Tridimity

Avicii - You Make Me http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GADx4Hy-Gg

It would be funny if it did not have such drastic consequences for the wellbeing of humanity.

To oneself. Humans are not under threat of predation (for the most part), and I will grant that this is no guarantee of happiness, but I am failing to see what the presence or absence of the concept of carnivorousness has to do with the topic of the thread. "I have never seen Einstein as intelligent" - Okay, I think you're on your own here I'm saying that happiness is an emotion experienced upon release of certain neurotransmitters/hormones - including dopamine, serotonin, oxytocin and endorphins - and binding to their respective receptors on target cells. As such, the stimuli may initiate this physiological response - but they are not the physiological response in and of themselves.

Coming back to this, for one, I don't think that all male individuals will have exactly the same experiences, i.e. the stereotypes will be crude and inaccurate, but the trend you mention may hold. There may or may not be a similar or different trend in females. Speaking as a female, thus far in life I have had intense feelings for six men, and have been in a relationship with only one of them. I am not sure whether the feelings would be deemed 'infatuation' or 'love' by others but, from what I understand of love, I think that what I was experiencing was what society calls, 'love', in at least two cases. I found them all sexually attractive (excepting the first guy, because we were both too young for those kinds of feelings, this I think was more a friendship type of love, and subsequently it turned out that he is homosexual). However I loved all of these people for their minds and personalities - their superficial appearance, if I had been shown a photograph and had not come to know and love them as people, I would not have found immediately sexually attractive. In fact, I do not find men sexually attractive on the basis of appearance alone; if I see a stranger who is clearly aesthetically pleasing, I will think, 'Oh, he's good looking'; I do not think or feel, 'He's sexually attractive.' I have heard it said that men, in general, are more influenced by physical appearance than are women. Do you think that this is true as a rule?

Finding this very interesting - related to happiness in the sense of freeing oneself from the jurisdiction of others: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=127BR5b8Hm4 Mind Control - The Mechanics of Mind Control - Tools for the Awakening Especially relevant to my circumstances is the learned helplessness phenomenon Time to take back control [Ed: Okay so there is some quack in this one but there is also some useful advice]

Philosophy: A Guide to Happiness Presented by Alain De Botton Episode 1: Seneca on Anger http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foKMGulaYcg Episode 2: Schopenhauer on Love and Happiness http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQl-Pl4vBgE Episode 3: Epicurus on Happiness http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfsl530zTeg Episode 4: Montaigne on Self-Esteem http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuhYIhz2SA0 Episode 5: Socrates on Self-Confidence http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWWsiUSUYpo Episode 6: Nietzsche on Hardship http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2ouGbHjVUs YouTube versions for those living outside of the UK Well, that’s a very good point. The salmons may or may not be happy in the sense of experiencing the release of endorphins. However, it holds true that salmon (probably) live an unconsidered life. So, it very much depends on the definition of happiness by the OP; my references to the sedation of thought and feeling in relation to the unconsidered human life perhaps are more aligned with a kind of shallow pleasure than with happiness. Still, if the states of intelligence and happiness are to be mutually exclusive, then any happy life must necessarily also be an unconsidered one. It is for this reason that I maintain my preference for intelligence over happiness. Carnivores would presumably go extinct and so resulting in a far more peaceful (and potentially happy) animal kingdom? Most people actually require that those whom they love and care for personally, and by extension the rest of humanity, are happy before they are able to be happy. And sometimes the most intelligent people do not secure, what would be considered by the majority, to be the ‘best’ jobs. Think Einstein and the Bern Patent Office. Happiness is a sustained feeling or emotion. As such, the stimulation and aversion that you describe are just that – a stimulus or aversion – they are not the actuality of the sensation itself. An equivalent but equally fallacious statement would be, ‘chocolate is happiness’. Chocolate is the stimulus, it is not happiness.

Best analogy I have heard in a while - thanks

I would rather be intelligent than happy because I do not want to be a salmon. TAR and I were discussing this recently in a different context so my apologies for the wholesale paste: The unexamined life: those who follow their biological urges and have children then slumber their way through the rest of their life, finding ways to pass the time in comfort or in a shallow pleasure that will dull the senses and stunt personal development. A life lived in only watching garbage TV programmes, shopping in an unconscious attempt to fill the void created by the questions that they are not asking of themselves, the challenges that they allow to go unmet. It is well known that salmon hatch in freshwater streams before developing to sexual maturity in the open ocean before making an epic journey back to their original freshwater streams in order to reproduce – they then die. To me, all of the people living unconsidered lives are just following the same blind unconscious biologically programmed desires, without even realising the natural forces that coerce then into so doing, and then pass on without having once used their brain to achieve something magnificent. These people are no better than salmon. I do not want to be a salmon. This state of unconscious comfort and subjugation to the will of natural selection is most obvious in the domesticity of suburbia – although it is not exclusive to suburbia. In this sense, some hardship is actually a hallmark of the pursuit of objectives worth pursuing. You may recognise in these statements the intellectual positions of Socrates and Nietzsche - I have recently been watching ‘Philosophy: A Guide to Happiness’: http://www.channel4....o-happiness/4od Being unintelligent would necessitate living the unexamined life. Besides which, even if intelligence does not necessarily confer happiness (and definitely would not in the proposed hypothetical), it does at least allow for a modicum of self-respect, which is, I think, more important.

An update on potential treatment options for HIV: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-24745611 Here is the Nature paper Abstract: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12744.html

I am not asserting that atheism is belief in ultimate truth; atheism is the position taken by those who recognise that there is no empirical evidence for the existence of God. That is all. Neither am I asserting that ‘science is ultimate truth’. That phrase does not even make sense: Science is a way of thinking – the discoveries resulting from application of scientific methodology may or may not be true, but that is another matter. I regard Science as the most effective Philosophy in the discovery of truth. The fact that the scientific approach works is evidenced by any modern technology e.g. the electrical lighting in your house. And in 1880 Thomas Edison said ‘let there be light’. However, I and fellow Scientists will readily admit that it is not possible to reach a point of absolute 100% certainty with respect to truth. Therefore, we do not claim to have discovered absolute truth. Science is a means of modelling reality and attempting to refute hypotheses. Sometimes the model has to be more or less thrown out of the window in favour of a new model that better explains the phenomena, as in paradigm shifts, and that’s okay – actually I think it brings us closer to understanding the ultimate nature of an objective reality – but that is just me and I could not prove that. If you wish to remain silent throughout your life rather than pursuing knowledge than that is your own personal choice and I wish you the best of luck with that. ‘There could be greater things out there than you’ Well, it depends on what you mean by greater, and from whose perspective that judgment is to be made. Certainly there are people more intelligent than me, if that is what you mean, but I do not see how this is relevant to your ‘argument’. There are probably not religions against Science because: i. Scientists, unlike religious types, do not seek to convert others to their way of thinking – except upon request or as a part of mainstream education, in which case Science is taught alongside Religious Education and alongside other subjects ii. Scientists, unlike religious types, do not seek to impose their morality upon others and to judge others for failing to live by its rules iii. Scientists, unlike religious types, do not initiate Wars in the name of their beliefs iv. Scientists, unlike religious types, do not persecute those of differing belief – as in the Spanish Inquisition v. Scientists, unlike religious types, do not seek to control the behaviour of others vi. Scientists, unlike religious types, are too busy finding cures for diseases, attempting to mitigate climate change, inventing new technologies and pushing forward the frontiers of our knowledge regarding the Nature of the Cosmos – for any outsider (excepting yourself) to care very much about opposing Science Atheism is as much a religion as is non-belief in Long necked, pink wand-waving leprechauns. Nobody is trying to recruit others to atheism – atheism is the default setting, if you like. It is not possible to be Anti-(something which is non-existent). Nobody is claiming that ‘science is ultimate truth’ – for one, that phrase does not make sense, and I have already addressed this point above – scroll up. Science and Religion are not even really comparable in any meaningful way. The approaches taken by the two are diametrically opposite. You don’t have to believe in Science (I’m not sure you even understand what Science is) however seeing as this is a Science Forum I actually rock up here for the Science – not for the discussions on Religion – which you have initiated and which I have become entangled with because you are pitching the one against the other. If God existed, I certainly would like to ask why cancer, AIDS, poverty, famine, crime, heartbreak, death and all other forms of suffering exist in the world. I have come to the conclusion that there is no interventionist God looking out for us; we must look out for one another. Your last sentence doesn’t make sense – must be the word virus’ antics again.

This isn't a coherent or relevant response

That's a very good point indeed. How do you know when a child or adolescent is sufficiently emotionally mature as to be able to handle the concept of death? If you protect a child too much, aren't you effectively preparing them for a barrage of emotional insult when they finally have to come to terms with the realities of the world? Also - some children continue to believe in Heaven as a real place to which souls go after death, and continue to believe throughout their adult life. Since young children tend to lack the critical thinking skills of adults, isn't the introduction of such ideas, effectively imprinting the child's mind (without their consent)? Having kids must be hard

The only reason that you get away scot-free with not having to continually outline your reasons for not believing in Long necked, pink wand-waving leprechauns is because, in reality, there is nobody (to the best of my knowledge) asserting that such things exist. Much less is there a very large proportion of the human population who believe in these things and choose to live their life according to the philosophy as determined by the Long necked, pink wand-waving leprechauns. Nobody is going to judge you or to stifle your life choices or attempt to indoctrinate you and control your sexual behaviours and initiate wars and massacres on the basis of the Long necked, pink wand-waving leprechauns. However, the diametric opposite holds true for Christianity and for other religions - we (agnostics and atheists) are constantly having to fight off their attempts at conversion, the judgments that they cast upon us, their subjagation of women, children and homosexuals, their attack on reasoned argument and debate based on available evidence, their attempts to control the behaviour of the populace and to instigate wars while covering up their own crimes against the individual. I appreciate that not all religious people are involved in the above but, the size of the proportion who are involved, is sufficient that agnostics and atheists (who, before religion came to be, were labelled simply 'people') have to constantly defend their position against these people and the negative impacts that they are having on our societies, so of course the status 'agnostic/atheist' is constantly reinforced.

Disbelief in God only exists as a phenomenon, as a default state, because the very idea of a 'God' has infiltrated the human psyche. It's kind of similar to this. Long-necked, pink wand-waving leprechauns. There, I have infiltrated your psyche with the concept of Long-necked, pink wand-waving leprechauns. Now, do you believe in Long-necked, pink wand-waving leprechauns? If not (then by your own logic and not mine): What you do is Religion, and what you believe is No Long-necked, pink wand-waving leprechauns. Do you see yet how ridiculous that line of reasoning is, and how it must make us religious with respect to any and every entity for which there is zero evidence? No doubt you will ignore this because you are unable to challenge it.

Yes, I definitely regard Psychology as a Science. Investigation in the field is complicated by the fact that, as iNow has pointed out, the subjects of Psychology - humans and human behaviour - are not easily amenable to experimental intervention, or even if such intervention is technically possible, it would not always be deemed ethical to do so. For example, humans are phenotypically diverse and this is a reflection of the uniqueness of the interactions between their genome and environmental/life experiences. All of the possible confounding variables must therefore be controlled for when recruiting volunteers for psychological analysis. The same is true for any human medical Science however Psychology is different, I think, because it requires the inter-relation of biological and whole-organism behavioural phenomena - whereas Biomedical Science tends to concern itself with the behaviour of molecules, cells, tissues and organs. Therefore, there is less room for confounding variables to creep in with Biomedical Science when compared with Psychology because the organs and organ systems are relatively well understood and the resulting behaviour is very much a straightforward result of genetic and environmental factors. For example, whereas it is possible to model the effect of an environmental stimulus on some crude phenotype of importance to Biomedical Science (e.g. the secretion of a factor by cells in a cell culture dish), it is not possible to reduce phenotypes of importance to Psychology in the same way. At some point, the reductionist approach breaks down in the field of Psychology and is no longer informative with regards whole organism behaviour. Mouse and other in vivo models are useful in this respect in both Biomedical Science and in Psychology/Neuropsychology - see some of the recent work on autism in mice: http://www.nature.com/news/autism-symptoms-reversed-in-mice-1.11869 The brain itself is one of the most complex systems under scientific investigation and the field of Neuroscience is in its infancy so the field of Neuropsychology is still very much progressing in tandem. Thus, it seems to me that Psychology is a Science but that, until the field of Neurobiology progresses substantially further, then Psychology as a field will be limited in its approaches.

I think on most occasions it is possible to find common ground. However, we seem to have descended into an argument based on extremes, each as relentless as the other, with your sympathies aligning almost exclusively with the employer's viewpoint and my sympathies aligning almost exclusively with the employee's viewpoint. As such, the discussion has stopped being constructive.

TAR, I really don't know what goes on at a Mensa convention, but according to this account, it sounds like a moderately enjoyable event: I think as much as anything, the conventions are about meeting like-minded people and - hopefully - making friends. You mention feelings of inadequacy when in the society of high-achievers ('the lake') and yet feelings of self-imposed restriction when in the society of average achievers ('the pond'). My guess would be that your feelings of inadequacy are unfounded and that you belong in the society of high-achievers - so why don't you go join them? Fulfilling your personal potential and working to the best of your ability is not equivalent to 'taking improper advantage'. Also, do not assume that people have sensible reasons for their decisions and actions. Sometimes there is an easily discernible logic to people's reactions to their environment, sometimes there is order hidden in an outwardly-apparent chaos - with the order being perceptible only to the subject, and sometimes people act irrationally. You also mention that you would like to apply yourself more but are afraid of rejection. Rejection can be hard sometimes but it is also necessary for development: in general, people are not successful 100% of the time (unless their situation has been fixed for them) and so rejection is oftentimes one of the features on the path to success and acceptance. You might find that, after a while, the rejection does not even register with your emotions any longer. Seriously, I have got to that stage now where rejection is the norm and not the exception - frankly it doesn't bother me anymore, I kind of think 'what's new? Tell me something I don't know'. Nothing much surprises me in life anymore. Also - applying yourself need not mean 'taking advantage of people'. It is enough to 'put yourself out there', as it were, and see what happens. If people are interested in your talents and abilities then they will take up your offer; you therefore need not fear that you are taking advantage of anyone, because they actively desire your services. I also don't understand how applying yourself would mean taking responsibility for other people's private affairs, or making decisions for other people, or imposing yourself upon anybody. I can empathise with your feelings regarding friendships. Friendships do require a good deal maintenance if they are to survive and thrive, and all too often they involve heartbreak. I have a small number of good friends whom I should probably keep in contact with more than I currently do. In my experience, not just anyone will do as a friend; for one, I don't regard myself as a normal person, and I find it difficult to relate to people whose interests in life are too comfortable. If they are only interested in settling down and having 2.4 children and are not willing to pursue a higher passion, or to think differently and independently, then I find them intolerably boring. Something about the domesticity of suburbia is just deadening - do you know what I mean? Yes, most of my friends are eccentric in one way or another, which makes them both naturally endearing and easier to relate to on a personal level. They are not the kind of people you would find if you decided to actively search out potential friends - which makes me think that it is preferable not to search out new friends but to wait for our life paths to cross, and then I can be ever grateful for those glimmers of stars that crossed my path and brought happiness, even if transiently.

Yes, let's agree to disagree, our opinions are irreconcilable.

How have I insulted you? I think you may be mistaking criticism of your assertions with a personal attack or insult. My response is best left alone because you have no grounds on which to justify your assertions, and I am directly questioning your assertions. It will mislead you if you are interested only in finding yes-men for your assertions rather than trying to illuminate Truth by way of reasoned argument that is predicated on evidence. Frankly I am relieved that you do not consider me a 'good poster'. You seem not to appreciate that in order for me to give a rat's ass about your opinion I would need to first respect your reasoning and means of generating those opinions - which I certainly do not.

I notice that you do not bother to respond to any of the questions or comments posed by members regarding the utility of language as a means of communication and the separation of language and thought. You deem the above to be the best comment precisely because it is in line with your preconceived ideas. What I don't understand is, if you were merely looking for a mirror to reinforce your own views rather than to learn something from the inevitable differences of opinion, then why did you bother to come to a discussion Forum?

TAR, I would agree with you in that, in reality, each of the capabilities that defines genius - for example, raw mental processing power and mental stamina, IQ, creative intelligence, problem-solving abilities and emotional intelligence - exist on a spectrum. Each individual will fall at some point within the spectrum/normal distribution curve for each of the capabilities. It is exceedingly unlikely that any one individual will prove to be substantially more capable than the average for all of the criteria. So, everybody will have a superior in some category. Moreover, the full expression of that genius capability is often dependent on factors which are beyond the individual's control - for example, socioeconomic factors or the historical period or geographical location in which they were born. For an individual of high capability to fail to make use of that capability in transforming the world - or even their own life - in some positive way, is arguably more tragic than the inadequacy, in the capability stakes, of others. So, it pays to be humble rather than arrogant, whether or not one is a genius, because there will always be those who are superior to oneself either in the capability stakes or in having a more fortunate set of circumstances at their disposal for expression of their capabilities. Plus, while confidence is attractive, arrogance is unattractive and nobody will want to sleep with an arrogant person Mensa conventions do exist by the way - my best friend at University was a Mensa member and frequently attended their events. Tri

People think in terms of mental images/imagination/numbers/abstract concepts. Language is the means by which these ideas are exchanged. Nobody is suggesting that the language itself supercedes the original thought, but to fail to make use of our most efficient means of communicating ideas (language) would certainly not be intelligent. So what is the point of your argument exactly, s1eep?

Mhm. I wish I had not watched so many happy ending romantic comedies during adolescence. Life is squat diddly like that.

Thanks John for the accurate and succinct answers. Delbert, you have just re-hashed the same comments as in your previous post without taking into consideration my responses to those comments. E.g. I have already outlined one way in which employer's freedoms, when taken to their logical conclusion, may result in oppression, as in child labour, salaried or otherwise. On 26th October (post #19 in the thread) I also addressed your query regarding workers’ responsibilities: I have already addressed this point in post #21. I can only assume that either you are intentionally ignoring my responses to your comments, or else you have some kind of reading comprehension difficulties. Now for the more novel points of your post: And how do you suppose that capitalist businesses generate their profit? It is essentially a pyramid structure in which employees at all levels receive less in terms of remuneration than their labour is actually worth, so that the profit can feed up into the next level. Most employees, who exist in the largest numbers and so form the base of the business, experience the largest discrepancy between their contributed labour and their subsequent remuneration. I.e. at every level except the very most senior level (CEO) the capitalist regime is exploitative – and is most exploitative at the lower levels, at the level of ordinary workers. The workers represent the capacity for profit generation, without them the managerial and senior levels would be superfluous, and the businesses would collapse. If every business were to collapse simultaneously, then yes, the country would collapse. Yet again you fail to acknowledge the fact that businesses already operate under a degree of state control and that what is being suggested is a safeguarding of working conditions – not any form of absolute state control. It does not mean lack of choice. It means the converse – increased choice for employees between multiple companies, each of which has safeguards in place to protect workers’ rights. The minimum wage IS a safeguard on working conditions in itself.