View topic - Intelligence- Humankind’s Greatest Flaw?

PsiPog.net Forum Index » General Discussion » Intelligence- Humankind’s Greatest Flaw?

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Intelligence- Humankind’s Greatest Flaw?
Author	Message
Posted on Mon Dec 18, 2006 10:06 am
somefatguy Joined: 17 Jan 2006 Posts: 1187	Tankdown wrote: maybe I should have menstion that it was pointed to psiready......seeing that hes saying humanity don't have intelligence. Never was good with words... No, look. Quote: I guess on some grounds that didn't really help.. Quote: I know none of this helps, and I think you may just be looking at me with a sad/angry look. Quote: I think MA here can do a better job then I just did. MartialArtist said that to you because you were the one who didn't show any confidence. psiready wrote: I was merely stating that the principle of the brain is that. The subject of what the brain learns has an infinite amont of variations. Confidence? What OF confidence? Robots are fine from my point of view as long as they're consistent. This world is one big robot in which if you know this nothing surprises you. See, observe yourselves. If I make such a radical statement then you will retaliate. Arguing with your own theories, or if not, simply go that direction by basically restating what the previous person said but not going out of bounds. Your last statement is quite interesting. Usually retaliation has to do with feelings. But if I am not connected with the subject, I will only retaliate so I don't just leave you alone to argue with no one. With no retaliation, there is no argument, and with no argument, there is nothing to learn. Do you want us to stop learning?
Back to top
Posted on Mon Dec 18, 2006 4:36 pm
Niushirra Joined: 17 Jan 2006 Posts: 299	You obviously wanna stop learning SFG. Don't wanna be flawed like the rest of us smarties.
Back to top
Posted on Mon Dec 18, 2006 4:56 pm
somefatguy Joined: 17 Jan 2006 Posts: 1187	Niushirra wrote: You obviously wanna stop learning SFG. Don't wanna be flawed like the rest of us smarties. What? Are you joking? I'm probably the most flawed out of every person who has posted on this thread.
Back to top
Posted on Mon Dec 18, 2006 8:25 pm
Tankdown Joined: 10 Aug 2006 Posts: 688	I know the prefect plan to tell who has the most holes in there intelligent! We all jump in a lake and sees who sinks first!
Back to top
Posted on Tue Dec 19, 2006 12:14 am
JOHNNYBEGOOD Joined: 17 Jul 2006 Posts: 354	Lightbringer wrote: Psiready: People are only so robotic and predictable if they choose to be. Most choose a feeling of false security from the inevitable changes in life and live on a sort of autopilot. They give over their lives to their subconscious to protect them and remain in a child-like state rather than learning and growing. This isn't the only option for how one must live though, and spotaneous, expressive, intelligent people do exist. Well, human beings are born with the desire to return to the metaphorical 'womb'. We crave security and eternal happiness. But...is the meaning of life really happiness? A homeostasis of desire? Perhaps the meaning of life is thrillseeking?
Back to top
Posted on Tue Dec 19, 2006 1:01 am
Eldibs Joined: 12 Jan 2006 Posts: 909	But by taking any action at all, you are giving in to desire. For example, let's choose something basic. How about breathing... it's something you can consciously choose to do or not to do. By choosing to breathe, you give in to your desire to live. By choosing not to breathe, you give in to the desire to pass out and/or die. Of course, it's never as black and white as that, but you get my point. By seeking something (even a thrill) you are trying to fulfill your desires.
Back to top
Posted on Tue Dec 19, 2006 1:28 am
Lightbringer Joined: 29 Jan 2006 Posts: 293	JOHNNYBEGOOD wrote: Well, human beings are born with the desire to return to the metaphorical 'womb'. We crave security and eternal happiness. But...is the meaning of life really happiness? A homeostasis of desire? Perhaps the meaning of life is thrillseeking? We are born with a desire for security and immortality. But does that necessarily mean that the way we as a species generally condition ourselves for the sake of security and quieting our deepest fears is the correct one? We don't really gain any security (there's so much that we desire that we can't have or get too much of) because we're too afraid to venture out of our "somewhat secure", sheltered mindsets (that we have created at an early age) to find a safer mindset. Ironically, our desire for security coupled with our fear of risk and insecurity breeds insecurity in our lives. The meaning of life brings the realization that one can always be happy. I don't mean to be cheery and all smiles all the time. Different emotions and different mindsets can be expressed without actually being angry, say, or sad, etc. Emotions are meant to be expressed, but they don't linger when one is truly happy. Besides, emotions have their uses and so bottling them up or trying to ignore them is unhealthy. Eldibs wrote: But by taking any action at all, you are giving in to desire. For example, let's choose something basic. How about breathing... it's something you can consciously choose to do or not to do. By choosing to breathe, you give in to your desire to live. By choosing not to breathe, you give in to the desire to pass out and/or die. Of course, it's never as black and white as that, but you get my point. By seeking something (even a thrill) you are trying to fulfill your desires. There is a difference between necessity and desire. One must breathe to survive and can do so free from desire. One can similarly be a millionaire without having a desire for money, or be a soldier without a desire to fight. With no desires comes no anger when you don't get what you want, and no overwhelming euphoria when you achieve a long-time goal. It simply is. There is also a difference between being committed to something and being attached to it (and thus desiring it). One can have a goal, and pour their heart and soul into achieving that goal, and then fail and be okay with that because they were not attached, simply committed. Attachment also brings nervousness, indecisiveness and a loss of perspective because one identifies with their accomplishments rather than simply what they are. Fear of failure thus breeds failure.
Back to top
Posted on Tue Dec 19, 2006 4:18 am
psiready Joined: 27 Feb 2006 Posts: 93	Yes the search for the womb is kind've like a paradox, you want it but yet you try to elimnate desire. Which is where the idea of "Walk Slowly" came from. If you're not worried about the future then your not worried if you ever find the womb or not and thus the entire fantasy/gain of finding the womb is destroyed and you can proceed to cultivate simply for self-imporvement purposes. Thus if you walk slowly or steadily and focus only on now you are sure to make certain progress. If you are energized and make out a plan of how you're going to practice arduosly and etc. Then you might easily give up when you get nowhere and proceed to other hobbies/interests.
Back to top
Posted on Tue Dec 19, 2006 3:29 pm
GreatWhiteNinja Joined: 16 Feb 2006 Posts: 429	First, a few statements to those concerned: thegrogen: I felt that your second post was very well put and stood out from most of the other posts. I believe that yours explained where SFG's confusion and mislabeling of this thread came from. MA: I believe that your post explained it with the most detail and precision. I couldn't have put it better my self. Your example was also very apt . I intend to explain it in simpler terms and with more examples to get everyone back on topic and hopefully end as much confusion, doubt, arguments (if there were any?), etc. as possible; given of course that what I say makes sense/rings true in the minds of its beholders. P.S. Sorry I haven’t e-mailed you yet . I know its been a month or two but I am terrible at making promises when it comes to e-mailing/PMing people about something. That is why I think I should not do this anymore so that I am free of the burden of knowing that I have failed. I go where the wind takes me. I could e-mail you in a day or maybe a month. I never actually know. My windows of opportunity are small and open rarely so I wait for them patiently. So when I eventually e-mail you I cannot say. TO TANKDOWN: I remember that one of your later posts was very good. It was like thegrogen's in a way. I agree with it. I must have missed something with this confidence thing that SFG was talking about, but regardless I think you should have confidence because I believe that it improves the quality of one's posts. And I already think that most of yours so far have been good. Let them see your confidence and they will probably have more reason to agree with what you're talking about. For example, Martial Artist makes his posts with such confidence (almost assertiveness; but that’s probably imagined ) that I am very inclined to believe what he says. I couldn’t imagine how I’d feel if he made some big post and said “I’m not sure if this is true though…” at the end! It would increase my doubt toward the credibility of his statement/argument tremendously. TO EVERYONE: I am mainly posting here because SFG (somefatguy) requested it. He wanted me to defend his point of view on his thread but unfortunately I can only do so much. I think he messed up on his approach towards the topic. The following material will provide examples and explanations based off of experiences, opinion, deductive/inductive reasoning, and maybe off of a post or two from this very thread: somefatguy wrote: The first thing I will explain towards this statement is where we are. How would life be without intelligence? We would live a primitive lifestyle based off of instinct and emotion. If any technology existed it would not be man-made. Come to think about it, (almost) all life forms probably require some kind of natural intelligence to survive at even the most basic levels of existence. It would be survival of the fittest and not much different from how most animals live. Ego, if any, would be less complex but if there was any it would be a lot easier to see and express in that kind of society because they wouldn’t have the intelligence to do anything else. Emotions would also probably run a lot more free because, without intelligence, they would never have a reason to suppress them at any time. Quote: How is life with intelligence? It makes society a lot more complex, interactive, structured, and unified in general. It increases the ways and complexity in which the ego is expressed and increased. It increases the complexity of emotions and the ways they are expressed (see MA’s example about the phone call). It gives humans more power to do very beneficial things or very destructive things. The problem lies in the choice of the person with this kind of intelligence at his/her disposal not the intelligence ITSELF. Also, thoughts would not exist. Therefore, people would not live in the illusions created by them. I am not sure if this would make society enlightened because I think it requires something more than constant meditation but people would be that much closer to attaining it. I could go on but I will stop here. Quote: As much as I have seen, I think we would be in a better boat. That depends on the choice of those with the intelligence. If they (this can refer to a lot of people; usually those with power positions) choose to utilize it to make others miserable then your statement would be true yes. I think the reason you believe that is because of what society has done with its intelligence so far. It’s not pretty but this only comes from human flaws. If used correctly, intelligence could make the world a much better place. I can still see some of the benefits of intelligence today. For example: without the presence of intelligence, books that teach spiritual enlightenment could not exist . Your misconception comes from the USER of the intelligence not the intelligence itself. Intelligence is merely a tool at our disposal. It can be used for whatever we want to use it for. For example, would you say that guns kill people or that people with guns kill people? It is not the gun that decides to kill the person but the person with the finger on the trigger that causes the killing to take place. The gun only ENABLES the person to kill faster and more efficiently. The same goes with explosives. They can enable people to do something destructive like killing hundreds of innocent bystanders or they can enable people to do something beneficial like clearing a gap between a hill (made of rock) to make a new road. The explosive does not decide YOU do! Quote: Do you see greed in intelligence? Again, the problem of your misconception lies in choice. Intelligence is merely a tool of the mind not the mind itself. A person’s greed is just a flaw that can be amplified by intelligence. The more we know the more we seem to want or want to know (at least in my opinion). So if you said that “Intelligence just seems to increase our greed more and more.” you’d be half right- IMO greed can be overcome (though hard it may be) and is therefore a kind of choice. Quote: Do you see the tool towards our desire? The answer lies in the very question! That’s what I was saying, intelligence is merely a tool for greed. The desire comes from “you” not the intelligence. Quote: Without intelligence, we would not have desire, how could we? This one I am not really sure about. I believe that this is not true but I could be wrong (as could a lot of the other things I said). Think about it this way, what are the things that a person naturally desires without intelligence? The answers that come to mind are things like food, water, shelter, etc. It is possible to desire things like these without intelligence and house cats can be considered a good example. Our cats eat a lot more than they need to and they don’t really have intelligence (at least by human standards). Even when an animal tries to scratch an itch it can be considered desire. That is all I have to say about this question (at least right now). Quote: Here is the main thing I have always pondered though. Look at the smartest person you know of. Keep in mind not to look at the person who has the most wisdom though. Now what do you see? Do you see ego and actions from them that look down upon others? That’s what I see at least. Something happens to us humans that makes us feel up with this power, and we like it. We start to go around judging the other beings on the street and then act upon it. We look down upon the one’s who are less intelligent than us. We act like apes. Personal choice; flaws in the person cause this. The intelligence, like I’ve said before, can only amplify or be manipulated. Smart people who look down upon the (inherently) less intelligent are like bullies who use their big muscles to hurt other, weaker kids just because they can (IMO). Quote: “No one is smarter than you, they only know different than you.” I’ve got a few quotes on intelligence myself. Just jokes though: “No one is smarter than you, they just have more knowledge than you.” “No one is smarter than you, they’re just not as intellectually lazy as you.” “No one is smarter than you, they just have more neurons in their brain.” “No one is smarter than you, they just figured out how to utilize their brain better than you.” “No one is smarter than you, they’ve just got better DNA than you.” I’m sure you can all see the satire and hypocrisy of the statements. Just thought I might be able to make whoever bothered to read this whole thing laugh . EDIT: Well, probably wasn't that funny anyway.
Back to top
Posted on Tue Dec 19, 2006 5:02 pm
somefatguy Joined: 17 Jan 2006 Posts: 1187	GreatWhiteNinja wrote: TO EVERYONE: I am mainly posting here because SFG (somefatguy) requested it. He wanted me to defend his point of view on his thread but unfortunately I can only do so much. I think he messed up on his approach towards the topic. The following material will provide examples and explanations based off of experiences, opinion, deductive/inductive reasoning, and maybe off of a post or two from this very thread: Ahem, I did not request it per say. I said that your time is usually wasted, wasted only on your threads, and that you could give some good insight in other threads, such as mine. Nor did I want my personal view defended. Maybe I did mess up on this thread, but I posted to learn and spread more ideas. You making fun of my personal proverb was also clearly uncalled for.
Back to top
Posted on Tue Dec 19, 2006 5:19 pm
GreatWhiteNinja Joined: 16 Feb 2006 Posts: 429	somefatguy wrote: You making fun of my personal proverb was also clearly uncalled for. . I wasn't making fun of your "proverb" I was just making fun of intelligence itself.
Back to top
Posted on Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:41 pm
Tankdown Joined: 10 Aug 2006 Posts: 688	No one is smarter then you, they just learn to think and read more. No one is smarter then you, its that everyone else knows the difference from paint chips and potato chips.
Back to top
Posted on Wed Dec 20, 2006 4:28 am
psiready Joined: 27 Feb 2006 Posts: 93	Quote: We would live a primitive lifestyle based off of instinct and emotion. If any technology existed it would not be man-made. Come to think about it, (almost) all life forms probably require some kind of natural intelligence to survive at even the most basic levels of existence. It would be survival of the fittest and not much different from how most animals live. Ego, if any, would be less complex but if there was any it would be a lot easier to see and express in that kind of society because they wouldn’t have the intelligence to do anything else. Emotions would also probably run a lot more free because, without intelligence, they would never have a reason to suppress them at any time. We already live off instinct and emotions. Intelligence is an illusion, the more you have the more confused you are, it does not liberate nor does it make you smarter. Intelligence creates illusions, if you knew everything then you would be fine but either you do or you don't. With simpler intelligence then their are less outbursts of emotions. Quote: It makes society a lot more complex, interactive, structured, and unified in general. It increases the ways and complexity in which the ego is expressed and increased. It increases the complexity of emotions and the ways they are expressed (see MA’s example about the phone call). It gives humans more power to do very beneficial things or very destructive things. The problem lies in the choice of the person with this kind of intelligence at his/her disposal not the intelligence ITSELF. Also, thoughts would not exist. Therefore, people would not live in the illusions created by them. I am not sure if this would make society enlightened because I think it requires something more than constant meditation but people would be that much closer to attaining it. I could go on but I will stop here. Humans have no choice in what they do as it's always motivated by unconscious reasons. True Will unaffected by desire is called enlightenment. If thoughts don't exist then intelligence doesn't. If ego is expressed and emotions are more tangled then no one is enlightened. If a society exists then not all can be enlightened, if complex society exists then not all can be enlightened. Quote: That depends on the choice of those with the intelligence. If they (this can refer to a lot of people; usually those with power positions) choose to utilize it to make others miserable then your statement would be true yes. I think the reason you believe that is because of what society has done with its intelligence so far. It’s not pretty but this only comes from human flaws. If used correctly, intelligence could make the world a much better place. I can still see some of the benefits of intelligence today. For example: without the presence of intelligence, books that teach spiritual enlightenment could not exist . Your misconception comes from the USER of the intelligence not the intelligence itself. Intelligence is merely a tool at our disposal. It can be used for whatever we want to use it for. For example, would you say that guns kill people or that people with guns kill people? It is not the gun that decides to kill the person but the person with the finger on the trigger that causes the killing to take place. The gun only ENABLES the person to kill faster and more efficiently. The same goes with explosives. They can enable people to do something destructive like killing hundreds of innocent bystanders or they can enable people to do something beneficial like clearing a gap between a hill (made of rock) to make a new road. The explosive does not decide YOU do! Your summed up intelligence will decide what you do with your intelligence, which is what makes intelligence redundant. If I had supreme knowledge I wouldn't want to do anything with it. If enlightened people had knowledge they know it will be useless to use it so they don't have to make a choice.
Back to top
Posted on Wed Dec 20, 2006 9:32 am
somefatguy Joined: 17 Jan 2006 Posts: 1187	I agree with psiready and GreatWhiteNinja! Oh no!
Back to top
Posted on Wed Dec 20, 2006 4:21 pm
GreatWhiteNinja Joined: 16 Feb 2006 Posts: 429	psiready wrote: If enlightened people had knowledge they know it will be useless to use it so they don't have to make a choice. Well, apparently there is an exception. His name is Eckhart Tolle and he wrote The Power of Now. Ever heard of it? He certainly used his knowlege to make that book. It must have come easily to him too because in his enlightened state he had complete control over his mind. Quote: Intelligence is an illusion, the more you have the more confused you are, it does not liberate nor does it make you smarter. This is true, but the mind (which, of course, intelligence is a part of) can be useful when put in the right hands. He mentions that it can still be useful to an enlightened person if they choose to use it. Their complete control over it allows them to use it more quickly and efficiently. He also notes that an englightened persons ability stop thinking on command allows him/her to have high creativity. He said that the absense of thought allows creative ideas to come into consciousness which are translated into thoughts by the mind. Quote: If thoughts don't exist then intelligence doesn't. This I believe is very wrong. Not just because of the fact that Eckhart Tolle mentioned that there is a vast realm of intelligence beyond thought but because I believe this myself. In my opinion, thought is only a way of EXPRESSING intelligence. Do you really think that intelligence comes from thought? No, it comes from somewhere deeper than that. The part that I mentioned about creativity earlier is an excellent example of what lies beyond our thoughts. Although I disagree with a few things that you said I still agreed with the majority. Thank you for correcting some of my statements. I didn't think the whole thing through that much. I wouldn't want people getting the wrong idea about intelligence (That is, if they believed any of it in the first place .).
Back to top

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

PsiPog.net Forum Index » General Discussion » Intelligence- Humankind’s Greatest Flaw?