|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 5, 2023 20:07:26 GMT
What is stupid to one man is genius to another; what is genius to one man is stupid to another; what stupidity and genius are is the man to himself.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on May 7, 2023 17:56:27 GMT
anyone thinking Newton to be stupid
should be locked up with a big brass padlock
|
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on May 7, 2023 18:30:05 GMT
All of these are just semantics governed by the imagination and the imagination deems which one is important and which one is not important which one to be impressed by and which one not to be impressed by
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 10, 2023 7:53:07 GMT
There's a proverb (I don't remember whose) "A dumb one sees the others dumb, and a wise one sees things as they are".
Maybe hatred is the reason?
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 17, 2023 17:32:10 GMT
All of these are just semantics governed by the imagination and the imagination deems which one is important and which one is not important which one to be impressed by and which one not to be impressed by And yet memory is relegated to imagination as it is the formation of images; all events that occur result in memory. Dually to say imagination is faulty requires one to imagine imagination and this result in a paradox. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 17, 2023 17:34:08 GMT
anyone thinking Newton to be stupid should be locked up with a big brass padlock If a person imagines Newton to be stupid then I would be afraid to see how intelligent they really are as the perception that 'Newton=Stupid' may mean the observer sees Newton's work as so basic it would be the same as saying 2+2=4. |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on May 18, 2023 8:24:25 GMT
anyone thinking Newton to be stupid should be locked up with a big brass padlock If a person imagines Newton to be stupid then I would be afraid to see how intelligent they really are as the perception that 'Newton=Stupid' may mean the observer sees Newton's work as so basic it would be the same as saying 2+2=4.
Intelligence is measured as IQ with 100 being average, by definition. Deviations of smaller than 15 points are considered to be within error margins.
So 'intelligent' would be in the 115+ category. 'Stupid' in the 85 or less category.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on May 18, 2023 8:26:23 GMT
anyone thinking Newton to be stupid should be locked up with a big brass padlock If a person imagines Newton to be stupid then I would be afraid to see how intelligent they really are as the perception that 'Newton=Stupid' may mean the observer sees Newton's work as so basic it would be the same as saying 2+2=4.
Another way to get this is that intelligence is logical, but stupidity is illogical. All those above Newton have to accept Newton first as a priori to going beyond Newton.
1+1 is not stupid. It may be simple, but it is logical, thus it is intelligent.
|
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on May 18, 2023 13:13:11 GMT
All of these are just semantics governed by the imagination and the imagination deems which one is important and which one is not important which one to be impressed by and which one not to be impressed by And yet memory is relegated to imagination as it is the formation of images; all events that occur result in memory. Dually to say imagination is faulty requires one to imagine imagination and this result in a paradox. You like to assert things that fit your Dr Seuss molested by Eminem style perspective as of there real and a fact dont you? Memory is memory and imagination is imagination the 2 are different 1 is a ( hopefully) accurate recall of a past event where as #2 its somthing that requires the person to create somthing new whatever that new thing might be And yes the 2 do share a common relationship but thats because they are both within the mind You dont get to play that "this is that there for that is this" crap with everything .ë |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 24, 2023 19:29:01 GMT
If a person imagines Newton to be stupid then I would be afraid to see how intelligent they really are as the perception that 'Newton=Stupid' may mean the observer sees Newton's work as so basic it would be the same as saying 2+2=4.
Intelligence is measured as IQ with 100 being average, by definition. Deviations of smaller than 15 points are considered to be within error margins.
So 'intelligent' would be in the 115+ category. 'Stupid' in the 85 or less category.
The IQ test only measures the ability to observe patterns within certain contexts, given contexts are limitless the nature of real IQ is indefinite. Dually the IQ test must be applicable to those who created the IQ test thus it is a measurement of how the creators of it viewed intelligence, not intelligence itself. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 24, 2023 19:31:14 GMT
If a person imagines Newton to be stupid then I would be afraid to see how intelligent they really are as the perception that 'Newton=Stupid' may mean the observer sees Newton's work as so basic it would be the same as saying 2+2=4.
Another way to get this is that intelligence is logical, but stupidity is illogical. All those above Newton have to accept Newton first as a priori to going beyond Newton.
1+1 is not stupid. It may be simple, but it is logical, thus it is intelligent.
1+1 can be observe dually as illogical as it applies to an infinite number of things. This is the paradox of clarity; the clearer we are in one aspect of reality the more ambiguous we are in other parts. It is like seeing the tree instead of the forest. Math is not completely logical from another standpoint, an example of this is the square root of 2. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 24, 2023 19:32:33 GMT
And yet memory is relegated to imagination as it is the formation of images; all events that occur result in memory. Dually to say imagination is faulty requires one to imagine imagination and this result in a paradox. You like to assert things that fit your Dr Seuss molested by Eminem style perspective as of there real and a fact dont you? Memory is memory and imagination is imagination the 2 are different 1 is a ( hopefully) accurate recall of a past event where as #2 its somthing that requires the person to create somthing new whatever that new thing might be And yes the 2 do share a common relationship but thats because they are both within the mind You dont get to play that "this is that there for that is this" crap with everything .ë Memory and imagination are both the formation of images. Dually it can be observed that people who witness the same event do not remember the same things thus we cannot seperate the memory from imagination. Thirdly memory changes over time. |
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on May 24, 2023 20:22:38 GMT
You like to assert things that fit your Dr Seuss molested by Eminem style perspective as of there real and a fact dont you? Memory is memory and imagination is imagination the 2 are different 1 is a ( hopefully) accurate recall of a past event where as #2 its somthing that requires the person to create somthing new whatever that new thing might be And yes the 2 do share a common relationship but thats because they are both within the mind You dont get to play that "this is that there for that is this" crap with everything .ë Memory and imagination are both the formation of images. Dually it can be observed that people who witness the same event do not remember the same things thus we cannot seperate the memory from imagination. Thirdly memory changes over time. The 2 are separate because of action One is the act of recalling what you have already experienced and the second is the act of fabrication making somthing new never before experienced This is what defines the 2 as being different And of course they both touch because they both happen within the being called man |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 24, 2023 20:28:29 GMT
Memory and imagination are both the formation of images. Dually it can be observed that people who witness the same event do not remember the same things thus we cannot seperate the memory from imagination. Thirdly memory changes over time. The 2 are separate because of action One is the act of recalling what you have already experienced and the second is the act of fabrication making somthing new never before experienced This is what defines the 2 as being different And of course they both touch because they both happen within the being called man Action is what connects them. Imagination is an experience. We interpret events through that which we imagine in our mind; thinking of 2+2=4 requires us to imagine a set of things. We cannot seperate our imagination from experience as we connect and seperate forms we have experienced, i.e. a dragon being the composition of wings (real), horns (real), scales (real), etc. In another respect we interpret our experiences through the images within our head, be it real or unreal. Dually all hypothesis's are an act of imagination, we test the truth through our imagination. Thirdly: "Deep inside the temporal lobe of the brain, the hippocampus has a central role in our ability to remember, imagine and dream." www.google.com/search?q=the+part+of+the+brain+which+controls+imagination+is+the+same+as+memory&rlz=1C1GCEU_enUS1059US1059&oq=the+part+of+the+brain+which+controls+imagination+is+the+same+as+memory&aqs=chrome..69i57.17138j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on May 24, 2023 20:35:39 GMT
Another way to get this is that intelligence is logical, but stupidity is illogical. All those above Newton have to accept Newton first as a priori to going beyond Newton.
1+1 is not stupid. It may be simple, but it is logical, thus it is intelligent.
1+1 can be observe dually as illogical as it applies to an infinite number of things. This is the paradox of clarity; the clearer we are in one aspect of reality the more ambiguous we are in other parts. It is like seeing the tree instead of the forest. Math is not completely logical from another standpoint, an example of this is the square root of 2. We are only able to calculate square roots properly because Newton devised his formulae for deriving square roots. There is nothing illogical about it.
Empirically we can generate 2^0.5 (square root of 2) by just measuring off 2 perpendicular lines of length = 1.
It only seems to lack perfect definition from the perspective of our number system, but from the perspective of pure ratios, its a very particular definite measurement.
How did Newton get that formula though? It had to be beyond logic.
|
|
