hello I am teslacoils2006 180 IQ

Some partial backups of posts from the past (Feb, 2004)

hello I am teslacoils2006 180 IQ

Postby teslacoils2006 » Thu Jun 15, 2006 1:30 am

The more one is conscious of the true nature of Reality, the more one is a genius. By this definition, people like Jesus, the Buddha, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Weininger, and Socrates were geniuses to greater or lesser degree.

I pullled this off your introduction and wondered if anyone would like to discuss socrates...
teslacoils2006
 

join me in an argument using socrates method

Postby teslacoils2006 » Thu Jun 15, 2006 1:39 am

let the games begin....


Socratic method (or method of elenchos or Socratic debate) is a dialectic method of inquiry, largely applied to the examination of key moral concepts and first described by Plato in the Socratic Dialogues. For this, Socrates is customarily regarded as the father and fountainhead for ethics or moral philosophy.
It is a form of philosophical enquiry. It typically involves two speakers at any one time, with one leading the discussion and the other agreeing to certain assumptions put forward for his acceptance or rejection. The method is credited to Socrates, who began to engage in such discussion with his fellow Athenians after a visit to the Oracle of Delphi.
"A Socratic Dialogue can happen at any time between [two people] when they seek to answer a question [about something] answerable by their own effort of reflection and thinking [starting] from the concrete [asking] all sorts of questions [until] the details of the example are fleshed out [as] a kind of platform for reaching more general judgments" [1].
The practice involves asking a series of questions surrounding a central issue, and answering questions of the others involved. Generally this involves the defense of one point of view against another and is oppositional. The best way to 'win' is to make the opponent contradict themselves in some way that proves the inquirer's own point.
Plato famously formalised the Socratic debate in prose — positing Socrates as one of the principal interlocutors — in some of his early dialogues, such as Euthyphro or Theaetetus, and the method is most commonly found within the Socratic dialogues, which generally portray Socrates engaging in the method and questioning his fellow citizens about moral and epistemological issues.
teslacoils2006
 

Postby Pye » Thu Jun 15, 2006 2:27 am

.

There are deeper points here, deeper beliefs. One among others is Socrates' belief in all knowledge being already contained in every person. The dialectic is what brings it out. Plato has Socrates saying that educators do not put knowledge into people, but rather pull it out of them, and this speaks to the Socratic belief in the veracity and integrity of human reason, properly directing its gaze. The dialectic is the highest activity of the mind, and it is not restricted to people talking together. This dialectic happens in the mind of the thinker alone, as well, whenever it is posing and examining its thinking. The dialectic is the set of stairs built by questions and answers -- meant to rise. For Plato, it meant the only access to anything metaphysical, the only legitimate "eye" through which to see.

Socratic dialectic extrudes the field and tools of inquiry to the operations of the mind alone, and just as it assumes people have varying degrees of capabilities, so too does it assume that natural geometry can be brought out in an uneducated slave. If individual capabilities, then a unified and singular truth, to which men and women of reason -- properly educated, properly encouraged, respected and indulged, would all arrive to the same conclusion of what is most reasonable in any given case. The dialectic was for Socrates the only possible way to the truth - privately or collectively.

.
Pye
 
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:45 pm

Postby MKFaizi » Thu Jun 15, 2006 11:41 am

How do you test 180? I am borderline retarded on IQ tests. I have a lot of problem with Zits and Zars and if all Zits are Zars and this and that. I also have a problem with stuff like if a car is traveling thirty miles an hour in direction C and makes a left, at what point will another car traveling from in direction A at the same rate of speed meet the first car? I also have a problem with comparing various triangular shapes in a this is to this as that is to that.

I cannot stand that crap.

I would do much better with questions on science and geography and history and written language.

I do notice that with practice, I can raise my score to almost normal.

But damn.

I find it hard to believe that standard IQ tests test intelligence that is native to all people.

Crap's fucking alien to me. Yet, I do not think that I am stupid in the least.

My two teenagers get a big kick out of the fact that their mother is borderline retarded. The thing that gets me is that, with my big handicap, I have been forced to make a living as a single parent for years. According to my IQ test scores, I should be on welfare.

I reckon if I scored in the 180 range, I would be bragging about it but I am just this retarded person.

Yet, I doubt that you and I would have a problem in conversation. I doubt that you would find me slow. Most people think that I seem to be more than average intelligence. I work with people who have to have well above average intelligence to do their work. I work with medical doctors.

I have worked with many, many medical doctors over the years. Most of them seem to have about average intelligence.

Currently, I work with a nurse practitioner who is about the most medically smart person I have ever worked with. Brilliant. But that is all she knows -- medicine. Otherwise, she is average.

What is the value of the IQ test?

As I said, I reckon if I scored in the 180's, I would think that they must be great but I am borderline retarded.

What gives?

I am whitish and my parents read to me when I was a kid. I had plenty of encouragement in creativity and self expression.

How come I am so dumb?

Faizi
MKFaizi
 

Postby MKFaizi » Thu Jun 15, 2006 11:47 am

I could have done the Socratic dialectic thing.

What does Socrates have to do with the modern idea of the IQ?

Not much, I reckon.

Faizi
MKFaizi
 

Postby Tharan » Thu Jun 15, 2006 3:17 pm

Other than Marsha (who has been given an honorary Genius degree on silk with gilded edges), we only accept new members who have IQs of 200 or better.
Tharan
 
Posts: 337
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 5:14 am
Location: Seattle

Postby MKFaizi » Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:34 pm

And I was only given that because of my borderline retarded status. I am the token idiot.

Faizi
MKFaizi
 

Postby Chadwick Stone » Fri Jun 16, 2006 5:58 pm

Hey Teslacoils, who is the author of that article you posted?
Chadwick Stone
 
Posts: 80
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 5:25 pm

Describing dialectic reasoning is a notable challenge

Postby teslacoils2006 » Sat Jun 17, 2006 5:36 pm

but you might accidentally use one way of reasoning to describe another reasoning.

Dialectic as One of Four Types of Reasoning
you define “dialectical reasoning” by comparing it to three other kinds of reasoning. The four kinds are
demonstrative reasoning: reasoning from premises that are “true and primary”;
dialectical reasoning: reasoning from “opinions that are generally accepted,” i.e., “by every one or by the majority or by the philosophers”;
contentious reasoning: reasoning from “opinions that seem to be generally accepted, but are not really such”; and
mis–reasonings: reasoning from premises peculiar to a special science to a conclusion outside that science.
teslacoils2006
 

would it be possible for zars not to be zits

Postby teslacoils2006 » Sat Jun 17, 2006 5:46 pm

How do you test 180? I am borderline retarded on IQ tests. I have a lot of problem with Zits and Zars and if all Zits are Zars and this and that.

If all zits are zars then it is generally accepted they are the same thing.
but what if you had to figure out a clone from the original. Among many originals and many clones one representing zit and the other representing zar. apon inspection all zits are zars but are all zars zits?
teslacoils2006
 

Postby teslacoils2006 » Sat Jun 17, 2006 5:53 pm

For starters:
 
 what is a detail?
 
How is I.Q measured?
 
 
  Details are anything we can categorise to process plans, events anything we can think of more easily.
 
I.Q tests a lot of areas but I have some primary areas to cover and other answers can be submitted by you in another reply.  I.q tests often measure your ability to handle details.  For instance people broken down could turn into male, female,  children, teenagers.  You can break the details indefinate but how much can you grasp in order to solve a puzzle.  Do you know when the details have gone beyond your comprehention.  I.Q  is basically a measurement of how you can handle the outside world around you.  How do you handle truth and the details around you.  I can tell you about my method and what I believe.  I believe truth is perfect but the details can be obscure misdirected.  The level of details can change in an intant the truth can not be found.  If something confounds you dig deeper to find the truth.  Merely accepting statements is ok as long as the statements never conflict with each other.  Often we except the best character or better position instead of searching for the truth.  Now you have an obstacle between you and the truth and your I.Q drops dramatically. 
teslacoils2006
 

Postby Blair » Sat Jun 17, 2006 6:48 pm

You don't express yourself in a manner which would suggest a supremely high I.Q.

180 means nothing, essentially, since all standard tests roof at 150. Not that these tests have much relevance to the definition of Genius as it pertains to this Forum.
User avatar
Blair
 
Posts: 1527
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 2:47 pm

Postby teslacoils2006 » Sun Jun 18, 2006 6:07 am

individual versus collective

The genius you admire was adopted by the collective and categorized by the simple minded or lazy. Einstein was not considered a genius in the beginning till he callenged his mathematical theories. The collective meaning institution accepted him but it was his individuality that made him genius.


you don't express yourself in a manner which would suggest a supremely high I.Q.

180 means nothing, essentially, since all standard tests roof at 150. Not that these tests have much relevance to the definition of Genius as it pertains to this Forum.

standard test?

Chadwick knows about the test I am talkIng about or maybe not....
teslacoils2006
 

Postby R. Steven Coyle » Sun Jun 18, 2006 6:15 am

180 degrees?

I'm a circle!
R. Steven Coyle
 
Posts: 332
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Atlanta, Ga

Postby teslacoils2006 » Sun Jun 18, 2006 6:18 am

read this site then take a look at what has been said in this thread so far.
http://www.geocities.com/rnseitz/Definition_of_IQ.html
teslacoils2006
 

Dialectic

Postby R. Steven Coyle » Sun Jun 18, 2006 6:22 am

That's [the site] a mis-reasoning.

The bad kind.
R. Steven Coyle
 
Posts: 332
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Atlanta, Ga

Postby Chadwick Stone » Sun Jun 18, 2006 8:42 am

Telsacoils obtained his original article from Wikipedia but failed to cite the source.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elenchos

Chadwick knows about the test I am talkIng about or maybe not....
IQ tests aren't really relevant to determining "intelligence" per se. A person can have a high IQ yet be so socially clumsy as to render them a fool in the eyes of the public. Rather than cite some arbitrary test result that supposedly confirms intelligence, speak and allow others to make that assessment themselves.
Chadwick Stone
 
Posts: 80
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 5:25 pm

So this is about social acceptance

Postby teslacoils2006 » Sun Jun 18, 2006 9:06 am

So this is about matching socks and making sure your hair is combed. Looking sharp for the collective or institutionalized people. Did you see the graph of different capabilities? The institution says I.Q is relevant.

IQ tests aren't really relevant to determining "intelligence" per se. A person can have a high IQ yet be so socially clumsy as to render them a fool in the eyes of the public. Rather than cite some arbitrary test result that supposedly confirms intelligence, speak and allow others to make that assessment themselves.
teslacoils2006
 

Re: So this is about social acceptance

Postby Chadwick Stone » Sun Jun 18, 2006 9:14 am

teslacoils2006 wrote:So this is about matching socks and making sure your hair is combed. Looking sharp for the collective or institutionalized people. Did you see the graph of different capabilities? The institution says I.Q is relevant.
What does *THAT* have to do with what I said?
Chadwick Stone
 
Posts: 80
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 5:25 pm

Postby R. Steven Coyle » Sun Jun 18, 2006 9:19 am

Okay.
Last edited by R. Steven Coyle on Sun Jun 18, 2006 9:33 am, edited 2 times in total.
R. Steven Coyle
 
Posts: 332
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Atlanta, Ga

Postby teslacoils2006 » Sun Jun 18, 2006 9:23 am

I know you Chadwick I studied your internet presence. You would put different colored socks on just to say you can. Just like the modern art just like Piccasso who was trapped by the institution and escaped. He knew the photograph was replacing portrait artists and escaped into his imagination. If you do not know this you can not enjoy Piccasso's genius. Chadwick I enjoy seeing others at the same level as me but I am saddened you are so chained down by the system.
teslacoils2006
 

I was the one who broke the fisher opening

Postby teslacoils2006 » Sun Jun 18, 2006 9:47 am

Fisher himself came out of hiding and challenged every master not knowing who beat him. I was challenged at the vancouver library, I saw a man playing twelve people at once. He beat me the first few games showing me tactics of the collective. Then one game I showed him a flaw in the fisher opening. He said just a minute ask me to sit aside while he finished off the other players. At first he thought I was a class c strategist but I found holes in his game and became class A. I always focused on individual pieces and he showed me how to look at the whole board. The next thing to happen was a russian professor approached me but that is another story.
teslacoils2006
 

Postby swan » Sun Jun 18, 2006 10:00 am

I.Q= Intelligence Quotient
Intelligence in the more mundane meaning it's the aptitude to be able to link what you know to a new situation. Meassuring Inteligence would be equal to meassuring your memories, therefore I.Q. would oscilate depending on how much you know about something.

But the point of this is that having a High I.Q doesn't make a genius, a genius is a master of creativity, someone who sees where the others don't, someone who can find the his own truth and be able to express it to other people so the can enrich from his findings. And by the former definition being able to link memories isn't the same that being able to create new ones.

Now I let go the formalities and make this a bit more friendly.
If you need to tell your IQ to identify yourself then I already doubt you're that "smart", my first advice is that you re-take your IQ test and see if the 1 in the from wasn't a typing mistake, second if it makes you feel so good yelling your IQ then joing MENSA with the other thousands of Nobel winners wanna-bes, high school teachers, library keepers, etc etc etc.

-I'm working up to my M.D. (on august i'll be playing with corpses <3<3)
-English isn't the sole language i speak,
-I can do calculi, statistics, and soon i'll grab some books on matrixs and Van Euler's.
I'm a genius because of these? hell no, means i'm productive and perphaps "smart", it cetainly it's a stronger argument in favor of my capacities than bluffing 3 digits and talking High School Socratic philosophy. ( I'm not insulting Socrates, I do reckon his skills on retoric and logic).
swan
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Postby Chadwick Stone » Sun Jun 18, 2006 10:07 am

teslacoils2006 wrote:I know you Chadwick I studied your internet presence. You would put different colored socks on just to say you can.
I prefer shorts, a tee-shirt, and flip-flops. Unfortunately, my employer expects a suit and tie.

Just like the modern art just like Piccasso who was trapped by the institution and escaped. He knew the photograph was replacing portrait artists and escaped into his imagination. If you do not know this you can not enjoy Piccasso's genius.
The sordid details of an artist's life are irrelevant to appreciating their talent. If you like his paintings then you enjoy his genius.

Chadwick I enjoy seeing others at the same level as me but I am saddened you are so chained down by the system.
Huh? What in the world are you talking about?
Chadwick Stone
 
Posts: 80
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 5:25 pm

Postby R. Steven Coyle » Sun Jun 18, 2006 10:08 am

tesla,

What are your thoughts on Go?
R. Steven Coyle
 
Posts: 332
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Atlanta, Ga

Next

Return to Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron