Truth Discussion Time - Page 6

On August 02 2016 11:59 Stroggoz wrote: Show nested quote + On July 30 2016 03:15 Loco wrote:   On July 30 2016 01:00 Baalim wrote:   On July 29 2016 19:16 nolan wrote:   On July 29 2016 13:37 uiCk wrote:   On July 29 2016 12:57 Spitfiree wrote: Quite sure the global avg IQ has sunk by tons cause of the huge birth rate among lowest classes Also IQ is only useful up to a certain point, after that other factors are much more important Hard to say. It definitely has not "sunk by tons" globally (why would you say that?), but there are studies that seem to indicate slower or slight decline in certain developed nations mostly. Anyways, i suspect that, like everything, the growth will not be linear and i prefer not to limit myself to 10-20-30 year blocks when looking at "intelligence" i'm pretty ignorant to this topic, but wouldn't increased immigration (relative to the past) be a factor in declining IQ particularly in Europe and NA? i'd be curious to see if Korea/Japan and to a lesser extent Russia are experiencing IQ drops as well if this is true What I mean is, whats more important for progress, masses of common people or a few super geniuses? I think you already know the answer to that question. Hermann Hesse's book, Demian, deals with question this in part. It's a pretty quick read and I highly recommend it. "Hesse was profoundly influenced by Friedrich Nietzsche and many of the ideas expressed in Demian are borrowed from Nietzsche's work. Nietzsche published Beyond Good and Evil in 1886, offering a radical rejection of traditional societal values. His work argued that moral edicts were unnecessary; the distinction between "good" and "evil" need not play a dominant role in the decisions people make and the actions they perform. For those who could see this, action could and would be guided by a will to power. Man has a natural inclination to rise up, but only a few special men would be able to see beyond the values of their society to be able to express this will. The rest, the herd of bestial men, would simply follow along and listen to the rules with which they had been presented. Nietzsche placed a particularly high value on creative genius and often claimed that the world existed only for a few very special men. He displayed an equally strong loathing for Christianity, which he saw as inculcating moral principles that suppressed that which could make man great. Nietzsche's ideas captured the imagination of many intellectuals, particularly in Germany, around the turn of the century." http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/demian/context.html It's pretty clear that Nietzsche is wrong on this topic, as he was on almost everything i think, as well as having moral values that were behind the times when you compare him to other philosophers at the same time, like John stuart mill for example. Human being's are gifted with all sorts of creative impulses that can be used to benefit society. Yes, some of them can be very useful, the ability to do complex pure mathematics proofs can shape the world to a pretty extreme degree. But science is a social activity, anyone in the sciences can tell you that. Progress is largely made by a lot of scientists working together in labs, and LHC's and critiquing each others journal articles and so on. Often the 'intelligent few' are only a few steps ahead of everyone else, and they have a lot of luck and timing. Suppose Newton chose to do chemistry instead of physics first, then he might have been doing alchemy his whole life and discovered nothing and been part of the masses. If we live a society where everyone has the opportunity to pursue their creative impulses, you will maximize creative potential. If not, well their have been many geniuses born into poverty or some repression and not made many contributions because elitists oppressed them. Take ramanujan, one of the great mathematicians in history. You wouldn't be able to do a lot of things if he didn't get lucky and make it to trinity college and prove thousands of things in number theory that is used in coding, ect today. And Alan Turing, what if he didn't get to win the war from nazi's because people found out he was gay a little earlier and put him in jail. We'll these are two examples of possible suppressed intellectual progress because some part of society was repressed, so i think maximizing overall liberty (a lot of hand-waving when i make this statement)-including among the masses would indeed maximize creative potential and therefore intellectual potential. His views on early Christianity and slave-master morality are so hilariously delusional it does add another data-point to the thesis that human self deception is boundless. Early Christianity was a religious and political-liberation movement that got people to think about basic moral values, and the lying elites of the roman empire.

Its no mistery randomness is the true master of destiny but I were ignoring that for the sole purpose of comparing great people and the masses effect on human progress

The thing is there is no such thing as randomness however

On August 06 2016 08:34 Spitfiree wrote: The thing is there is no such thing as randomness however

interesting statement coming from a poker player lol

On August 02 2016 11:59 Stroggoz wrote: It's pretty clear that Nietzsche is wrong on this topic, as he was on almost everything i think ... His views on early Christianity and slave-master morality are so hilariously delusional it does add another data-point to the thesis that human self deception is boundless. Early Christianity was a religious and political-liberation movement that got people to think about basic moral values, and the lying elites of the roman empire.

I understand a lot of the skepticism concerning many aspects of Nietzsche's philosophy, but regarding the genealogy of morality and the roots of what gave birth to the eventual dominance of Christianity I don't think he could be more spot on. Perhaps you'll tell me what's so hilarious about it or where N.'s self deception lies on the matter.

It's obvious that N. hated whatever elevated the mass above the individual and even if you disagree with this, you have to give it to him that Christianity represents exactly that; it's prevalence is based on the fact that it's all about poor uneducated people patting themselves on the back and dreaming of vengeance (or social justice) in the afterlife. You don't even have to reach N.'s own conclusions to understand and agree that there's a lot of hypocrisy on what people consider moral and truthful, regardless the social status of master or slave. N. recognized the way different morals were adopted by the elite and the plebs and in the broader humanitarian sense he believed that Christianity's vengeful and life negating set of rules that put the mass above the person was far more dangerous than whatever the elite was deluding itself with. We could discuss more extensively on why Christianity (in it's pure form) is not a life affirming religion if you wish.

One last point. If you think that Christianity actually got people thinking about basic moral values, it in fact did the opposite. It convinced poor uneducated people of it's truthfulness with the best way there is to change someone's mind; it was convenient and in their own interest to believe in and it was the word of God. Christianity is like a meme of mediocrity spreading because it appeals to the lowest common denominator and it's adopting in ways that it stays as popular as it can. Right now it's not too vengeful or barbaric because the people don't need it to be that way, so there's a new hippie and almost violence-free version going around.

And if there are some positive side effects from Christianity's spread to the western world, ultimately it's hindering humanity's maturity and every individuals personal growth either by postponing everything important for the afterlife or by deceitfully stroking peoples ears in ways that make intellectual honesty as an alternative seem terrifying (which it sort of is)

On August 06 2016 08:57 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On August 06 2016 08:34 Spitfiree wrote: The thing is there is no such thing as randomness however interesting statement coming from a poker player lol

What, why ? I mean especially coming from a poker player it makes more sense since we base everything on predictability.
Anyways from what I've read on the topic, and to be honest most of it I couldn't even grasp in depth, randomness does not exist, its just that we cannot predict stuff properly at this point of our existence. W/e though, I'm far from capable of running a discussion on such a wide topic.

On August 06 2016 13:41 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + On August 06 2016 08:57 Baalim wrote:   On August 06 2016 08:34 Spitfiree wrote: The thing is there is no such thing as randomness however interesting statement coming from a poker player lol What, why ? I mean especially coming from a poker player it makes more sense since we base everything on predictability. Anyways from what I've read on the topic, and to be honest most of it I couldn't even grasp in depth, randomness does not exist, its just that we cannot predict stuff properly at this point of our existence. W/e though, I'm far from capable of running a discussion on such a wide topic.

Poker players base most things on expected value, a concept taught in undergraduate probability theories courses. It is not deterministic.

Randomness is a way of understanding phenomena, in mathematics you can learn also the concept called 'goodness of fit', which measures how good your model is compared to the raw data. So for example you might flip a coin a trillion trillion times. Your model will say that there is exactly .5 chance of getting a head. But in reality there migt be a tiny chip in the coin that isnt even visible to the naked eye and this makes the coin land one heads maybe once more every trillion flips than it will land on tails. This error can be measured and we might adjust our model, as the goodness of fit has a slight error.

Im not too sure what you mean when you say probability doesnt exist. You might be right depending on your meaning but, mathmaticians and scientists just say that it is a good concept to try and make sense of what is going on in the universe. Of course it doesnt exist out there in real world like lakes and trees do, it is a concept humans invented around the 17th century iirc.

On August 06 2016 13:41 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + On August 06 2016 08:57 Baalim wrote:   On August 06 2016 08:34 Spitfiree wrote: The thing is there is no such thing as randomness however interesting statement coming from a poker player lol What, why ? I mean especially coming from a poker player it makes more sense since we base everything on predictability. Anyways from what I've read on the topic, and to be honest most of it I couldn't even grasp in depth, randomness does not exist, its just that we cannot predict stuff properly at this point of our existence. W/e though, I'm far from capable of running a discussion on such a wide topic.

If you're gonna define actual coinflips as predictable because if you know the force exerted and height of spin then yeah it's theoretically possible to calculate, then yeah, randomness might not exist. Maybe quantum physics is gonna be possible to calculate, I have no idea. But in the 'ordinary lives of people', and historical evolution of societies and thought, a lot of randomness exists.

Like my own 'poker career'- I never won thaat much, but I got like $80k tournament profits. That entire run happened - and would not have happened without - a $20 gift of which I at some point had $1.70 left of. What really kickstarted my bankroll was winning $5k in a tourney, where on the final table bubble I won with 26 vs AK. 70% of the time, I might have gone broke, never gotten the money to get a mortgage, would not be owning the apartment I now own with my wife. Or maybe the lack of poker success would have motivated me to work hard towards some other goal - because the whole, 'I can just make money playing poker' mindset would not have installed itself in me.

The master degree I'm currently finishing is one which I pretty much randomly happened to stumble upon the day before the application deadline. I've made important life connections through that. Friendships I've made that have had profound impact on my life - might have been decided by factors like me and them randomly being assigned to the same class. Having last names that are almost equal means we'd be assigned more group work together.. This stuff is not 'truly random', but it totally qualifies in the sense that where I am in life is not the consequence of deliberate planning on my behalf - and even to the degree where aspects of my current life situation is a consequence of deliberate planning on my behalf, then my ability to deliberately plan my life is still a consequence of factors that at some point was entirely outside my control.

And this is also how it is with a lot of great historical people and important uprisings of the masses. French revolution might never have happened, or at least not until a later point in time, if not for a volcanic eruption on Iceland. Sure, volcanic eruptions might not technically qualify as random - but in the sense of being a force driving human progress forward, it absolutely is. I'm not gonna bring up anecdotes describing how famous people reached their deeply profound revelations, because these are largely fabricated (like the apple falling on newton's head would have been a perfect allegory if true), but it seems to me like mostly all of those people succeeded more due to being at the right place at the right time than through being uniquely intelligent.

to repeat the same a bit but if you do have perfect knowledge of every subatomic particle in the cosmos then indeed there is no randomness.... but if you dont randomness is HUGE

More nutrition discussion!!! :

Cholesterol:

So, I recently had my cholesterol checked:

Overall: 273
HDL: 47
LDL: 201
Triglycerides: 124

Doctor's Orders:

Watch fried and greasy food consumption (Will check it again in 3 months and likely suggest statins if no improvement)

The paleo guys like to talk about Cholesterol markers as not telling the whole story. They speak of harmless light and fluffy cholesterol and the real danger is the small and dense cholesterol that gets stuck in the arteries and causes divots. Overall, a better marker of cholesterol would be an ultrasound of the arteries.

Thoughts on above position?

Thoughts on nature vs nurture in regards to cholesterol?

Thoughts on drugs in regards to cholesterol?

What's the deal with cholesterol?

Also, Baal, I like your topic. What kept coming to my mind is a guy like Steve Jobs or Elon Musk. Every idea needs people to buy into that idea. I am so on board with driverless cars and privatized space exploration. It is amazing what Musk has done with that and the potential in the future. I love that he created an electric car that is sexy. The problem is that there is so much bullshit and regulation in the way that these groundbreaking ideas and trends will take time. Many times current (and behind the times) infrastructure freak out over anything new, anything deemed to be threatening, deemed to scary. The masses many times are a bunch of pussy bitch la concha de tu madre pinche fucking wej sheeple scared of their own damn shadows motherfucking puppet parrots entranced to the machine. Wow, that was a bit of an outburst. I think I needed to say that. Although it shows I carry anger and resentment and my own fears. I am human after all, doing my best to squeegee the ole' third eye as best as I can.

Anyways, one issue I see with the cutting edge super geniuses is if they take the confidence from a field they super excel in and believe that makes them an expert in other fields. I was just thinking of the video of Musk speaking on the Simulation Argument. He spoke well but the fact that he said his belief is billion to 1 that we are not in a simulation. My math and statistics are rusty but that is saying 99.9% we are living in a simulation? I know that there are people that will say there is a Christian God 100% of the time and that the Bible is 100% factual. It seems similar in my opinion. My first thought with the Musk assertion is what does he know that I and the scientists don't? Is he an alien?

Where am I going with that I am not entirely sure. I hate to go the Hitler route but it is obvious he was a genius in certain avenues and the danger it can cause if a super genius with horrific motives gets the masses on board.

On another point, politicians. Any politician that does not look at the position as that of a trusted public servant can get kidnapped, beaten within an inch of their life, and rehabilitated. Let's fucking throw them in a hole and give them some properly dosed psilocybin and therapy. Politicians are on a spectrum from retarded to brilliant but if the supplemental traits are manipulative, self-serving, money/power hungry actors that status quo across the masses will stay. The corrupt old people just have to keep dying and the young have to continue to be better educated. That is where the internet and technology are amazing.

I love the random shit comic. If I think about it, it is crazy how much and how little we are affected by random shit. I am surprised in my lifetime there have been no asteroid or meteorite scares. I would love to be a part of a project led by Musk to get into the space mineral mining market. No more blood diamonds. Sometimes I have thoughts about mass murdering Africans involved in the blood diamond trade or who mutilate female genitilia. Then I think, well, it is not entirely their fault. They were programmed from birth to end up there. Then I start thinking about assassinating the higher ups. I remember I had a while where I obsessed about kidnapping Dick Cheney and torturing him. Putin I would just want to snipe through the head or get some more jiu jitsu training so I could easily play with him breaking all his limbs before continuously strangling him unconscious until he agreed to get rehabilitated or strangled to death.

Musk isnt a super genius, not even a genius, he is a smart business man, he hires the geniuses and in fact many of his ideas are shit, for example his simulation argument or the Hyperloop is also garbage

geniuses produce shit ideas, read this:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2014/03/06/darwin-einstein-case-for-blunders/

On August 13 2016 18:25 Santafairy wrote: geniuses produce shit ideas, read this: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2014/03/06/darwin-einstein-case-for-blunders/

Well of course, but Musk is not a genius at least not by intellectual standards, dont get me wrong I love the guy he has accomplished so much, he is kind of the modern Edison.

This was google's first definition of genius:

1. exceptional intellectual or creative power or other natural ability.

I think Musk would fall under other natural ability. I do not even know the definition of intellectual. Intellectual, pseudo-intellectual... those words get thrown around a lot and I do not even know the definitions.

intellectual

1. of or relating to the intellect.

intellect

the faculty of reasoning and understanding objectively, especially with regard to abstract or academic matters.

That seems to very much deal with the sciences. I think classic genius is Albert Einstein, Jon Von Neumann, Alan Turing. There are autistics with natural abilities that dwarf someone who excels in maths, theoretical physics, problem solving. Someone can be exceptional in anything. What is interesting is that it uses the words natural ability. I would say Nabokov is a genius of literature but he did study from a very early age. He did have the best education available on the planet Earth. He was completely obsessed with reading and writing his entire life.

Sometimes I am insecure about pseudo-intellectuality:

a person who pretends an interest in intellectual matters for reasons of status. adjective. 3. of, relating to, or characterized by fraudulent intellectuality; unscholarly: a pseudointellectual book.

My hope is that our threads on here are avoiding the above definition. The fact that we post with anonymous names with, at least for me, an honest curiosity is a plus. Maybe we lack the use of extensive scholarly evidence. I do not know if I identify completely as an intellectual because I am more of an autodidact than someone engrossed in academia.

I was just thinking about some of your points. Every idea needs marketing. In the Steve Jobs example I would say he was a genius in vision and marketing. Woz (Steve Wozniak) was the classic genius in computing. Ideas need to spread like a virus for them to take hold. That is why marketing of the status quo is frustrating. Many facets of the education in any state school are frustrating. Current politics are definitely frustrating. I am thinking with most if not all products and marketing there has to be an aspect of beauty and aesthetic. If the early adopters and taste makers like it and say it is cool and beautiful the idea spreads. So, I am postulating that in any idea there is likely a classic genius in the science or art and some others who are brilliant in connection, collaboration, communication, vision, marketing. If it connects with the masses that is where change and progress comes from. I am thinking of Jiro Dreams of Sushi. It is known as perhaps the "best sushi place" in the world. It is cool. It is unique. One goes in there and Jiro stares the customers down like a border collie. "You will like this sushi or I will bite you." So, I do not necessarily think it is the masses in anything. Follow the rules or get in trouble. Make sure the police have some standard patrol routes to let everyone know they are watching. You want to get a nice job and stay out of trouble don't you?

I get hypnotized by music, art, and strippers. I think if an unblinking beautiful women is staring someone down in an advertisement it plays on the subconscious. I submit ok? Maybe if I buy that product I can be better, be happier, get closer to her, get closer to God.

I think a lot of people do not want to think. They think enough at their day job. I know many nights when I was on a daily job grind I just wanted release. I just wanted relief. Politics was just like a bullshit topic. Something to pass the time. No depth whatsoever. Sports, same thing. It is easier to get by and do my best to pursue happiness than be more educated and fight for change. I was doing enough fighting on a day to day basis in the field.

What if the masses and the ethical super geniuses teamed up?

Now that is what I am talking about. Anonymous posted something on facebook about how 1 bee does not scare most people. What about a swarm of 1 million bees? 10 million bees following their ethical Queen Bee? Revolution locally. Revolution in USA/Mexico/Canada. Global Revolution. (Fuck NAFTA)

Education is important. Leadership is important. The masses really have the power to make the changes but that change is typically inspired by a handful of people that branches out.

The masses dont create social change, who do they triumph over but themselves? social change is the evolution of thought from the intellectual ideas permeating reason to the ignorant

On August 06 2016 08:34 Spitfiree wrote: The thing is there is no such thing as randomness however

probability rules down to the subatomic level ( electron probability density, Schrödinger, etc.). you serious with that statement?

On August 06 2016 12:38 lebowski wrote: Show nested quote + On August 02 2016 11:59 Stroggoz wrote: It's pretty clear that Nietzsche is wrong on this topic, as he was on almost everything i think ... His views on early Christianity and slave-master morality are so hilariously delusional it does add another data-point to the thesis that human self deception is boundless. Early Christianity was a religious and political-liberation movement that got people to think about basic moral values, and the lying elites of the roman empire. I understand a lot of the skepticism concerning many aspects of Nietzsche's philosophy, but regarding the genealogy of morality and the roots of what gave birth to the eventual dominance of Christianity I don't think he could be more spot on. Perhaps you'll tell me what's so hilarious about it or where N.'s self deception lies on the matter. It's obvious that N. hated whatever elevated the mass above the individual and even if you disagree with this, you have to give it to him that Christianity represents exactly that; it's prevalence is based on the fact that it's all about poor uneducated people patting themselves on the back and dreaming of vengeance (or social justice) in the afterlife. You don't even have to reach N.'s own conclusions to understand and agree that there's a lot of hypocrisy on what people consider moral and truthful, regardless the social status of master or slave. N. recognized the way different morals were adopted by the elite and the plebs and in the broader humanitarian sense he believed that Christianity's vengeful and life negating set of rules that put the mass above the person was far more dangerous than whatever the elite was deluding itself with. We could discuss more extensively on why Christianity (in it's pure form) is not a life affirming religion if you wish. One last point. If you think that Christianity actually got people thinking about basic moral values, it in fact did the opposite. It convinced poor uneducated people of it's truthfulness with the best way there is to change someone's mind; it was convenient and in their own interest to believe in and it was the word of God. Christianity is like a meme of mediocrity spreading because it appeals to the lowest common denominator and it's adopting in ways that it stays as popular as it can. Right now it's not too vengeful or barbaric because the people don't need it to be that way, so there's a new hippie and almost violence-free version going around. And if there are some positive side effects from Christianity's spread to the western world, ultimately it's hindering humanity's maturity and every individuals personal growth either by postponing everything important for the afterlife or by deceitfully stroking peoples ears in ways that make intellectual honesty as an alternative seem terrifying (which it sort of is)

very well said. goes beyond Christianity to most organized religion and in particular Islam. Islam is a massively destructive belief.

On August 11 2016 07:55 Baalim wrote: to repeat the same a bit but if you do have perfect knowledge of every subatomic particle in the cosmos then indeed there is no randomness.... but if you dont randomness is HUGE

those subatomic particles have an intrinsic randomness. You could make some good models based on probability distributions but the system itself is non deterministic in nature.

Genius = smart as fuck = massive IQ (even if you don't like IQ tests or whatever and don't think they tell the whole story)

So extremely capable prodigy mathematicians who crushed college courses at 12 years old outcompeting all of the older students at a top university like stanford and made breakthroughs in advanced theoretical sciences. also likely Mozart type prodigies as well.

not businessman like musk and especially not fucking Steve Jobs

On August 15 2016 05:42 traxamillion wrote: Genius = smart as fuck = massive IQ (even if you don't like IQ tests or whatever and don't think they tell the whole story) So extremely capable prodigy mathematicians who crushed college courses at 12 years old outcompeting all of the older students at a top university like stanford and made breakthroughs in advanced theoretical sciences. also likely Mozart type prodigies as well. not businessman like musk and especially not fucking Steve Jobs

thats how I also would define a genius, somebody naturally gifted in the extreme, Musk or Jobs are highly intelligent with amazing work ethic that ran pretty well in life but they are not Gauss, Riemann or Tesla kind of genius