Author Explorer Posted July 30, 2008 Author Share Posted July 30, 2008 Didn't expect the replies to turn out the way they have. I'm getting the impression that you'll are so insecure with the fact that I have introduced someone who has an off-the-chart IQ results, that you'll feel inferior to his value. So inferior, very few (If any), probably reviewed his work and thoughts. Let's face the facts: There's a STRONG correlation between intelligence and IQ scores. Period. That being said, it might be worth your time to read this guy's material. And if you're open-minded, you might even learn something. Link to post Share on other sites
shadowplay Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 Didn't expect the replies to turn out the way they have. I'm getting the impression that you'll are so insecure with the fact that I have introduced someone who has an off-the-chart IQ results, that you'll feel inferior to his value. So inferior, very few (If any), probably reviewed his work and thoughts. Let's face the facts: There's a STRONG correlation between intelligence and IQ scores. Period. That being said, it might be worth your time to read this guy's material. And if you're open-minded, you might even learn something. It's not about inferiority. I know there are tons of extremely smart people out there, much smarter than I am. I just think that IQ measures a very limited type of intelligence. What people produce and achieve says a lot more about their abilities than how well they perform on a test. This guy is obviously extremely smart in his own way, but he hasn't achieved anything to prove his intelligence reaches beyond the borders of the test. I watched the whole interview and he struck me as cracked. Some of the things coming out of his mouth were utter garbage, like the idea that we should install "ticking bombs" inside children that could be detonated to make them infertile if they were deemed unworthy to reproduce. It doesn't take a genius to recognize that's a bad idea. In short: if this guy is such a genius why hasn't he achieved anything to prove it? If he was a genius wouldn't he be producing brilliant papers and theorems? As far as I can tell he's only made a name for himself with his record breaking IQ score. Link to post Share on other sites
Author Explorer Posted July 31, 2008 Author Share Posted July 31, 2008 It's not about inferiority. I know there are tons of extremely smart people out there, much smarter than I am. I just think that IQ measures a very limited type of intelligence. What people produce and achieve says a lot more about their abilities than how well they perform on a test. This guy is obviously extremely smart in his own way, but he hasn't achieved anything to prove his intelligence reaches beyond the borders of the test. I watched the whole interview and he struck me as cracked. Some of the things coming out of his mouth were utter garbage, like the idea that we should install "ticking bombs" inside children that could be detonated to make them infertile if they were deemed unworthy to reproduce. It doesn't take a genius to recognize that's a bad idea. In short: if this guy is such a genius why hasn't he achieved anything to prove it? If he was a genius wouldn't he be producing brilliant papers and theorems? As far as I can tell he's only made a name for himself with his record breaking IQ score. Is the "ticking bombs" really such a bad idea? Sure would solve a lot more problems than it would cause. On his theorem, he HAS produced a brilliant idea. Many brilliant ideas. I posted the link to one of his theorems in my first post of which was his most popular work. The "Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe." http://www.ctmu.org/ I don't care whether you like the guy or can even disprove any of his work. My only point is that to shut him off before giving him a chance says a lot more about YOU than it does about HIM. Link to post Share on other sites
The Collector Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 Yeah I researched him a little. Believes in Eugenics and Intelligent Design. I lost interest after those two snippets. If his theory is so amazing, why don't you sum it up for us rather than tell us how we should be in awe of his IQ score, when many of us have reservations about how much that actually proves, and whether it would be worth plowing through a potentially dull and/or cranky theory when we could be scolding the opposite sex or eating beans or whatever. Link to post Share on other sites
Author Explorer Posted July 31, 2008 Author Share Posted July 31, 2008 Yeah I researched him a little. Believes in Eugenics and Intelligent Design. I lost interest after those two snippets. If his theory is so amazing, why don't you sum it up for us rather than tell us how we should be in awe of his IQ score, when many of us have reservations about how much that actually proves, and whether it would be worth plowing through a potentially dull and/or cranky theory when we could be scolding the opposite sex or eating beans or whatever. A little bitter today, eh? Maybe I should've posted this on a Friday. I didn't say you should be in awe of his IQ score. I was in awe when I first posted it here and thought others might have the same opinion. Not just his IQ was interesting to me, but his life story and his work as well. Have fun eating your beans Link to post Share on other sites
The Collector Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 Turns out I'm all out of beans so I checked out his theory. It begins with half a million expensive and scientific-sounding words thrown charmlessly together, such as this quagmire In the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe or CTMU, the set of all sets, and the real universe to which it corresponds, take the name SCSPLof the required extension of set theory. SCSPL, which stands for Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language, is just a totally intrinsic, i.e. completely self-contained, language that is comprehensively and coherently (self-distributively) self-descriptive, and can thus be model-theoretically identified as its own universe or referent domain. Theory and object go by the same name because unlike conventional ZF or NBG set theory, SCSPL hologically infuses sets and their elements with the distributed (syntactic, metalogical) component of the theoretical framework containing and governing them, namely SCSPL syntax itself, replacing ordinary set-theoretic objects with SCSPL syntactic operators. The CTMU is so-named because the SCSPL universe, like the set of all sets, distributively embodies the logical syntax of its own descriptive mathematical language. It is thus not only self-descriptive in nature; where logic denotes the rules of cognition (reasoning, inference), it is self-cognitive as well. (The terms "SCSPL" and "hology" are explained further below; to skip immediately to the explanations, just click on the above links.)An act is a temporal process, and self-inclusion is a spatial relation. The act of self-inclusion is thus "where time becomes space"; for the set of all sets, there can be no more fundamental process. No matter what else happens in the evolving universe, it must be temporally embedded in this dualistic self-inclusion operation. In the CTMU, the self-inclusion process is known as conspansion and occurs at the distributed, Lorentz-invariant conspansion rate c, a time-space conversion factor already familiar as the speed of light in vacuo (conspansion consists of two alternative phases accounting for the wave and particle properties of matter and affording a logical explanation for accelerating cosmic expansion). When we imagine a dynamic self-including set, we think of a set growing larger and larger in order to engulf itself from without. But since there is no "without" relative to the real universe, external growth or reference is not an option; there can be no external set or external descriptor. Instead, self-inclusion and self-description must occur inwardly as the universe stratifies into a temporal sequence of states, each state topologically and computationally contained in the one preceding it (where the conventionally limited term computation is understood to refer to a more powerful SCSPL-based concept, protocomputation, involving spatiotemporal parallelism) The kind of flim-flam hi-falutin gobbledegook used to sell snake oil and monorails if you ask me, but his IQ is 50 -30 points higher than mine, so what do I know? Then just as you're falling asleep/getting irritated he starts mentioning the G-Word (I knew I should have paid attention to what forum this was posted in). http://www.ctmu.org/What does this say about God? First, if God is real, then God inheres in the comprehensive reality syntax, and this syntax inheres in matter. Ergo, God inheres in matter, and indeed in its spacetime substrate as defined on material and supramaterial levels. This amounts to pantheism, the thesis that God is omnipresent with respect to the material universe. Now, if the universe were pluralistic or reducible to its parts, this would make God, Who coincides with the universe itself, a pluralistic entity with no internal cohesion. But because the mutual syntactic consistency of parts is enforced by a unitary holistic manifold with logical ascendancy over the parts themselves - because the universe is a dual-aspected monic entity consisting of essentially homogeneous, self-consistent infocognition - God retains monotheistic unity despite being distributed over reality at large. Thus, we have a new kind of theology that might be called monopantheism, or even more descriptively, holopantheism. Second, God is indeed real, for a coherent entity identified with a self-perceptual universe is self-perceptual in nature, and this endows it with various levels of self-awareness and sentience, or constructive, creative intelligence. Indeed, without a guiding Entity whose Self-awareness equates to the coherence of self-perceptual spacetime, a self-perceptual universe could not coherently self-configure. Holopantheism is the logical, metatheological umbrella beneath which the great religions of mankind are unknowingly situated.[/FONT][/COLOR] By which point I'm getting that he's just another creationist trying to use science to justify belief. Another article of his, Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals who find Darwinism Unconvincing pretty much nails his colours to the mast. All in all I wish I'd gone out and bought some beans. Link to post Share on other sites
Arise_Serpentor Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 i'll take life experience and wisdom over any genius! I know genius's that blew their life away on coke and drugs and they are usually arrogant and elitist! not all, just some! anyway, experience and wisdom are more valuable! Link to post Share on other sites
Lovelybird Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 Faith is simple, head knowledges don't have much to do with her. When I focus on circumstances, and tried to figure out why, why, why, most of time I sank deeper anxious. But when I pray in Spirit, I can see situations more clearly, and have peace and joy, even beyond my limited views, such as I can see others struggles, not only mine. It is very well said in story of Adam and Eve. Before they ate the forbidden fruit, they only have spiritual eyes, they are connected to each other and with God, they enjoy life and very happy, and love each other deeply. But after they ate forbidden fruit, their natural eyes opened, so they focus on circumstance, lose connection with each other, start to find fault with each other, and most importantly lose connection with God, their spiritual eyes shut down. That was trouble, depression, anxcious came from. Stay in Spirit, peace and joy always be there. and Jesus Lord made it possible for us Link to post Share on other sites
Kenyth Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 "IQ", is an educated guess as to your intellectual potential by using a written test. This "guess" assumes certain constants on the testing and tested person that can be worked around. For one, it assumes you answer the question correctly because you fully understand the base concepts behind the question. Many people are very good at memorizing answers to questions, or picking the best answer on multiple choice type questions. The IT world is full of people with certifications who can't actually do the work. Also, it measures potential, not real world ability. Whether you actually work and do anything with your potential is up to you. It's also very possible for someone with much less potential, to acheive far more than a lazy genius. Link to post Share on other sites
J2FT1 Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 Actually being smart is knowing how to adapt to the world around you and making the best of it. For one, he's fat, so that already rejects the notion that he is smart. If he is smart he is would know that being fat would cause to live shorter than if he was in shape and would act accordingly. Link to post Share on other sites
rosabella20 Posted August 8, 2008 Share Posted August 8, 2008 Must be a sleep Programmer Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts