'Genius' Forums

[IJesusChrist]

I feel ridiculous that I actually typed into google 'Genius Forums' knowing that there would be a website with that URL.

I wondered first what kind of person would make such a website? A 16 year old that get's A's on his papers, and so proclaim himself a genius? A 45 year old man that invented a product that the consumer world enjoys?

But then I thought, why am I so dumb to type it in myself? Why do I consider myself more intelligent than others, why should I post on a forum that proclaims its inhabitants 'Geniuses'.

It bothers me, but I am intrigued.

For my first topic, I want to adress one issue; time.

Explain your perception of time to me, and why or why not you believe it exists. Don't ask me for the definition of exist, or time.

[Dan Rowden]

You should read the introduction threads for this site before posting and assuming certain things - such as its inhabitants assuming themselves to be geniuses.

When you've done that I'll respond to your actual point.

[IJesusChrist]

I disagree that you believe Einstein was not a genius.

However his work in theoretical physics was moderate, he was still a genius in his understanding of creation.

[Pincho Paxton]

This Genius forum was created with a different motivation to finding actual Genius, which for a start is a ridiculous idea, hardly made by a Genius when you consider the name of the site will attract actual Genius. So I have ignored the opening letter as it was a stupid idea.

As for time.. it doesn't exist. The reason that it doesn't exist is that the Universe is not a Video recorder, recording every event. The Universe is a shape changing system, and things can change shape without the need for time. Why scientists believe in time is because they are mostly stupid. What scientists have done is to create nature from mathematics, and then forget that mathematics is only a translation of nature, but the translation is flawed, because it does not have any idea of what it is translating. Mathematics is translating the Aether, but scientists have not realised this yet. When they realise this they will get closer to understanding nature.

[Carl G]

scientists . . . are mostly stupid.

I don't think two of our resident Geniuses, Ryan Rudolph and Cory Duchesne, would agree, so yeah, blasphemy.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Carl,

I never put scientists on a pedestal, I put sages on a pedestal, and the discipline of science on a pedestal. Most scientists are not enlightened because they lack some of the subtle understanding of how delusion distorts thinking and perception.

Btw, the position you took against Cory was incorrect. Natives and tribal people were just as violent and capable of the same atrocities as modern man.

Cory was right, modern man seems more violent only because his technology is more powerful, but he acts out of the same irrationality as tribals and natives do when they slaughter each other in territory wars.

Human nature is the same everywhere, and at different time periods. stop falling victim to the "things were better long ago" fallacy. There were not, life was short and brutish in our past, and things have gotten progressively better, not worse.

[Carl G]

Carl,

I never put scientists on a pedestal, I put sages on a pedestal, and the discipline of science on a pedestal. Most scientists are not enlightened because they lack some of the subtle understanding of how delusion distorts thinking and perception.

Ryan, you put scientists on a pedestal all the time. Every time you crow about all the fabulous things 'science' will do for future society, you lionize the scientists who are coming up with this technology. One might argue that you lionize their delusion, since a lot of what they contribute is of such questionable value. You seem to live in a dreamworld of future delusion, sometimes.

Btw, the position you took against Cory was incorrect. Natives and tribal people were just as violent and capable of the same atrocities as modern man.

According to what, modern history books, written by delusional people? Anyway, there you go again, with your generalizing "all."

Cory was right, modern man seems more violent only because his technology is more powerful, but he acts out of the same irrationality as tribals and natives do when they slaughter each other in territory wars.

So his delusion is more powerful, which actually then makes him more violent.

Human nature is the same everywhere, and at different time periods. stop falling victim to the "things were better long ago" fallacy. There were not, life was short and brutish in our past, and things have gotten progressively better, not worse.

Wow, six useless generalizations compressed into three concise sentences. Impressive, even for you.

You may have a future as a famous author.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Carl,

you seem to be on a 'generalizations are evil" kick as of late. I thought you would have realized by now that philosophers use generalizations all the time, and they are an important part of the reasoning process. But apparently, this is all new to you?

If you cannot see the value of making generalizations, then I just don't know what to say. I'm speechless.

[IJesusChrist]

Not sure how this topic got off topic that quickly.

I would have to agree Pincho.

I have realized that time is a beautiful by-product of consciousness. I do not understand how consciousness allows time to be experienced, it may forever be a mystery.

The universe, as a whole, has already happened. Since the end is based solely on the beginning, there is actually no need for time to take place, other than to experience the universe. Time is a singularity, having ended as soon as it began, a 1 dimension of sorts, but... we are lucky in that we can talk about it.

[Carl G]

Carl,

you seem to be on a 'generalizations are evil" kick as of late. I thought you would have realized by now that philosophers use generalizations all the time, and they are an important part of the reasoning process. But apparently, this is all new to you?

If you cannot see the value of making generalizations, then I just don't know what to say. I'm speechless.

Fine. The type of blanket statement upon which you so often base your posts makes you effectively speechless anyway. You refuse to look at it, or seem unable, and this bullheaded blindness appears to be stunting your progress something major.

Justify, justify, wriggle, wriggle, change the context, and keep that ego intact, Ryan.

[Dan Rowden]

Not sure how this topic got off topic that quickly.

I would have to agree Pincho.

That's a shame, because he's wrong - or at least incomplete in his statements. Of course time exists; it just doesn't exist as an objective reality.

I have realized that time is a beautiful by-product of consciousness. I do not understand how consciousness allows time to be experienced, it may forever be a mystery.

Time is simply the measurement of rate of change. How such measurements are made depends on the nature of the physical environment and how consciousness experiences it. It's not really a mystery.

The universe, as a whole, has already happened. Since the end is based solely on the beginning, there is actually no need for time to take place, other than to experience the universe. Time is a singularity, having ended as soon as it began, a 1 dimension of sorts, but... we are lucky in that we can talk about it.

Consciousness is the carving up of a continuum. That's how time manifests, much like causality.

[Blair]

That's a shame, because he's wrong - or at least incomplete in his statements. Of course time exists; it just doesn't exist as an objective reality.

Really, so what is objective reality that it is not measured? You are basically admitting you are some consciousness that is existing in this bubble of time. And to what end? Who cares what you or I have to say, it means nothing in the grander scheme. So why bother? Why not just kill yourself this second.

The apparatus of human biology and reproduction continues regardless. It keeps going, breeding, until it ends, no more breathing air.

This is the peak Dan.

[Pincho Paxton]

That's a shame, because he's wrong - or at least incomplete in his statements. Of course time exists; it just doesn't exist as an objective reality.

It exists in man's head, that doesn't mean that it exists.

[Animus]

There are probably a few threads floating around about all these topics already. I recall one lengthy debate over the definition of genius, and yet another over Einstein's status. These seem to be recurring themes, time has also had its share of debate, but I think the former take the cake. To summarize what I think is the truth in all of this:

Genius as a word can be defined in many ways. Regardless of how it is defined it is simply a pointer to an otherwise nebulous mental representation. To speak of intelligence, logic, reason, causality and so forth as things is to give them no more existence than they otherwise already had. The issue of debating what genius is, is throwing words around that attempt to point at some mental phenomena but between the subjective filter of individual minds the entire debate winds up just about nowhere. It seems that on one hand there is a concept of genius in an entirely academic fashion, one capable of crunching large numbers or manipulating abstract symbols, on the other hand there is a concept of genius which is able to interpolate principles from large sets of data, an individual capable of intuiting an underlying dynamic. The argument is generally that the former IQish genius is inferior to the latter, that the latter is more substantive and drives at the root, while the former simply gets caught up in the details. For me its no question that both of them are good to have, but there is also no doubt in my mind that the latter is far more effective and the statement about the former's inferiority is true. To whatever degree this debate is able to jar someone's thinking to recognize the distinction the debate is probably useful.


As for Einstein, I think the crew that usually supports the more substantive kind of genius probably has a bias against Einstein for his status as an intellectual. My consumption of Einsteinian genius leads me to believe that Einstein was excellent with details, but also very good with analogies and the kind of conceptualization that would be considered more substantive genius. Although Einstein doesn't appear to be as insightful in this regard asothers are, and so his genius is more of the former than the latter in my view. Keeping in mind as Dan said that all of this is a carving up of a continuum, as it is a product of conscious expression.

I think the true nature of time has been adequately expressed. Time is an artefact of conscious representation. Time represents the rate of change and is experienced differently by different observers. To speak of an objective reality in this way can refer to the experience of an objective time, the rate of change as experienced by the observer, but this is the definition of a subjective view. Which is why it has been said that time is subjective.

[Dan Rowden]

That's a shame, because he's wrong - or at least incomplete in his statements. Of course time exists; it just doesn't exist as an objective reality.

It exists in man's head, that doesn't mean that it exists.

Er, yes it does. What is your definition of existence? I've always found it funny when people say my [and their] thoughts don't eixst

[Pincho Paxton]

That's a shame, because he's wrong - or at least incomplete in his statements. Of course time exists; it just doesn't exist as an objective reality.

It exists in man's head, that doesn't mean that it exists.

Er, yes it does. What is your definition of existence? I've always found it funny when people say my [and their] thoughts don't eixst

Existence is physical, hardware.. not thoughts which are a form of software.

[Pincho Paxton]

There are probably a few threads floating around about all these topics already. I recall one lengthy debate over the definition of genius, and yet another over Einstein's status. These seem to be recurring themes, time has also had its share of debate, but I think the former take the cake. To summarize what I think is the truth in all of this:

Genius as a word can be defined in many ways. Regardless of how it is defined it is simply a pointer to an otherwise nebulous mental representation. To speak of intelligence, logic, reason, causality and so forth as things is to give them no more existence than they otherwise already had. The issue of debating what genius is, is throwing words around that attempt to point at some mental phenomena but between the subjective filter of individual minds the entire debate winds up just about nowhere. It seems that on one hand there is a concept of genius in an entirely academic fashion, one capable of crunching large numbers or manipulating abstract symbols, on the other hand there is a concept of genius which is able to interpolate principles from large sets of data, an individual capable of intuiting an underlying dynamic. The argument is generally that the former IQish genius is inferior to the latter, that the latter is more substantive and drives at the root, while the former simply gets caught up in the details. For me its no question that both of them are good to have, but there is also no doubt in my mind that the latter is far more effective and the statement about the former's inferiority is true. To whatever degree this debate is able to jar someone's thinking to recognize the distinction the debate is probably useful.


As for Einstein, I think the crew that usually supports the more substantive kind of genius probably has a bias against Einstein for his status as an intellectual. My consumption of Einsteinian genius leads me to believe that Einstein was excellent with details, but also very good with analogies and the kind of conceptualization that would be considered more substantive genius. Although Einstein doesn't appear to be as insightful in this regard asothers are, and so his genius is more of the former than the latter in my view. Keeping in mind as Dan said that all of this is a carving up of a continuum, as it is a product of conscious expression.

I think the true nature of time has been adequately expressed. Time is an artefact of conscious representation. Time represents the rate of change and is experienced differently by different observers. To speak of an objective reality in this way can refer to the experience of an objective time, the rate of change as experienced by the observer, but this is the definition of a subjective view. Which is why it has been said that time is subjective.

I don't think that there is any argument about Einstein's Genius, because his brain was dissected, and it had a high density of neurons. But the reality is that he told everyone information like E=mC2, so that we could all store his intelligence ourselves, and that meant that a future genius now had their own genius plus Einstein's knowledge on top of that... which is me basically. I now see some of the flaws in Einstein's ideas, but I can't lower him from genius level, because without him I would not be Genius plus Einstein. But if Einstein was born today, he would be Einstein plus Einstein, and that would be unbeatable, because he would dissect his old ideas, and figure out where he went wrong, and mostly due to old age.

[IJesusChrist]

Did time exist before consciousness? That's really what I'm getting at here.

Pincho, Einstein was not the first to write down e=mc2, all in all about 20-40% of his ideas were originally his, with the rest being more simplistic representations of other's ideas.

His genius was still existant.

[Pincho Paxton]

Did time exist before consciousness? That's really what I'm getting at here.

Pincho, Einstein was not the first to write down e=mc2, all in all about 20-40% of his ideas were originally his, with the rest being more simplistic representations of other's ideas.

His genius was still existant.

Yes he was, it was his equation.

When Einstein published E=mc2 in 1905, the equation was at first almost entirely ignored. It simply did not fit in with what most other scientists were doing. The great insights from Faraday and Lavoisier and all the rest were available, but no one else was putting them together this way, hardly anyone even had a hint that one could try.

However my theory is that C is down to the Aether scale, and therefore not really a constant, more of a metamorphic constant.

[Gurrb]

the definition of 'exists' is to be wondered, as many things depend on it. if time exists in the mind, does it actually exist? for all we know, all things exist in our mind. there is no true way to conclude otherwise.

i do believe the idea of the past, present, and future is flawed. if you think about it, we can never truly be in the present. our bodies (existent space) are always in the 'future', to a degree of course. this statement relies on the idea that all things can be infinitely divided. our minds are always thinking of the future, unless reflecting, to perform actions.

can time ever truly exist if the present can never truly exist? same for existence. if we exist in the present and the present can never truly exist, can we? this is a very open-ended question meant to put forth a point of mine.

[Pincho Paxton]

the definition of 'exists' is to be wondered, as many things depend on it. if time exists in the mind, does it actually exist? for all we know, all things exist in our mind. there is no true way to conclude otherwise.

i do believe the idea of the past, present, and future is flawed. if you think about it, we can never truly be in the present. our bodies (existent space) are always in the 'future', to a degree of course. this statement relies on the idea that all things can be infinitely divided. our minds are always thinking of the future, unless reflecting, to perform actions.

can time ever truly exist if the present can never truly exist? same for existence. if we exist in the present and the present can never truly exist, can we? this is a very open-ended question meant to put forth a point of mine.

Time doesn't exist in my mind, the same that Sherlock Holmes doesn't exist in my mind.

[Animus]

There are probably a few threads floating around about all these topics already. I recall one lengthy debate over the definition of genius, and yet another over Einstein's status. These seem to be recurring themes, time has also had its share of debate, but I think the former take the cake. To summarize what I think is the truth in all of this:

Genius as a word can be defined in many ways. Regardless of how it is defined it is simply a pointer to an otherwise nebulous mental representation. To speak of intelligence, logic, reason, causality and so forth as things is to give them no more existence than they otherwise already had. The issue of debating what genius is, is throwing words around that attempt to point at some mental phenomena but between the subjective filter of individual minds the entire debate winds up just about nowhere. It seems that on one hand there is a concept of genius in an entirely academic fashion, one capable of crunching large numbers or manipulating abstract symbols, on the other hand there is a concept of genius which is able to interpolate principles from large sets of data, an individual capable of intuiting an underlying dynamic. The argument is generally that the former IQish genius is inferior to the latter, that the latter is more substantive and drives at the root, while the former simply gets caught up in the details. For me its no question that both of them are good to have, but there is also no doubt in my mind that the latter is far more effective and the statement about the former's inferiority is true. To whatever degree this debate is able to jar someone's thinking to recognize the distinction the debate is probably useful.


As for Einstein, I think the crew that usually supports the more substantive kind of genius probably has a bias against Einstein for his status as an intellectual. My consumption of Einsteinian genius leads me to believe that Einstein was excellent with details, but also very good with analogies and the kind of conceptualization that would be considered more substantive genius. Although Einstein doesn't appear to be as insightful in this regard asothers are, and so his genius is more of the former than the latter in my view. Keeping in mind as Dan said that all of this is a carving up of a continuum, as it is a product of conscious expression.

I think the true nature of time has been adequately expressed. Time is an artefact of conscious representation. Time represents the rate of change and is experienced differently by different observers. To speak of an objective reality in this way can refer to the experience of an objective time, the rate of change as experienced by the observer, but this is the definition of a subjective view. Which is why it has been said that time is subjective.

I don't think that there is any argument about Einstein's Genius, because his brain was dissected, and it had a high density of neurons. But the reality is that he told everyone information like E=mC2, so that we could all store his intelligence ourselves, and that meant that a future genius now had their own genius plus Einstein's knowledge on top of that... which is me basically. I now see some of the flaws in Einstein's ideas, but I can't lower him from genius level, because without him I would not be Genius plus Einstein. But if Einstein was born today, he would be Einstein plus Einstein, and that would be unbeatable, because he would dissect his old ideas, and figure out where he went wrong, and mostly due to old age.

I thought the primary difference with Einstein's brain was abiogenesis of the corpus callosum, the same thing that affects autistic savants like Kim Peek, except in Einstein it didn't deprive him of normal function, except maybe being socially awkward. Its no secret that Einstein was a loner.

But anyway, you completely missed the distinction I made between the two kinds of genius and the characterization of Einsteinian genius only to tell me that you think Einstein was a genius. I'm not disputing that, I'm attempting to outline what precisely that entails and contrasting it with the QRS definition of Genius, while making the prediction that certain thick-headed individuals get caught up on a determination of Einstein as Genius and can't see the distinction thats being made.

[Pincho Paxton]

There are probably a few threads floating around about all these topics already. I recall one lengthy debate over the definition of genius, and yet another over Einstein's status. These seem to be recurring themes, time has also had its share of debate, but I think the former take the cake. To summarize what I think is the truth in all of this:

Genius as a word can be defined in many ways. Regardless of how it is defined it is simply a pointer to an otherwise nebulous mental representation. To speak of intelligence, logic, reason, causality and so forth as things is to give them no more existence than they otherwise already had. The issue of debating what genius is, is throwing words around that attempt to point at some mental phenomena but between the subjective filter of individual minds the entire debate winds up just about nowhere. It seems that on one hand there is a concept of genius in an entirely academic fashion, one capable of crunching large numbers or manipulating abstract symbols, on the other hand there is a concept of genius which is able to interpolate principles from large sets of data, an individual capable of intuiting an underlying dynamic. The argument is generally that the former IQish genius is inferior to the latter, that the latter is more substantive and drives at the root, while the former simply gets caught up in the details. For me its no question that both of them are good to have, but there is also no doubt in my mind that the latter is far more effective and the statement about the former's inferiority is true. To whatever degree this debate is able to jar someone's thinking to recognize the distinction the debate is probably useful.


As for Einstein, I think the crew that usually supports the more substantive kind of genius probably has a bias against Einstein for his status as an intellectual. My consumption of Einsteinian genius leads me to believe that Einstein was excellent with details, but also very good with analogies and the kind of conceptualization that would be considered more substantive genius. Although Einstein doesn't appear to be as insightful in this regard asothers are, and so his genius is more of the former than the latter in my view. Keeping in mind as Dan said that all of this is a carving up of a continuum, as it is a product of conscious expression.

I think the true nature of time has been adequately expressed. Time is an artefact of conscious representation. Time represents the rate of change and is experienced differently by different observers. To speak of an objective reality in this way can refer to the experience of an objective time, the rate of change as experienced by the observer, but this is the definition of a subjective view. Which is why it has been said that time is subjective.

I don't think that there is any argument about Einstein's Genius, because his brain was dissected, and it had a high density of neurons. But the reality is that he told everyone information like E=mC2, so that we could all store his intelligence ourselves, and that meant that a future genius now had their own genius plus Einstein's knowledge on top of that... which is me basically. I now see some of the flaws in Einstein's ideas, but I can't lower him from genius level, because without him I would not be Genius plus Einstein. But if Einstein was born today, he would be Einstein plus Einstein, and that would be unbeatable, because he would dissect his old ideas, and figure out where he went wrong, and mostly due to old age.

I thought the primary difference with Einstein's brain was abiogenesis of the corpus callosum, the same thing that affects autistic savants like Kim Peek, except in Einstein it didn't deprive him of normal function, except maybe being socially awkward. Its no secret that Einstein was a loner.

But anyway, you completely missed the distinction I made between the two kinds of genius and the characterization of Einsteinian genius only to tell me that you think Einstein was a genius. I'm not disputing that, I'm attempting to outline what precisely that entails and contrasting it with the QRS definition of Genius, while making the prediction that certain thick-headed individuals get caught up on a determination of Einstein as Genius and can't see the distinction thats being made.

The distinction is still in the brain construct, as there are brain scans being made that can identify genius just from its components. It will eventually replace the IQ test.

[Animus]

You are completely missing the point Pincho, and maybe debating a phantom of your own mind, but certainly nothing that I've said.

[Pincho Paxton]

You are completely missing the point Pincho, and maybe debating a phantom of your own mind, but certainly nothing that I've said.

Sorry but I have to stick with nature, and physics, I don't really understand human dividing lines, and when you use them you are risking talking about an imaginary subject. I am trying to help you to avoid talking about an imaginary subject. But I am a visual genius if that helps, and some people are mathematical genius, but why divide the line?