring to belief in 'god' then truer words have not been spoken.

Indeed.

But Ken is trying to claim that Einstein is no more, or less intelligent than anyone else.

Yes that is right but if we want to continue this discussion we can loose the 'einstein' word. My view is ALL human beings are no more nor less intelligent than another.

You are confusing yourself, as with your own post, immediately prior to this one you state quite clearly that you belief this to be NOT THE CASE. and say quite clearly that intelligence varies from person to person.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Human beings, on a whole, have the ability to learn absolutely any thing. No other animal has that..

This is utter bullshit.

I think your basic problem is hyperbole.

Ask ANY teacher if his students are all equally able to learn "absolutely anything". You are just talking bollocks.

[ken]

Indeed.

But Ken is trying to claim that Einstein is no more, or less intelligent than anyone else.

Yes that is right but if we want to continue this discussion we can loose the 'einstein' word. My view is ALL human beings are no more nor less intelligent than another.

You are confusing yourself, as with your own post, immediately prior to this one you state quite clearly that you belief this to be NOT THE CASE. and say quite clearly that intelligence varies from person to person.

Have I?

Are you prepared to point this one out, unlike all the other allegations that you make but NEVER point out?

[ken]

Human beings, on a whole, have the ability to learn absolutely any thing. No other animal has that..

This is utter bullshit.

Yes we all know it is to you. This would be at least the fourth time you have clearly stated that I am WRONG.

I think your basic problem is hyperbole.

What problem?

I state nearly every thing to be taken very literally. I do this because I can back up nearly every thing I say.

Ask ANY teacher if his students are all equally able to learn "absolutely anything". You are just talking bollocks.

You really do NOT read the actual words that I write, or, those beliefs that you hold onto so tightly distort your vision so much that you actually do NOT see the actual words that I write. Either way some thing is stopping you from seeing and understanding what it is that I am actually saying and meaning.

Read the words I wrote in the quote you supplied here and read your last sentence. See if you can spot the difference.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Human beings, on a whole, have the ability to learn absolutely any thing. No other animal has that..

This is utter bullshit.

Yes we all know it is to you. This would be at least the fourth time you have clearly stated that I am WRONG.

I think your basic problem is hyperbole.

What problem?

I state nearly every thing to be taken very literally. I do this because I can back up nearly every thing I say.

Ask ANY teacher if his students are all equally able to learn "absolutely anything". You are just talking bollocks.

You really do NOT read the actual words that I write, or, those beliefs that you hold onto so tightly distort your vision so much that you actually do NOT see the actual words that I write. Either way some thing is stopping you from seeing and understanding what it is that I am actually saying and meaning.

Read the words I wrote in the quote you supplied here and read your last sentence. See if you can spot the difference.

The difference is that you have made assertions that you not only contradict yourself, but you also contradict thousands of years of empirical reality.
You are living a fantasy world.