Philosophy Now Forum

thedoc wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:But seriously, to remain on topic, let me interject the following:

If everyone on the face of the planet, but one, believed one way, and they all agreed that it was the most intelligent way to believe, could the one standout that believed the other way, be the more intelligent of the lot?

Given the condition of the world today, there is not much reason to believe that the majority are making the best choices.

Good point! So where does that leave us? Is there such a thing as smarter? If so, who is smarter and what constituents smart? Or does it maybe depend upon perspective alone, such that there is no smarter, rather simply different smarts? I mean, who knows everything? But maybe more importantly, what does anyone necessarily know for certain?

Lacewing wrote:

Lacewing wrote: I think people might be drawn to the religion before they're drawn to the god? The religion offers many solutions: social support, guidance, security, redemption, purpose, meaning, activity, and righteousness.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: I'm just telling you why they might be ill advised to join a religion on those grounds.

Are there grounds that you would suggest?

Hobbes' Choice wrote: I don't see how or we you can conclude from this list, nor think that this list supports your claim that people are drawn to religion BEFORE they embrace a notion of 'god'. Usually the both go hand in hand. And in some cases people find a religion after they think there might be a god.

I'm not trying to conclude anything. I was responding to Leo's statement that he "couldn't understand why anybody would WANT to believe in god". I was simply offering an observation based on the WILD notion that when people have a need, they'll move (maybe even lurch) towards whatever promises or appears to be able to fill or resolve that need... which religion promises to do. Then once they're there, religion teaches the person about god... and what that's all about... or how else would they know? I'm speaking generally... from my own viewpoint. It's just one perspective. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. Without religion being passed around, I don't know that people would naturally be in angst or great wonder thinking about some sort of god SEPARATE from everything. Please explain more about how you see it?

For the vast majority of people religion is not a choice at all. It is the habit of custom and tradition.

**Sorry, Double post**

Hobbes' Choice wrote: For the vast majority of people religion is not a choice at all. It is the habit of custom and tradition.

I can certainly see that. So (typically) is religion or god more of the driving force for a person? Perhaps they don't want to buck tradition... and they want to make their family proud of their participation. They're doing what they're told. They're doing what's expected of them. So, likewise in this situation, it seems that "god" still comes after the indoctrination.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:But seriously, to remain on topic, let me interject the following:

If everyone on the face of the planet, but one, believed one way, and they all agreed that it was the most intelligent way to believe, could the one standout that believed the other way, be the more intelligent of the lot?

I don't think IQ scores are based on convictions a particular topic; I think they're based on tests of mental skill, agility, understanding and knowledge about a diverse range of subject matter. Likewise, creativity is not judged by who can draw the most virginal-looking young matron, but a range of perceptions and ability to manipulate concepts in original ways.
On that kind of test, all the people who believed that same one thing would still fall somewhere on a bell curve, and the one person who didn't share that particular belief would also fall somewhere on that same scale - could be at one of the ends, could be in the middle - his belief or non-belief in that one thing could only nudge his score a tiny bit in one or the other direction, if it affected his score at all.

Of course, that begs the question of where they could find an unbiased tester.

Lacewing. I don't accept that most people are "drawn into" a religion at all. Most people who claim to be religious are simply born into it and have never bothered abandoning it because they've never bothered to think about it. Most of those who do take the trouble to think about it do indeed abandon it and a few take the trouble to think about it and then become strengthened in their belief. These are usually psychologically needy people and occasionally also sexually dysfunctional individuals who have experienced some sort of psychological trauma in childhood at the hands of an adult abuser.

In the last Australian census only 25% of respondents ticked "none" in the religion box, so 75% of people still identified themselves as belonging to one or other religious cult. However a follow-up survey revealed that only a small minority of this group actually believed in god and an even smaller number ever attended religious services. In my country at least to define oneself as being of a particular religious persuasion is of even less consequence than to define oneself in terms of the football team one supports, another belief system one is simply born into and accepts without rational analysis.

Personally I'd rather be mistakenly taken for a theist than mistakenly taken for a Collingwood supporter.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

thedoc wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:But seriously, to remain on topic, let me interject the following:

If everyone on the face of the planet, but one, believed one way, and they all agreed that it was the most intelligent way to believe, could the one standout that believed the other way, be the more intelligent of the lot?

Given the condition of the world today, there is not much reason to believe that the majority are making the best choices.

Good point! So where does that leave us? Is there such a thing as smarter? If so, who is smarter and what constituents smart? Or does it maybe depend upon perspective alone, such that there is no smarter, rather simply different smarts? I mean, who knows everything? But maybe more importantly, what does anyone necessarily know for certain?

"If it hurts, you're not doing it right" which could also apply to one persons relationship with other persons. I read somewhere that Davy Crockett once observed that when he could see the smoke from his neighbors chimney, it was time to move on. Today there are a lot more people and it is difficult for one person to avoid offending another person. Perhaps the philosophy of "Live and let Live" would lead to a lot less conflict. Unfortunately some people believe they have the right answers and want everyone else to accept the correctness of those answers. So to answer your question the smart move would be to allow others to do their own thing as long as that thing doesn't involve other people, and you don't need to know the correct answer for everyone, just yourself.

Skip wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:But seriously, to remain on topic, let me interject the following:

If everyone on the face of the planet, but one, believed one way, and they all agreed that it was the most intelligent way to believe, could the one standout that believed the other way, be the more intelligent of the lot?

I don't think IQ scores are based on convictions a particular topic;
I know skip, I've taken two of them. Convictions were never at issue, though I can see where you'd get that impression.

I think they're based on tests of mental skill, agility, understanding and knowledge about a diverse range of subject matter.
Actually it's mainly "memory," of that which educational systems have taught us. Think about it, how can mental skill and agility be tested with simple multiple choice questions? I was going much deeper, but I see how you were misled. I used belief purposely to negate the reader from thinking of knowledge, (supposed certainty).

Likewise, creativity is not judged by who can draw the most virginal-looking young matron, but a range of perceptions and ability to manipulate concepts in original ways.
Actually art is purely subjective, while knowledge is not supposed to be.

On that kind of test, all the people who believed that same one thing would still fall somewhere on a bell curve, and the one person who didn't share that particular belief would also fall somewhere on that same scale - could be at one of the ends, could be in the middle - his belief or non-belief in that one thing could only nudge his score a tiny bit in one or the other direction, if it affected his score at all.
My hypothetical planets inhabitants belief was complete in all they could believe, save the one inhabitant with the opposite belief, so not necessarily one thing, rather all things or one thing, whatever would encompass their belief complete.

Of course, that begs the question of where they could find an unbiased tester.
That's part of where I was heading, yes.

I can see that I should have worded it differently or set the stage so as to keep such probing potential from being apparent, because it can detract from us getting to the main point. But thanks for helping me clear things up, you've always been a great debugger.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:But seriously, to remain on topic, let me interject the following:

If everyone on the face of the planet, but one, believed one way, and they all agreed that it was the most intelligent way to believe, could the one standout that believed the other way, be the more intelligent of the lot?

thedoc wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

thedoc wrote:
Given the condition of the world today, there is not much reason to believe that the majority are making the best choices.

Good point! So where does that leave us? Is there such a thing as smarter? If so, who is smarter and what constituents smart? Or does it maybe depend upon perspective alone, such that there is no smarter, rather simply different smarts? I mean, who knows everything? But maybe more importantly, what does anyone necessarily know for certain?

"If it hurts, you're not doing it right" which could also apply to one persons relationship with other persons. I read somewhere that Davy Crockett once observed that when he could see the smoke from his neighbors chimney, it was time to move on. Today there are a lot more people and it is difficult for one person to avoid offending another person. Perhaps the philosophy of "Live and let Live" would lead to a lot less conflict. Unfortunately some people believe they have the right answers and want everyone else to accept the correctness of those answers. So to answer your question the smart move would be to allow others to do their own thing as long as that thing doesn't involve other people, and you don't need to know the correct answer for everyone, just yourself.

It seems to me that you believe this was about me, not at all doc, it was about philosophy, and that which is it's focus, knowledge! At least that's why I'm here!

SpheresOfBalance-
Actually art is purely subjective, while knowledge is not supposed to be.

Two things:
Creativity isn't "Art"; the making of art is just one of many expressions of creativity.
And art isn't purely subjective; one's response to art-works is. The work involves artifice - skill in the use of tools to reconfigure materials in a purposeful and meaningful way; the understanding of form, space, colour and texture, composition, movement and rhythm.

In any case, intelligence is independent of IQ tests, so it doesn't really matter what's being tested, but the bell curve is a product of testing, so I used testing to arrive at a scale of relative intelligences. Even if everybody-but-one believes the same thing and that it's smart to hold that belief or belief-system, they still don't think they're all equally smart. Unless it's a very different planet from this one.

Skip wrote: intelligence is independent of IQ tests,

This is very much the mainstream view nowadays in cognitive neuroscience. IQ tests are very good at selecting for people who are good at doing IQ tests and that's about it. When my youngest son was a kid I conducted an experiment on him using dozens of various IQ tests which I had downloaded from a number of sources. He was a bright kid and pretty good at them from the outset but after each test I went over the answers with him and we together worked out the quickest and simplest way to solve them. As you know these tests are as much about how quickly the test is completed as well as the accuracy of the responses. Within a week his results indicated that his IQ had gone up from the top 5% percentile in the population to the top 0.01% percentile. Had I turned my bright but ordinary kid into a prodigious genius and a freak of nature practically overnight? Of course I bloody hadn't. I'd merely helped him learn how to do IQ tests. Despite many years of equally diligent training he never learned to put his dirty clothes in the laundry basket so he wasn't that smart.

Skip wrote:

SpheresOfBalance-
Actually art is purely subjective, while knowledge is not supposed to be.

Two things:
Creativity isn't "Art"; the making of art is just one of many expressions of creativity.
Yet art is what you used as example, as did I. So where's the beef?

And art isn't purely subjective;
Not exactly!

one's response to art-works is.
Correct!

The work involves artifice - skill in the use of tools to reconfigure materials in a purposeful and meaningful way; the understanding of form, space, colour and texture, composition, movement and rhythm.
In terms of realism you're correct, but in terms of all other forms it's subjective, which was where my head was. I absolutely hate impressionists, cubists, or any form other than realism for that very reason.

In any case, intelligence is independent of IQ tests,
Not really, as IQ tests are generally received as accurate enough to gage intelligence, or so say the experts. While I don't necessarily agree.

so it doesn't really matter what's being tested,
Sure it does if in fact it's based upon memory. "Garbage in, garbage out!" Or possibly the contrary, so it in fact matters.

but the bell curve is a product of testing,
No, it's a statistical method of assigning a particular distribution of grades amongst multiple students. If their are in fact only two students, or rather, black/white, or yes/no, then no bell curve could be created. it would in fact only be capable of being a straight line, the higher and the lower.

so I used testing to arrive at a scale of relative intelligences. Even if everybody-but-one believes the same thing and that it's smart to hold that belief or belief-system, they still don't think they're all equally smart. Unless it's a very different planet from this one.
Like I said, it was a hypothetical.

So now that you understand, which are the more intelligent, all the ones that agree, or the one that differs? Have you had any dealings with probability? If so, what would it lean toward?

Obvious Leo wrote:

Skip wrote: intelligence is independent of IQ tests,

This is very much the mainstream view nowadays in cognitive neuroscience. IQ tests are very good at selecting for people who are good at doing IQ tests and that's about it. When my youngest son was a kid I conducted an experiment on him using dozens of various IQ tests which I had downloaded from a number of sources. He was a bright kid and pretty good at them from the outset but after each test I went over the answers with him and we together worked out the quickest and simplest way to solve them. As you know these tests are as much about how quickly the test is completed as well as the accuracy of the responses. Within a week his results indicated that his IQ had gone up from the top 5% percentile in the population to the top 0.01% percentile. Had I turned my bright but ordinary kid into a prodigious genius and a freak of nature practically overnight? Of course I bloody hadn't. I'd merely helped him learn how to do IQ tests. Despite many years of equally diligent training he never learned to put his dirty clothes in the laundry basket so he wasn't that smart.

Gawd, you're a great story teller, so you're a writer heh?

The one that differs is the most creative. If he makes an issue of it, he's the most pig-headed. If he gets martyred for it, he's a damn fool.
I have no way of assessing his intelligence.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote: It seems to me that you believe this was about me, not at all doc, it was about philosophy, and that which is it's focus, knowledge! At least that's why I'm here!

Again this was a general observation about people in general, not about anyone in particular, especially not you. Someone once said that if you had X number of people and asked their opinion on a topic, you would have X number of opinions on that topic. I'm not sure it's that bad but it's close. Part of the problem is that people need to see things as they are, not as they would like them to be. When people don't have the correct information to start with, you can't expect them to come up with the correct answer from faulty information. To put it simply, my perception of reality might not be the same as yours, my understanding of the world might not be the same as yours, so my answers will not be the same as yours. If each of us could live with the differences, there would be no problems, but too often one person will insist that they are correct and everyone else is wrong.

BTW I am involved in a thread with just such a person on another forum, and that person's ideas have been demonstrated to be wrong many times, but she continues to insist that she is correct and everyone else is wrong. And she has been on the internet for well over 10 years, and always with the same results, others will show her where she is wrong, but she refuses to give up her beliefs.