On page 206 of Bias in Mental Testing, Arthur Jensen writes:
Not sure why Jensen considers all these correlations positive, unless zero is a positive number (I consider it neutral).
And I’m not sure why some commenters think weight lifting requires coordination when the correlation between strength (hand grip, chinning) and coordination (Pursuit rotor tacking, Mirror star tracing) is zero.
But maybe these are not the best measures of strength or coordination (mirror star tracing sounds more like a cognitive test than a physical one), but when I lift weights, I don’t feel like I’m using coordination. To me coordination is best measured by very fast paced tasks that require moving multiple body parts with exquisite timing.
Physical coordination probably correlates more with IQ than does any other physical ability. Daniel Seligman writes:
Contrary to certain stereotypes about athletes and intellectuals, physical coordination is positively correlated with IQ. Technical studies by the U.S. department of Labor report a 0.35 correlation between coordination and cognitive ability.
0.35 is very similar to the correlation between IQ and brain size; so there are at least two physical traits (brain size and coordination) that correlate moderately with IQ.
Some might argue that physical coordination is a part of intelligence since it’s largely a brain function. I define intelligence as the ability to use whatever physical traits one has as a tool to exploit whatever environment one’s in. I see coordination as one of those physical traits used as a tool by intelligence rather than part of intelligence itself, but it’s a meta-tool in that it controls the body which in turn controls the external environment.
The problem with including physical coordination in our definition of intelligence is that intelligence is only important because it’s what separates man from beast, and physical coordination fails to do that. Even if it were possible to put a man’s brain in a cheetah’s body, he would not be able to exploit the environment because his brain’s not evolved to control the cheetah’s body. But if a man’s brain could control what the cheetah did with its motor control, only then would the cheetah display the goal directed adaptive behavior we know as intelligence.
It’s like the Master Blaster character in Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome. If Master’s brain was literally put in Blaster’s body, he might not have the coordination to win so many fights, but by telling Blaster how to use his coordination, he has given him his mind.
Feelings control intelligence
Intelligence is often defined as the mental ability to problem solve, but something is only a problem if it’s bothering us (i.e. cause us to feel pain or discomfort). Hence, feelings define the problems we use our intelligence to solve.
Intelligence controls physical coordination
Once our intelligence decides what behavior will solve a problem most efficiently, our physical coordination must direct our muscle movements accordingly. One could argue coordination itself is a mental ability and thus part of intelligence however by definition, abilities are only mental if they don’t cluster with sensory or motor functions, and physical coordination clusters with the latter. Even though coordination is part of the brain, it’s not fully part of the mind. It’s more neurological than mental per se.
Physical coordination controls the body
This is true by definition
Body controls external reality
This is self-explanatory
Lurker said:
Animals have intelligence also, just not as much.
pumpkinhead said:
Your article for the most part essentially makes the case for such a thing as kinesthetic intelligence(or physical coordination, call it what you want) yet you seem extremely reluctant to call it what it is. a form of intelligence(much like Jordan Peterson). I understand the reluctance, there certainly are pitfalls to this if we fail to make the correct definitions and distinctions but IMO coordination is one more factor of intelligence. As for it being meta i definitely disagree. It is for the most part somewhat separate from classical ideas of intelligence but calling it meta is just another way of trying to exclude it from the “intelligence” club. The very definition of what it is excludes it from the club(though not entirely given the correlation to g).
I think so that we can finally settle this issue we need to make correct definitions refrain from conflating this with classical notions of intelligence and make sure society calibrates their reverence accordingly for athletic proficiency and for intellectual proficiency. They are entirely different animals and one is immesurably more valuable than the other.
pumpkinperson said:
Intelligence is just a word that was invented to explain (among other things) what allows humans to dominate all the physically superior animals around us. Despite lacking almost every physical advantage (speed, strength, agility, claws, fangs, size) we have the ability to exploit what few abilities we do have. To understand why, we must draw a line between mental abilities and physical abilities with the former exploiting the latter. Charles Spearman invented factor analysis so we can draw such lines as objectively as possible & if you did a factor analysis on every human ability (voluntary behaviors that can be graded on proficiency), you’d probably get three major factors: mental, motor, and sensory. Physical coordination would likely load on both mental and motor factors, but my guess is it would have its strongest loadings on motor, which is an objective reason to exclude it from intelligence IMO, and most people do.
In everyday life, folks who are bad at math, language, or spatial tasks, are called dumb. Even people who are bad with people are called autistic or said to lack street smarts or common sense. But people who lack physical coordination are called clumsy or nonathletic, suggesting the language makes a distinction between motor and mental. Of course that doesn’t prove a distinction scientifically, but it is suggestive IMO.
pumpkinhead said:
Allow me to provide you a simplified example of how I think this works. Lets consider a game like football(soccer). This is one game where I probably hear the word genius to describe certain players more than any other game I know. Keep in mind that I use that word sparingly and even more so when it comes to sport. The reason I think that it is sometimes used correctly to describe footballers is because the skill, vision and physical prowess these players exhibit is something to behold. It can only be described as genius. No other word could appropriately capture what these people can do.
Now in all likelihood a lot of these players also have a pretty high IQ and there has to be some element of that IQ that influences their performance however there is so much more to it that I fully contend that it deserves a category in and of itself, call it kinesthetic intelligence call it physical coordination call it what you want.
Now what is it that differentiates this sort of intelligence from good old IQ, after all if there is nothing of note that makes it different then there is no point to using such a descriptor. In a nutshell it is physical manifestation of intelligence which requires multiple sensory inputs and an innate ability to make correct judgements on speed, force distance and timing while exercising impeccable control of one’s body to bring about the desired result. This may not sound as impressive to someone who does not play sport but to further parse this issue lets look at something like dribbling the ball past a player. First of all a certain level of agility is required, perhaps even well above average physical strength(certainly the legs). Of course that has nothing to do with intelligence but that only gets you through the door, here comes the interesting stuff. You would need impeccable judgement of the speed of the ball, a feather light touch to a powerful strike and everything in between with pinpoint accuracy, the ability to predict where your opponent is likely to move(which in and of itself requires the processing of countless variables of posture, body language, your opponents capabilities etc) and all of this processed at lightning speed.
Now this is for basic dribbling skills, then try doing that against someone who is paid millions and is just as skilled at defending against you as you are at dribbling past them then you will begin to understand what it truly means to have high kinesthetic ability and what some of these people are capable of. It is that added dimension of making accurate judgement calls in the physical world through your sensory input and motor control that makes it an intelligence in and of itself. Like I said one could have a 160 IQ and good musculoskeletal genetics yet lack all the other qualities that are needed for superior coordination and movement in a complex sport such as football.
Another poster made a very apt comment when he noted that a lot of our physical abilities are relegated to the cerebellum. This is true but this only applies to automated actions, advanced processing is done in the frontal lobe just as with intellectual thought. So while the cerebellum is pivotal in committing certain skills to automation it is the frontal lobe that learns those skills first and continues to refine and perfect them.
pumpkinperson said:
You would need impeccable judgement of the speed of the ball,
that would probably require some combination of complex reaction time, dynamic spatial ability and practice
a feather light touch to a powerful strike and everything in between with pinpoint accuracy,
probably requires what I would call tactile IQ (though others might call it bodily-kinesthetic intelligence) plus practice
the ability to predict where your opponent is likely to move(which in and of itself requires the processing of countless variables of posture, body language, your opponents capabilities etc) and all of this processed at lightning speed.
probably requires complex reaction time, spatial IQ, social IQ and practice
In other words, I think a lot of what you call bodily-kinesthetic intelligence is just a hybrid of other abilities, but i could be wrong because i’ve never seen a really diverse set of both physical and mental abilities included in a single factor analysis.
LOADED said:
What does the social IQ component have to do with? I think social IQ is a good proxy for rhythm. I think rhythm relates a lot to how well one’s fluid verbal ability is and then translates over to how well a person can move quickly and accurately in relation to a beat of some sort. I think this is also true of fighting movements.
pumpkinhead said:
The word reveals all there is to know about the type of intelligence we are talking about. Kinaesthetic from the Greek roots, kīn(eîn ) to move, set in motion + esthesia, capacity for sensation or feeling; sensitivity. In other words it is the combination of 3 things, some traditional IQ skills applied in real time to physical activities in which one uses their upmost ability to interpret motion and set in motion while utilizing all their sensory capabilities to a degree far in excess of what any academic test would tax you on.
IQ tests are entirely abstract, sure you use your eyes(only sensory input) and you control a pencil but other than that all the thinking is abstract save for a few hand written calculations. No other sensory input is required while the motor control is minimal(fine motor control as opposed to a wildly varied impeccably precise motor control required to play top tier football). Also keep in mind that in the meantime one needs to monitor their breathing and pace themselves so they don’t burn out. In other words one needs to know their body very very well which is another aspect of the aesthetic part of the equation.
In short kinaesthetic intelligence is a measure of how well you can process sensory input in conjunction with how well you can manaeuver your body and how well you can use the former in aid of the latter during physical activity(competitive or otherwise).
pumpkinperson said:
I think video games would be far better for measuring the kind of rapid dynamic intelligence you describe, because they’re less contaminated by non-cognitive functions.
pumpkinhead said:
Another interesting way to look at it is that during academic tests you use 90% IQ and 10% kinaesthetic and during advanced sports you use 70% kinaesthetic and 30% IQ.
pumpkinperson said:
On the wechsler scales there was a fair amount of fine motor activity, because some of the spatial tasks gave bonus points for people who could assemble block designs in under 5 seconds. But they created an alternative spatial test where no motor skills are required (you just point to the correct answer) because some felt it was unfair to penalize people for poor motor skills on a test of intelligence.
pumpkinhead said:
Video games lack a huge chunk of the aesthetic and a huge chunk of the mobile aspects of kinaesthetic ability. It really is not the same thing. I would say that it might be 60% IQ and 40% kinaesthetic. As for non cognitive functions, the only non cognitive functions in sports is the maximum amount of force you can apply or how rapidly you can move. Everything else in sport is cognitive, perhaps not at the level of advanced mathematics but certainly some complex thinking or processing is required.
pumpkinperson said:
As for non cognitive functions, the only non cognitive functions in sports is the maximum amount of force you can apply or how rapidly you can move. Everything else in sport is cognitive, perhaps not at the level of advanced mathematics but certainly some complex thinking or processing is required.
It depends how you define cognitive. Arthur Jensen invokes very precise rules on what qualifies as a mental ability & one of those rules is that “persons with a severe motor handicap can communicate information by some alternate route.” What I think he meant was: imagine a kinaesthethic “genius” gets his limbs cut off. In order for his talent to qualify as mental, there needs to be some other way for him to prove his genius in the absence of motor function (by being a great coach perhaps).
Not saying Jensen’s necessarily right since it’s a matter of semantics, but at least he was trying to define precise criteria, and thus give the field of psychometrics more scientific rigor.
pumpkinhead said:
“It depends how you define cognitive. Arthur Jensen invokes very precise rules on what qualifies as a mental ability & one of those rules is that “persons with a severe motor handicap can communicate information by some alternate route.” What I think he meant was: imagine a kinaesthethic “genius” gets his limbs cut off. In order for his talent to qualify as mental, there needs to be some other way for him to prove his genius in the absence of motor function (by being a great coach perhaps).”
That kinaesthetic genius would have to work off of memory so in a sense their crystalized kinaesthetic ability is being put into use in order to convey their knowledge. However this is neither here nor there(that is a terrible example by Jensen, it appears he doesn’t understand what is involved in athletic skill or talent). The bottom line is kinaesthetic invariable involves motion(coordination) and sensory input/processing. It is the marriage of those two along with the help of some classical IQ ability that makes for a skilled football player. A handicapped former player is just that a handicapped former player, some of the infrastructure is still there for their kinaesthetic ability but not all and certainly not enough for them to do it themselves.
In general I reject Jensen’s definition of mental ability. It’s all mental ability as it is all processed in the brain. I think if we further refine what we are talking about in classifying classical intelligence(IQ) into visual, math/logical and verbal then we can start differentiating what he appears to mean by “mental” from kinaesthetic or musical or intra/inter and perhaps even natural intelligence. Though the last one seems like a stretch to me, have not put much thought into it but I believe that it was Gardner’s way of including the remaining senses into the game(taste, smell). I guess you could say I am a proponent of the multiple intelligence theory though I agree that we MUST be careful to correctly differentiate each one at least in value. The classical notion of intelligence is infinitely more valuable to society while I might be willing to accept the term ability or aptitude instead of intelligence to describe non IQ competences. But that would just be a game of semantics wouldn’t it.
pumpkinperson said:
That kinaesthetic genius would have to work off of memory so in a sense their crystalized kinaesthetic ability is being put into use in order to convey their knowledge. However this is neither here nor there(that is a terrible example by Jensen, it appears he doesn’t understand what is involved in athletic skill or talent).
I gave that example to try to illustrate what Jensen meant but perhaps I misunderstood him. I’ll quote Jensen’s full definition of mental ability. He uses two criteria to decide what abilities are mental. Here’s the first criterion which I might have misinterpreted:
1. An ability…is a mental ability if, with respect to information transmission per se, the receptor and effector mechanisms are nonspecific. In other words, an individual’s performance is not essentially dependent on any particular sensory or motor system. Persons with a severe sensory handicap can still receive information in ways that circumvent their nonfunctional channel; and similarly, persons with a severe motor handicap can communicate information by some alternate route.
And here’s the second criterion which I think makes good sense:
An ability is a mental ability if, within a group of people who have no major sensory or motor handicap (as independently determined), individual differences in the ability are insignificantly correlated with measures of sensory acuity, physical strength, endurance, agility, or dexterity (as independently assessed). If there is a significant correlation, one other correlational criterion must be met, based on factor analysis. The ability in question is not a mental ability if its largest factor loading (in a factor analysis of a wide variety of abilities) is found on a group factor defined as “ physical.” (That is, a group factor whose largest loadings are found on measures of sensory acuity, physical strength, agility, endurance, and similar types of performance.) This last criterion assumes, of course, that a wide enough variety of ability measures are included in the factor analysis that both physical and mental abilities are represented, even if at the outset we are not certain of each one’s classification as physical or mental.
Jensen admits that there’s a zone of ambiguity where some abilities can’t be clearly classified as physical or mental. I suspect that’s where some of those athlete geniuses would fall.
It’s all mental ability as it is all processed in the brain.
The question is how much of the variance is explained by differences in the brain vs differences in the body. If human head transplants were possible and Michael Jordan’s head was attached to the body of the average 5’10” white guy, my guess is his performance would decline by over 2 standard deviations.
But even if it were all neurological ability, does that necessarily mean it’s all mental ability? Some might reserve the term “mental” only for functions of the mind, and not more primitive parts of the brain. For example, would you use the term Genius to describe birds? Someone on Quora wrote:
Birds can do some absolutely amazing things when it comes to timing and coordination. Once saw a relative of the emu that hunted cobras with its feet. Whenever the cobra rears up, the bird stands on one leg and hits the cobra’s head multiple time with the other foot without ever missing or getting bitten. Had to see it in slow-motion to appreciate the precision, speed, and balance needed to do this. I saw a documentary on forest hawks that was pretty amazing as well. The author set up an obstacle course the hawk needed to get through in order to get some food. The hawk flew through it so fast that the documentary needed to use slow motion to show what happened. The hawk took flight, flew under a tree limb about 4 feet off the ground, flapped its wings once for momentum boost and to adjust its direction, folded its wings in-flight to squeeze through a tiny hole in a net barely larger than its body, unfolded its wings in-flight after clearing the hole, and landed dead on the bait, without ever blinking an eye or breaking a sweat. Ultra-coordination.
On the other hand, as you noted, the frontal lobe plays a role in human motor skills so perhaps they’re more evolved than they seem.
I guess you could say I am a proponent of the multiple intelligence theory though I agree that we MUST be careful to correctly differentiate each one at least in value. The classical notion of intelligence is infinitely more valuable to society while I might be willing to accept the term ability or aptitude instead of intelligence to describe non IQ competences. But that would just be a game of semantics wouldn’t it.
The names we give things are semantics, but the distinctions those names make are real. If by objective criteria (i.e. factor analysis) one can prove that verbal, spatial, mathematical, and social abilities load mostly on one factor and kinaesthetic abilities load on another, then we should use one word for the former and a different word for the latter.
pumpkinhead said:
As for the type of physical coordination needed for power movements vs that required for fine motor movements, I’ve already explained this, we have fine motor muscles and gross motor muscles. Those that have disproportionately low amounts of fine motor muscles will struggle with the corresponding tasks. In a way you are right in that there WAS an evolutionary trade off since we diverged from chimps(lets say). We had to forego some power muscle for fine motor muscle which is why chimps are pound for pound about twice as strong as the average male(not 5 times, that is a myth). This however does not mean that a weightlifting olympian has zero coordination.
Furthermore, there seems to be an association with the right brain controlling gross motor action and the left brain controlling fine motor action. So you see this is a very complicated topic with multiple variables playing a part so it would be foolish of us to make the association that high power => low coordination. It’s really not that simple though there might be on some level the faintest of correlations but as far as I can tell nothing to write home about while keeping in mind that what we would call athletic talent invariably requires high proficiency in BOTH.
pumpkinperson said:
So you see this is a very complicated topic with multiple variables playing a part so it would be foolish of us to make the association that high power => low coordination.
To be clear, in the data I’ve cited (see table in this article) there was simply zero correlation between (some types of) strength & (some types of) coordination. So in the general population, there’s no reason to think the strong are less coordinated.
The correlation only became negative when you control for certain factors (i.e. athletic g) which caused me to speculate about tradeoffs.
pumpkinhead said:
I agree that tradeoffs are possible, certainly on an evolutionary level but there is far too much neurological and musculoskeletal diversity in humans to think of this in a one dimensional way. As noted there ARE people with superior fine motor control AND impressive power or gross motor control. It’s only at extreme freakish levels that we might find that there is a substantive tradeoff while in all likelihood there is an underlying musculoskeletal and neurological disorder for individuals well below the mean in fine motor control.
pumpkinhead said:
Also to put some perspective on this, the issue of fine motor vs gross motor control is two pronged. One is the cognitive real estate and the other is the musculoskeletal real estate. In other words when humans diverged from our chimp-like primate ancestors we clearly had to forego some power muscle real estate for fine motor muscle real estate. We also had to adapt neurologically for this new found skill which we see in our larger brains and more complex nervous system. The thing however that we must understand is that the additional cognitive real estate was much greater than the additional muscle real estate(fine motor muscles are really small and take very little space in comparison to gross motor muscles). So its probably more a case of adding and adapting rather than a trade off. We also adapted some muscle into long distance muscle which is why humans are the kings of long distance in the animal kingdom and overall chimps are twice as strong as humans(pound for pound). So the real trade off isn’t between fine motor muscle and gross motor muscle it’s between power muscle and long distance muscle.
It would be interesting to find out exactly but my guess is that in terms of absolute muscle mass fine motor muscle accounts for less than 5%. In theory one could convert it all into power muscle to gain that extra edge in a competitive weightlifting lets say but it would only shift your competitive category by about 5 lbs and that is before we consider the weight of the rest of your physical features(bones, organs, skin). In other words a competitor would only need to somehow shift some bone/organ/skin mass to match your power muscle mass and compete in the same category as you all while retaining their fine motor control. Now if they could convert those damn slow twitch muscles into power muscles that would REALLY put them ahead of the game!
LOADED said:
Coordination in weight-lifting is extremely important, usually making sure that the body can sustain the weight its carrying and leverage whatever weight you’re using. That’s why we call certain muscles “stabilizer muscles.” Because they stabilize the body and allow it to push and pull certain weights.
Emotions, I believe, are a strong factor in considering how intelligence can be derived and used. Emotions imprint on peoples’ abilities to think, memorize, and feel a connection to the thoughts they’re having. If someone has a negative viewpoint in something, then he or she will not necessarily engage in that course of action or will try to find justifications for why that action is not necessarily a productive one. The whole outcome of that action or thought will dissipate and dissolve depending on what the person’s emotions dictate them to truly believe. Emotions are more complex than thoughts because they are a string of thoughts put forth with this inconceivable thing called feelings, which can’t be defined other than having a strong reaction to something or another. Regardless, my belief is vested in the fact that emotions outweigh and dominate simple thought and thought would not come to fruition if it weren’t for emotions themselves.
pumpkinhead said:
You are right in that coordination is very important in weightlifting. It is a different type of coordination in that it is coordination under duress(and involves different muscles and neurological infrastructure) and though it may require less cognitive real estate to bring about(ie less neurologically complex as opposed to high skilled fine motor control) it is nonetheless still quite difficult to do due to the added component of stress(which requires the activation of an additional cognitive infrastructure to cope with). I really think this idea of the big bumbling clumsy body builder needs to die. Overall I don’t think that they are any different to most people except for a slight(and I mean slight) preponderance of body builders neglecting their fine motor control or having a genetic predisposition to power at the expense of finesse. Though this might be more a case for competitive weightlifting(with strict weight classes) than body builders, they are worlds apart genetically, it’s like comparing a lamborghini to a suped up mazda.
On a slightly different note, you have gone on quite the rant lately. I have to say that you have some extremely interesting ideas. You are definitely a divergent thinker. With a little more attention to detail and taking the time to more thoroughly flesh out your thoughts you might be on to something.
I think your are right regarding emotions but I think it is even more complex than that. I think that cognition exists on a layercake of emotions. In the right proportions correct infrastructure and the correct orientation we tend to be optimized for consistent top flight thinking. Emotions do matter but it’s really hard for me to parse to what degree emotion triggers thought or thought triggers emotion. When I was younger I had the resolution and clarity to work these sorts of things out but anyway, enough complaining. I think it might be bi-directional in that thoughts bring about emotions and emotions infuence thoughts in a continuous feedback loop. One needs the other to maintain it’s virility, without one the other dies or loses profundity. Some like to call this meaning or purpose. Trying to work out which has seniority is like trying to work out which came first, the chicken or the egg.
Some people like to think their way out of a bad situation while others seem to believe that you can only feel your way out of a bad situation, I think we need both. One might not have the personal impact that is required for lasting results while the other leaves us out of touch with reality. Also note that IMO there are emotional drivers which are not to be confused with other more nuanced emotions. Clearly without drivers or motivation(as far as i can tell emotionally instantiated) we can’t get ourselves to do the most basic of things let alone high flying cognition. So on that level it is clear that emotion takes precedence and is perhaps the foundation on which everything else sits on.
One final thing I would like to point out, when we talk about emotional stability it is obvious that we are referring to the presence of the right cocktail of emotions but I think that emotional stability is more of an inhibitory process than anything else. It is the inhibition of negative or destabilizing emotions, so one could think of it more of as the absense of emotions than anything else. That is certain emotions that more often than not seem to be waiting at the gates of our psyche, vying for the moment to bust in and cause mayhem.
pumpkinhead said:
It’s no surprise then that much of the function of the frontal lobe is inhibitory.
pumpkinhead said:
Thoughts might even be a cognitive/emotional hybrid, in other words they are imbued with emotion as well as a fact/logic based make up. This as far as abstract mental processes are concerned. In a different sense I think that low resolution, medium to high intensity emotions are essentially the tool kit of social interaction. We use them to convey all sorts of thoughts sentiments and states of mind. Intellectual thought operates in a way that feels like it is somewhat removed from emotion completely but I don’t think that is true, it is simply removed from the volatility of social emotions(intra and interpersonal emotion) and rather operates within a framework of emotions and a state of mind that are optimized for thinking.
It’s crazy how all this was intuitive to me from my youngest years yet it seems to have escaped my mind and I almost took it for granted for a very long time. I like talking to divergent thinkers, they get me thinking lol
LOADED said:
Emotions belong somewhere vetween rational thought and ethereal forces that allow us to gain clarity from our thiughts. Emotions are primary examples of how we establish connections between our emvirionment and the sensations we have that accompany them. They are the link between how we remember things and how we perceive our actions, two very important things in the cognitive model. Memories are rather inconvenient to rely on for factual determinations of how our environment functions, but is dependable as a useful tool for gathering heuristics. Our model of this world is entirely based on these heuristics. The emotions we have are more powerful than the escape to rationality we pine for, causing cognitive dissonance. All emotions are based on prior experiences, as Im a blank slatist when it comes to that topic. That is why no one can assume a position of objectivity when it comes to actual determination of factual evidence. Subjectivity governs our thoughts because the underlying mechanism for those thoughts are emotions. There is no real expression that can be understood without an underlying emotion behind it. That is why any thought that lacks sentiment will be assumed to be alien in nature and incomprehensible.
LOADED said:
Philosophical zombies are entities that lack emotional engagement to the world around them. They are truly mortifying because despite rationality in their thoughts and actions, they lack meaning and are thus everything becomes incomprehensublr.
LOADED said:
We vest so much effort into segregating rationality and enotions when that is impossible to do. Emotions are faster to change and so complex that the very nature of this is ehat governs what thoughts we will have. Someone must experience emotions first then decide on a thought to express it rather than it being the other way around. Basically, language is a system of symbolic communication. Certain words trigger certain formations of concepts, with our brain visualizing the concept at hand. Under this layer are our emotions. Visualization of what is being said is one of our underlying senses for our cognitive model for perception. We then implement visualizations of concepts from symbols and form thought, a slow and gradual process where imagination kicks in. Empathy governs all of this as we begin to submerge ourselves of an object of some sort into an idea, a manifestation of the action presented in front of you. This leads to multiple scenarios acted out inside of your mind that simulate the very nature of the action being discussed. That is why the Law of Attraction is present and why there are infinite possibilities for anything to happen. Our mind is literallty simulating all of the symbols and visualizations we have to gain the best estimate of what our senses are perceiving. Then emotions cause us to jolt back to reality, where we experience the concepts in our mind and transpose them onto our INDIVIDUAL perception of what is being sensed. From there, we have a clear picture of what was perceived, or sometimes we are left in a haze. This is the definition of thought in my experiences with reality.
LOADED said:
That is why comprehension of verbal statements, in regard to our understanding of what is being said or what we are thinking, has a visual spatial component. We are visualizing the thought as well as garnering symbols to display to our subconscious in order to make an accurate judgment of our perceptions. It requires a minimakl visual spatial intelligence, something that I cant accurately estimate, but there is a threshold to understanding what is being said. I think verbal intelligence is entirely crystallized, while the fluid component might be dictated by your visual spatial IQ. I dont believe in math IQ, I think that is just crystallized symbolism. Whereas visual spatial intelligence is hacked onto our comprehension of fluid verbal material.
LOADED said:
Understandment/comprehension is glued onto our abilities to visualize symbols and decode what is sensed, almost quite literally. Intelligence is just another one of our senses. Didferebt intelligences reauire differebt sensesa as a modek of our perceotions. That is what we are testing witg IQ. Nothing ekse.
LOADED said:
Sorry to speak in avsolutes, that is just the way I think. Aside from that, I think my claims are very accurate.
LOADED said:
Pill is kind of right when he thinks whites are being discriminated against when it comes to politicking. Basically, we’re all politicking for our race from an ethnocentric standpoint. Or at least from a tribalist point of view.
LOADED said:
Moderate consumption of today’s society is the worst.
LOADED said:
You’ve gotta dive in all the way or not at all.
LOADED said:
Fuck that being on the left or being on the right! Today’s life is all about moderation in consumption of everything. So I dunno, think people are losing out.
LOADED said:
Damn, everything I say is so significant because other people can read it. The Internet is such a fucking huge platform! Its aesthetic quality surpasses that of time and space, if you can imagine that. And we definitely are taking advantage of that.
LOADED said:
Millions of people from all over the globe interacting is exponentially greater than the communication of any other civilization to have ever existed. Social media has dominated the way we look at things! Everything is just an illusion. From the media’s brainwashing of us, we’ve become entirely desensitized to our realities.
LOADED said:
That’s crazy! People have definitely have become brainwashed sheep and are entirely dictated by propaganda. Propaganda has always been the guiding force of entities of whatever knowledge we have.
LOADED said:
Tell me if this correct, but can we summarize all experiences as being a formation of previous experiences? Bruno, didn’t you say you didn’t have any memories? How do you form opinions about things? Is there a lack of aesthetic value in your life? I think memories are the most perfect forms of art, and then you try to recreate them thru art.
Bruno said:
I don’t understand your concept of experiences through former experiences. Maybe you could describe it because It’s possible that I miss it.
It wasn’t easy to discover I hadn’t memories because I know lots of fact about myself in the past. I had to understand that recall wasn’t a metaphor. I had to discover what is episodic memory. Then I understood while it was sometimes impossible for me to remember what I ate just one day ago. Suffice that I did it without thinking about it. My episodic memory is not accessible (or doesn’t exist … ).
Same for not having any imagination. At the same time, I am very good at rotating objects to solve problems even of I can’t figure them in my mind (not anything).
I love arts and enjoying beautiful things or moments. But it’s a bit sad now that I know other people can fix the moment and I can’t. I understand now why it could be a bargain to hire a beautiful prostitute if you can replay the thing all your life !
Now I know my mental experiences are extremely poor (like a desert) compared to normal people. There is something with familiar people or objects on whom people project strong feelings automatically that I don’t have. That’s why I am not more bound to my place than to a hotel room.
LOADED said:
All systems of thoughts are based on “a priori” experiences. That is to mean that all knowledge of the world is based on previous experiences and is a build-up to all your perceptions of the world right now. All previous “information” you may have had is churned up and creates a new state of mind that only exists in this instance. Essentially, the basis of all thought is that all experiences or prior knowledge is the basis of all the knowledge we have as of right now, noting that we don’t necessarily have any knowledge right now that isn’t inherited from our past. Our past is the marriage of all previous events leading up to this one. Therefore, everything was made by forces that have led to this event.
LOADED said:
Speaking of this, can someone argue in the belief that time exists? Because if it does, then how does one explain the simultaneous nature of events occurring at one time. I think everything is fragmented. There is no space, time, anything. We are bits and bytes, like pixels on a computer screen. We are made up subatomic particles that individualistic in nature, made up even tinier parts that make up something greater that makes up something greater (our setting), that makes up something greater (the Universe).
LOADED said:
Does one ever think about what exists directly in front of him. Because there are barriers like doors and walls and objects, we can’t see past it. We can’t see between them. But does that mean they don’t exist?
LOADED said:
Honest to God, I think I might be the youngest genius to have ever existed. I am, by very nature, an addict to creativity. My mind revolves around seeking novel ideas instead of searching for previous ones. Bruno, never look to your past. Always look to your future. Because the future is just our imagination, and the past is just our memories.
The Philosopher said:
Youre definitely the youngest idiot here anyway.
OPRAH-ME [THE TRUE PHILOSOPHER] ESSENTIAL AESTHETICS PREVAIL's said:
And you’re the oldest…
LOADED said:
Yeah, but I’d say I’m not even that smart when compared to my peers. I honestly lack intelligence, but make up for it in divergent thinking. I’m not a real bright guy anymore like I used to be. We’re all burning out, some faster than others. Unfortunately, for that prize, you take the cake, my friend.
Bruno said:
I am stuck in the present and ideas. I can’t projext into the future more than in the past. But it’s possible to think factually about the past. And I can recreate emotion thanks to them, like in a movie. But I wondering if the experience thing is not something that I miss (or at least a part of it )
Bruno said:
Thinking a bit more about it, it’s true that when I see a movie, it means that the past image affect the new one wich allows me to see the movement. But I don’t think there is more than that. If I see a bad character, I got the knowledge he/she is bad. But not an experience of it. I don’t exactly know what normal experience entails (that’s why I was asking)
Bruno said:
In recent philosophy of mind, the term “phenomenology” is often restricted to the characterization of sensory qualities of seeing, hearing, etc.: what it is like to have sensations of various kinds. However, our experience is normally much richer in content than mere sensation. Accordingly, in the phenomenological tradition, phenomenology is given a much wider range, addressing the meaning things have in our experience, notably, the significance of objects, events, tools, the flow of time, the self, and others, as these things arise and are experienced in our “life-world”.
—> that définition entails there is more to experience but it’s quite vague.
The Philosopher said:
Puppy are you going to turn every debate with RR into a blogpost?
pumpkinperson said:
i wanted to have some data i could link to next time he repeats his claims
RaceRealist said:
It is concluded that a large part of the improvement in the ability to lift weights was due to an increased ability to coordinate other muscle groups involved in the movement such as those used to stabilise the body. The importance of these findings for athletic training and rehabilitation is discussed.
https://sci-hub.tw/10.1007/bf00422902
Strength gain by exercise training plays a role in the improved coordination of other fixator muscles necessary for body support while performing daily tasks such as cooking, gardening, reaching for an object, and walking, and in gaining more coordinated contractions between agonist and antagonist muscle groups leading to greater net force in the imposing movements.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3050533/
Strength training in kids improves the number and coordination of active neurons along with the firing rate pattern.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3445252/
If you cannot coordinate all of your muscles during a lift, you’re not lifting correctly.
pumpkinperson said:
I would seriously doubt if the average elite bodybuilder could score high on actual tests designed to measure pshychomotor dexterity or manual coordination.
RaceRealist said:
I seriously doubt you understand what it takes to be a top-level bodybuilder.
pumpkinperson said:
I seriously doubt you understand what it takes to score high on a coordination test
RaceRealist said:
Enlighten me.
LOADED said:
Pill reminds me of the Grinch.
King meLo said:
“And I’m not sure why some commenters think weight lifting requires coordination when the correlation between strength (hand grip, chinning)”
Because we have experience and read relevant material on the matter.
Having improper form when lifting weights can have the reverse affect(depending how bad the technique is). Basically you could hurt yourself or you can just end up wasting your time by being inefficient. We’re talking about gaining strength not just strength itself, and the variables used for strength are insufficient to begin with. The correlation means nothing.
“The problem with including physical coordination in our definition of intelligence is that intelligence is only important because it’s what separates man from beast, and physical coordination fails to do that.”
No offense but that’s the dumbest shit I’ve heard in a while. That doesn’t justify anything in a scientific way. If intelligence is the mental potential to adapt then it needs to be able to span across all organisms with a nervous system. Consciousness is relative.
“however by definition, abilities are only mental if they don’t cluster with sensory or motor functions, and physical coordination clusters with the latter.”
Dont start with that dualist crap. Consciousness is literally just a feedback loop of sensory information and motor functions.
pumpkinperson said:
If intelligence is the mental potential to adapt then it needs to be able to span across all organisms with a nervous system. Consciousness is relative.
Not saying we’re the only animal with intelligence, but rather we’re the animal with the most intelligence. That’s what sets us apart. So the more an ability correlates with being human, the more likely it is to require intelligence. Language, math, Theory of Mind, abstract reasoning are almost uniquely human abilities and thus signs of intelligence. By contrast physical coordination is displayed by lots of animals.
Dont start with that dualist crap.
You don’t think there’s a difference between mental abilities and physical abilities? Should the ability to push a boulder up a hill be part of an IQ test?
King meLo said:
“Not saying we’re the only animal with intelligence, but rather we’re the animal with the most intelligence. That’s what sets us apart. ”
That’s what i meant by consciousness was relative.
“Theory of Mind, abstract reasoning are almost uniquely human abilities and thus signs of intelligence. By contrast physical coordination is displayed by lots of animals.”
Animals also display the former just to simpler degrees. If all of those abilities are coordinated by a single physiological system, and they all allow us to adapt(what we consider intelligence) Through the same mechanism known as neural plasticity( what we consider the “mental”) Then it just seems arbitrary to exclude any. Especially if the reason is anthrocentric.
“You don’t think there’s a difference between mental abilities and physical abilities? Should the ability to push a boulder up a hill be part of an IQ test?”
No, Just some feats require less activation of the CNS and more for the PNS and others require less of the PNS and more of other systems, like your boulder example which demands more muscle strength and weight than coordination(depending on what’s allowed int he experiment).
pumpkinperson said:
Animals also display the former just to simpler degrees. If all of those abilities are coordinated by a single physiological system, and they all allow us to adapt(what we consider intelligence) Through the same mechanism known as neural plasticity( what we consider the “mental”) Then it just seems arbitrary to exclude any.
You’re arbitrarily choosing to define intelligence as the adaptability of the entire nervous system. I’m defining it only as the adaptability of the cognitive sub-system of the nervous system and thus excluding emotions and motor skills. Of course this is just semantics but my definition seems more consistent with how the term is used in science and everyday life. It’s not arbitrary to divide the nervous system up into components because the components emerge from factor analysis. What’s arbitrary is the names we give to each component.
King meLo said:
“You’re arbitrarily choosing to define intelligence as the adaptability of the entire nervous system.”
No, I’m not. The entire nervous system is required to form consciousness. Even if you isolated it to just the cerebral cortex, you’d still have to include motor functions because of the present motor neurons and emotions as they are centralized in the amygdala.
“It’s not arbitrary to divide the nervous system up into components because the components emerge from factor analysis. What’s arbitrary is the names we give to each component.”
All definitions are arbitrary unless they are descriptive or more descriptive than the rival. Most components are named differently because they represent different systems. Your definition does not reflect physical boundaries that actually exist, mine does.
pumpkinperson said:
No, I’m not. The entire nervous system is required to form consciousness.
What’s your point? The circulatory system is required to form consciousness too and for that matter so is the digestive system since if you didn’t eat, your brain would never grow.
All definitions are arbitrary unless they are descriptive or more descriptive than the rival. Most components are named differently because they represent different systems. Your definition does not reflect physical boundaries that actually exist, mine does.
That’s because I’m defining an abstract concept. Expecting it to map perfectly to known physical systems is a category mistake.
King meLo said:
“The circulatory system is required to form consciousness too and for that matter so is the digestive system since if you didn’t eat, your brain would never grow.”
Good point, consciousness is holistic and every part of the body is responsible for a mental state. The reason I stop at the nervous system is because it serves a specific function of propagating consciousness. It’s impossible without it.
“Expecting it to map perfectly to known physical systems is a category mistake.”
Look, IQ doesn’t need to be construct valid to be an real measure of intelligence. Weight lifting is not construct valid, but is an accurate measure of strength. If you make the definition construct valid, it makes it more epistemically powerful. I seek to do that for our concept of intelligence so that it can be taken more seriously within the scientific community.
pumpkinperson said:
You’ll be taken less seriously within the scientific community because your definition implies that Stephen Hawking was a moron, and he’s the hero to the scientific community! His motor neuron disease means his nervous system was not adaptable enough to survive without incredible help.
King meLo said:
Stephen Hawking is still intelligent under this definition, he just had a disease that made him progressively dumber.
pumpkinperson said:
By your definition he was dumb since 21 in the sense that he would have barely survived in most environments without incredible help. His nervous system was thus far less adaptable than the average person’s.
King meLo said:
And?
You could compare his disease to something like Alzheimer’s. They just affect different parts.
pumpkinperson said:
And?
And your definition implies one of “the greatest minds” was very dumb. That means the definition lacks face validity.
You could compare his disease to something like Alzheimer’s. They just affect different parts.
AFAIK nobody with Alzheimer’s goes on to achieve “intellectual greatness” AFTER they were diagnosed, because Alzheimer’s impairs the parts of the nervous system society considers “intelligent”. Hawking’s condition did not.
pumpkinperson said:
Look, IQ doesn’t need to be construct valid to be an real measure of intelligence.
IQ has construct validity in that the more an ability loads on psychometric g, the more it correlates with brain size.
King meLo said:
“And your definition implies one of “the greatest minds” was very dumb. That means the definition lacks face validity.”
Well not really, because he was only considered intelligent from our original definition. Secondly, he’s probably equivalent to someone with an IQ of 130 who has complete control of his PNS, but that depends on how the measurement would be mathematically constructed. If all that matters is the “power” of the nervous system, then it would probably be measured by using 3 main proxies: Processing seed, Metabolic efficiency, and Neural plasticity, each is also subject to many variables within the neural architecture.
“Alzheimer’s impairs the parts of the nervous system society considers “intelligent”. Hawking’s condition did not.”
Right but he wouldn’t be considered dumb by the measurement if you gave it to him healthy, and he still wouldn’t afterwords. It’s akin to someone who has an extremely high verbal IQ but a below average spatial one. I don’t think you’d consider that person stupid.
“IQ has construct validity in that the more an ability loads on psychometric g, the more it correlates with brain size.”
It has construct validity in the sense that it has causal correlations to physical properties. It is not specifically constructed to measure them though. IQ is like weight lifting, but I want to make it like a breathalyzer. It would make finding every causal gene a more feasible task.
The only inherent issue I see with changing Intelligence as a concept is that mine would be for more expensive and inefficient at an industry level.
pumpkinperson said:
Well not really, because he was only considered intelligent from our original definition. Secondly, he’s probably equivalent to someone with an IQ of 130 who has complete control of his PNS, but that depends on how the measurement would be mathematically constructed. If all that matters is the “power” of the nervous system, then it would probably be measured by using 3 main proxies: Processing seed, Metabolic efficiency, and Neural plasticity, each is also subject to many variables within the neural architecture.
So it sounds like you’re defining intelligence as overall neurological functioning not neurological adaptability. The two would be positive correlated but the difference is adaptability is hierarchical not assortative, meaning that if you lack motor skills, you’re not going to be able to adapt to most environments, regardless of how good the rest of your nervous system is.
Only when your motor skills are above a certain threshold do higher processes become useful. What good is being creative enough to build a bow and arrow if you lack the hand-eye coordination to do so? What good is being a verbal genius if you lack the motor control to pronounce or write words? So people with severely impaired motor skills are neurologically non-adaptable no matter how brilliant the rest of their nervous system.
It is partly for this reason that I prefer to define intelligence as just cognitive adaptability not neurological adaptability, with cognitive being defined factor-analytically, not biologically.
King meLo said:
“So it sounds like you’re defining intelligence as overall neurological functioning not neurological adaptability. ”
Adaptability of the nervous system is controlled by the structuralization of it’s functioning.
“the difference is adaptability is hierarchical not assortative,”
That’s not completely true, unless you’re using “assortative” in a different way than I thought. Adaptability is contextual. By priori it is compensating for deficiencies.
“What good is being creative enough to build an bow and arrow if you lack the hand-eye coordination to do so? What good is being a verbal genius if you lack the motor control to pronounce or write words?”
Exactly my point. As much as it pains me to say it, but after 21, Stephen hawking become more of an idiot savant than actual genius. Your criticism basically boils down tot he fact that this goes against previous conceptions, and that’s simply fallacious when trying to introduce a new one. It makes no sense to discount a concept because it disagrees with the old one. That’s the whole point of reforming it. Scientists modify hypotheses all the time, the difference this time is that the previous ideas were not scientific. IQ is constantly berated for how unscientific it is.
“So people with severely impaired motor skills are neurologically non-adaptable no matter how brilliant the rest of their nervous system.”
Yes just like those with mental retardation are non-adaptable(without help) no matter how brilliant the rest of their nervous system is.
pumpkinperson said:
“What good is being creative enough to build an bow and arrow if you lack the hand-eye coordination to do so? What good is being a verbal genius if you lack the motor control to pronounce or write words?”
Exactly my point. As much as it pains me to say it, but after 21, Stephen hawking become more of an idiot savant than actual genius. Your criticism basically boils down tot he fact that this goes against previous conceptions, and that’s simply fallacious when trying to introduce a new one. It makes no sense to discount a concept because it disagrees with the old one. That’s the whole point of reforming it.
Your attempt to redefine intelligence to include motor skills reminds me a bit of how some scientists have tried to redefine the word “ape” to include people. In both cases there’s an appeal to biology (people are apes because we’re part of the same clad, motor skills are intelligence because they’re part of the same nervous system)
In general my attitude is if you’re going to create a new concept, then create a new word.
Although I don’t endorse it, I think defining intelligence as the neurological ability to adapt might be a valid alternative depending on how you define ability. Jensen defines ability as distinct voluntary behavioral acts that are stable, general and can be ranked by a clear standard of proficiency. The nervous system does a lot of important stuff that is involuntary which would not be considered “abilities” as defined here.
Scientists modify hypotheses all the time, the difference this time is that the previous ideas were not scientific. IQ is constantly berated for how unscientific it is.
People who call IQ pseudoscience are typically motivated by politics, ego, or ignorance. In fact IQ is probably the most scientific thing to ever come out of the social sciences and the pioneers of IQ research invented mathematical techniques that even the physical sciences rely on. The reliability and predictive validity of the best IQ tests exceeds much of what is measured in the medical field and the predictions are often more important. But I agree it has an image problem.
King meLo said:
“Your attempt to redefine intelligence to include motor skills reminds me a bit of how some scientists have tried to redefine the word “ape” to include people.”
Humans are apes. What the fuck? Taxonomy becomes broader and broader, there are already classifications used to differentiate us from other great apes.
“In general my attitude is if you’re going to create a new concept, then create a new word.”
I don’t think we quite disagree on the definition of intelligence, I think it’s more that if I take the normal definition literally, it makes no sense to exclude the rest of the nervous system.
“The nervous system does a lot of important stuff that is involuntary which would not be considered “abilities” as defined here.”
I think intelligence is dispositional. If I define mental states as interactions between neural cells that would include even involuntary functions.
“In fact IQ is probably the most scientific thing to ever come out of the social sciences ”
That’s not saying much. I’m not like RR I don’t think the social sciences are unscientific I just believe it’s much harder to make objective theories and hypotheses on interactions because of the many more variables that need to be accounted for. I believe making an intelligent test that tied to physical properties would make this easier. I believe the biggest issue with my thesis is that your contention is simply more practical.
pumpkinperson said:
Humans are apes. What the fuck? Taxonomy becomes broader and broader, there are already classifications used to differentiate us from other great apes.
If you’re a cladist, humans are apes. If you’re an evolutionary taxonomist, they’re not. Like most (non-biologists), I’m the latter.
I don’t think we quite disagree on the definition of intelligence, I think it’s more that if I take the normal definition literally, it makes no sense to exclude the rest of the nervous system.
If you’re a neurologist, it might makes no sense. If you’re a factor analyst, it make sense. Like most people I’m the latter.
When it comes to both apes and intelligence, we’re both pointing to objective systems to make our definitions less arbitrary, the difference is I’m using a system that preserves the “man on the street” understanding of the terms because one goal of science is to add, not subtract clarity.
I think intelligence is dispositional. If I define mental states as interactions between neural cells that would include even involuntary functions.
Intelligence is just a hypothetical construct people invented to explain differences in voluntary behavior, and only later did we learn it has a neurological cause, but we only learned that because neurological differences predicted voluntary behavioral differences. Only once neurological tests have the same predictive validity as psychometric tests does it make sense to move to a biological definition, but only psychological definitions are inclusive enough to describe sub-human, alien and artificial intelligence.
King meLo said:
“understanding of the terms because one goal of science is to add, not subtract clarity.”
I don’t think it’s really an important one. It requires clarity among scientists not everyone in general.
“Only once neurological tests have the same predictive validity as psychometric tests does it make sense to move to a biological definition, but only psychological definitions are inclusive enough to describe sub-human, alien and artificial intelligence.”
Not really. I mean you gotta start somewhere but I feel my reasoning for a biological test speaks for itself. It opens so many doors scientifically and socially. Dualists like RR couldn’t say jack shit. I could change the definition from the predispositional architecture of the nervous system to the predispositional architecture of any system similar to the nervous system. AI and Alien life would probably be convergent with our physiology.
pumpkinhead said:
King meLo
“Dont start with that dualist crap. Consciousness is literally just a feedback loop of sensory information and motor functions.”
YES! Perhaps also a thoughts and emotions feedback loop(ie thinking about thinking or being aware that you are thinking and similarly with emotions) but I generally agree with your point there being saying this for years, as long as I can remember actually. I hate how some people try to glorify and mystify consciousness as if it’s this surpemely complicated and incomprehensible feat of evolution. Nonsense, this is just self important social scientists or 2 dollar philosophers trying to add clout to their profession. There might be things we don’t know yet about it or fully understand but this doesn’t mean that it’s beyond our comprehension.
King meLo said:
“I hate how some people try to glorify and mystify consciousness as if it’s this surpemely complicated and incomprehensible feat of evolution. ”
We know what consciousness is. It’s another story explaining how it exactly happens. That’s where it gets complicated.
pumpkinhead said:
Right, well that is what I was mainly talking about though there are some that claim that we don’t even properly know what it is let alone how it is brought about. Of course we know what it is phenomenologically but I guess we are struggling to explain it empirically. My sense is that too is hogwash, sure there is still much to learn but that could be said of virtually anything out there.
King meLo said:
“explain it empirically”
I feel as though the biggest gripe dualists have is the fact that imaging studies suffer from causalation. Which I agree is fallacious, but it’s begging the question to assume the mental activity is separate from the brain. It’s so deadpan obvious that it takes some creative stupidity to deny.
OPRAH-ME [THE TRUE PHILOSOPHER] ESSENTIAL AESTHETICS PREVAIL's said:
I have a theory now that self awareness cause abstraction ability which resulted in language
The first is about individual become aware about its own individuality, so s’he starts to self-project this first perception [self perception] to another elements of its reality, abstracting, or isolating, individualizing [as s’he do with itself] and it’s basically abstraction, so based on abstraction, language was created, the non-verbal basis to language is the capacity to individualize or isolate elements, or contemplate them isolately, and the language is the symbolical materialization or conceptualization of this individualization.
”I’m doctor Obviousky, i’m russian”
Michael Graham said:
1st chapter of my book that proves God is real using physics, mathematics and science. “The Book of Truth” the Michael (Mikey Blayze) Graham Version
The Truth of The Big Bang, Science Spiritual Beliefs and The Origin of The Universe
Science and spirituality were originally 2 halves of the same whole. However, in the early 18th century there was a complete separation of the two, and with this separation a split in knowledge. Science does not have all the answers only half, and spirituality has the other. Only when you look at both thru an unbiased lens can you see the truth.
What you are about to read will expose the truth of our world both scientifically and spiritually. Mathematicians have proved irrefutably that numbers reach to +∞infinity and to -∞ negative infinity. For example, positive + 2,000 and -2,000 always go higher or lower to positive or negative infinity. Physicists have proved that this is the same with dimensions in the tangible metaverse. Infinity is describing something without any bound, something larger than any natural number. Therefore, Infinity is a supernatural number, not bound by the laws of other numbers. Also, Negative infinity is describing something without any bound, something smaller than any natural number. Meaning it too is supernatural and therefore not bound by the laws of other numbers.
-∞ < {-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1-0+0+1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9} < +∞
There are dimensions in front of ours forward to infinity and behind toward negative infinity. You, I, and everyone we know lives’ in the 3-dimensional world, of length, width and height. For example, anything that can be grabbed is 3 dimensional. The computer I am typing with, notebooks, your teeth and hair. Anything with height, length and width is 3 dimensions. A dimension, a world, and a universe all refer to the same thing. So, 3 dimensions is 3 worlds, or you could say 3 universes.
We live inside of a finite number of layered physical universes (dimensions) called space. 1 single +∞ Positive Infinity Universe is above us all, and that Universe is made up of infinite physicality and infinite energy. (Our eyes perceive energy as light). This Supreme Universe pushes into motion all the energy that exists within our physical universe, by way of white holes, which are portals that energy escapes thru to enter our finite dimension.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hole
The finite energy escaping from the +∞ Positive Infinity Universe is always in motion because it is connected to an infinite energy source thru the white holes. (Portals.) However, Newton's third law is: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Therefore, the negative Infinity Universe -∞ is behind us all, and made of no physicality, only infinite negative energy, and never in motion, only pulling what is outside of it. (Our eyes perceive negative energy as the absence of light, i.e. Pitch blackness.) Black holes are the portals negative energy uses to pull in and attract positive energy. The force behind a black hole is what we call gravity, the force in front of a white hole is what we call energy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole
Both Black and White holes are created by positive and negative energy in space-time. Space-time is an omni-present grid that surrounds us all, just like oxygen. The chemical reactions in space-time are caused by the opposing forces of energy and gravity colliding. Chemical reactions send finite energy in the opposite direction of gravity, which is up, towards The Infinite Energy Dimension, The Source of all energy. A Finite portion of infinite energy, (What we call a star.) Is dis-charge, dropped down from the Infinite Source. Chemical reactions are the Aether. (Medium.) Finite Light uses to travel upwards in space to reach the Infinite Energy Source it was dis-charged from. Infinite Light has no need to travel upward, because there is no other light above it. Therefore, the mass of Infinite Light Energy expands outward, in the form of a logarithmic spiral. (The perfect outward spiral.) Chemical reactions are the Aether for the traveling lights above.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logarithmic_spiral
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_(classical_element)
Imagine 1 light falling from the sky and burning 0.5 of itself as fuel to get back up to more light. If the light can never reach the Source it expends 100% of it’s energy and becomes a black hole, attracting other light, until enough light coalesces to become a light hole. Finite light revolves around in an upward circle. A spiral, blindly searching for the Source.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_spiral
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio
Gravity, creates the limit on how far finite energy can drop,from Infinite Energy, before returning. Finite energy returns by burning its core, the core is the propellant. When finite energy reaches its haven. The +∞ Infinity Positive Energy Dimension, resupplies the finite light to prior power.(Highest natural number-+infinity), the finite light descends in a brand new formation. The Archimedean Spiral Formation.(The perfect reverse spiral.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedean_spiral
The left behind core's of energy from the finite light, for example the Sun, enables our existence. Our Sun, is propellant, with trace energy still inside the core. The Sun was dropped from, the agglomeration of finite light. (Exactly like how our excrement is dropped when we expel excess energy on the toilet). Because the original agglomeration of light left our Sun behind. Darkness. (Gravity.) Surrounds the Sun. Therefore it does not know the straight path to the Source. So, our Sun revolves in an upward spiral. (All directions.) Our 3-dimensional world is the result of the Sun burning its core, the propellant, in a vacuum, surrounded by darkness, searching for the Source above.
We follow the Sun’s revolution.
“The chemical reaction” when light and dark meet creates what we commonly call “space”. This “space” traps some of the infinite energy.(What we perceive as light.) And some of the infinite negative energy. (Gravity, what we perceive as darkness.) Creating “memory” or “D.N.A.”. This “memory” is the remnants of energy before coming into our current physical form. Go outside into the sunlight and see what, separates your shadow from the Light. Your 3-dimensional body separates your shadow from the light. And what is inside your 3-dimensional body? Finite compounding dimensions of chemical reactions, that house memory, which is D.N.A.
This is the meaning behind the “Illuminati” phrase. “As above so below.” The inside of not just ours but any and all physical space is a miniature representation of what is happening above, inside and below the cosmos.
The beginning of human existence is the Zygote. The Zygote is the chemical reaction that happens when a sperm cell meets an egg cell. (Gametes). The Sperm cell carries within it half the information to create a body and the egg carries within it the other half. The brain needs a body to search for energy. (Fuel.) (Food.) To expel so that it can ultimately propel itself towards the Sun. Therefore, our brains consider the Sunrise and the Sunset to be beautiful because those are the times when the Sun is closest but not the Sun when it’s at its highest peak as that is when it is most far away.
This is what our Earth looks like. All Matter follows the Sun. The land under our feet creates water so that it can rise towards the Sun. But land cannot escape the pull of gravity, so on land a “transmutation”, a “change” a “chemical reaction” takes place so that living organisms grow on top of and above the land, so that we may attempt to reach the Sun. Everything revolves around the Sun except land, because land is trapped in motion. Land is trying to move toward the Sun, by shifting tectonic plates. But land can’t move. Only rumble. Imagine the ground as the black hole our bodies are running away from. Energy attempting to return to the Source, is the cause of all natural disasters, for example, tsunami’s and hurricanes. Energy is coalescing. (Stacking higher and higher.) In order to reach the Sun. We rise to go to work, when the Sun is closest, and then we lay down to sleep when the Sun is furthest, so that we may conserve energy to rise again.
Now Let’s return to outer space, above our Sun.
Finite energy travels forward toward darkness until completely burning its core. Coalescing with the darkness it was traveling toward, thus becoming a black hole attracting other finite light sources. When other finite sources of light travel toward the black hole. (Darkness.) The black hole eventually fills up with light, and a chemical reaction takes place, transmuteing the black hole into a white hole. The light then tries to escape to coalesce with more light, however, it cannot. It becomes trapped in the hole, revolving around in an upward spiral. (All Directions). This ultimately functions as a “beacon” and a “distress call” for other wayward light sources to come coalesce so that they may possibly escape together. Think of what a hurricane does. It coalesces energy higher and higher to get closer to the Sun. Just like how a hurricane can never reach as high as the Sun, to escape the Earth, escape from any black or white hole once inside is impossible, the pull of gravity is too strong. The only place were gravity does not exist is the Positive Infinity Universe+∞ . Gravity is the Latin word for weight. The Positive Infinity Universe, being infinite, means, it has nothing holding it down, no weight, therefore no gravity. Instead the boundary on its existence is that, the walls of its Universe are infinitely far away from each other In all directions, enabling its energy to keep travelling indefinitely throughout the dimension, never reaching its final destination. Remember Light. (Energy in motion.) Is attracted to darkness.(Gravity.) because if light could absorb the entire darkness. (Gravity.) Light would fully absorb everything. Thus, resting its motion. (Imagine staying at 100% energy no matter how much you exercise, work, talk, run, jump, laugh, or play, eventually you would want to rest, you would want to go to sleep, but you can’t because your pure energy, forever expanding, because your boundaries, although they exist, are too far away for you to reach, therefore you are always in motion.) Hold out your hand, you will see it is impossible to keep it perfectly still, it will always twitch. Even when we sleep our bodies are still breathing, still in motion. Therefore, we dream because our brains remain active,unable to comprehend what it is like to not be in motion. Which is why right at the exact moment of death, inside of a dream we wake up. A dream is when finite beings devote the most power toward thinking.
Rahul said:
What percentage of the population’s IQ is underestimated?
pumpkinperson said:
50%
the mooch vs bannon said:
open borders is exactly like parents and grandparents giving part of their wealth away to adopted chillens.
very anti-family.
bing has what it calls “horse tail falls” in yosemite. way ugly.
oregon’s horse tail falls way pretty.
the mooch vs bannon said:
open borders is anti-family.
my own opinion is that the family is an invention of the neolithic…
but it’s a good invention…
like penicillin.
the native americans, the descendants of slaves, and the white americans who have deep roots…
they deserve MORE.
the mooch vs bannon said:
for most of human history…
the family was the tribe…
of no more than 75 people.
so the family develops in the neolithic…
in a society much larger than 75…
the family is the tribe…
this explains why mafia hitmen are no more likely to be sociopaths than the average person…
morality and democracy outside the extended family is a fiction and ridiculous…
it’s just sucking capital’s cock.
rome always wins....no kidding... said:
so there’s “a little bit” of a balance…
the fact that…
northern italy is the center of western civilization for 2,000 years…
and in some ways STILL is…
and southern italians are INDISTINGUISHABLE from northern italians…
this is a YUGE dis-confirmation of HBD.
and a confirmation of the dis-confirmation is that…
blacks. mexicans, irish, etc.
if your lot is criminal…
no body does it better!
rome always wins....no kidding... said:
nobody does it half as good as the southern italians.
rome always wins....no kidding... said:
family over family in the same extended tribe…
SAD!
LOADED said:
The man has lost it. No idea what he s talking about.
baby baby...darling...you're the pope...the 200th roman emperor... said:
and the anglo-tards imagine a crime-less society…
as long as there is no desperation, there is (almost) no crime.
of course, there will always be perverts.
…because a mass in latin…
because latin is THE language.
LOADED said:
I think genders are an invention of the Neolithic. There are no such things as genders, in my formal opinion. The whole phenomenon is absurd. There might exist one, but thats because humans are one gender. All genders in various species are monolithic in nature. Essentially, all methods of measuring dimormiphism us lost. There is only one gender in all species. Anything else can be attributed to the fetishization of sex.
LOADED said:
I think racism is a byproduct of modernization as well.
LOADED said:
Basically, all human life has formed to gather as much knowledge as an entity as possible. There is no such thing as an individual. Just vessels to gather knowledge to spread as a byproduct of cultural evolution. This ties imto the ideas of memes becsuse they are quite literally viruses. They spread from mind to mind, symbols to denote something meaningful. In terms of visualization, they are symbols we use to grasp at thought. Therefore, all knowledge must be interpreted through heuristics. Racism then comes forth. To distinguish thought patterns based on the meme of skin color.
LOADED said:
Im not sure, but I think its important to note that we are just a file on a computer screen.
LOADED said:
Gathering infornation for higher powers.
LOADED said:
I do believe in aliens. I bekieve humans also have a hive mind. Thoughts are viruses of the hive mind that exists to give meaning to things. Meaning is the absolute perfection of humanity.
LOADED said:
Im not soeaking anythimg new, just providing assistance to bring about these thoughts into the conscious mind.
LOADED said:
Eeruthimg is known by the unconscious. The subconscious has a somewhat grasp on it. The conscious is clueless.
Rahul said:
Pumpkin, how much will practice on a symbol search test increase your score on the subtest, if you did the exact same test you practiced? Since doing a completely different one would equal 1 SD, would doing the same one be like, 1 SD and 5-10 points?
pumpkinperson said:
There was a study where people took the WAIS-IV twice a few weeks apart on average and symbol search scores increased by 0.3 SD.
If practicing just once increases scores 0.3 SD, practicing ten times would increase a lot more, though eventually you’d get diminishing returns
And since people taking symbol search a few weeks later will not remember the specific symbols, it’s the same as being retested with new symbols
Rahul said:
Ahh, I see. Can you send me a link to the study?
pumpkinperson said:
It’s in the WAIS-IV technical manual which you’re not authorized to read
The Philosopher said:
Puppy I was watching this documentary on extraterrestrial life and the description they gave of what it would look and sound like was just like you.
TWO years in the big house for book making...and never left "the fold"... said:
where’s my donovan vid?
i’m the ONLY commenter here who has a FAMILY connection.
TWO years in the big house for book making...and never left "the fold"... said:
my mother’s father was a gangster.
no kidding.
GMHCNYC said:
does the world’s richest man have the world’s sexiest penis?
The Inquirer wants to know.
if you’ve consumed enough porn you know that…
1. size matters but not that much.
2. most penises are hideous.
GMHCNYC said:
does the world’s richest man have the world’s sexiest penis?
The Inquirer wants to know.
if you’ve consumed enough porn you know that…
1. size matters but not that much.
2. most penises are hideous.
but just keep it comin'.... said:
the white man has one PHYSICAL attribute over all other men…
black man, yellow man, red man, andaman pygmy man…
due to millennia of practice.
can’t touch this!
but just keep it comin'.... said:
it was irish monks who converted great britain.
whiskey vs whisky…
the greatest thinker of the dark ages was an irishman, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Scotus_Eriugena.
http://www.cc.com/video-clips/14dkpz/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-a-brief-history-of-ireland
unless they can get a 6'8" light skinned man... said:
[redacted by pp, feb 9, 2019]
pumpkinperson said:
light skinned black guys are highly prized by black women. Even Precious wanted one:
Yet another example of Oprah’s ability to adapt
The Philosopher said:
A friend of mine just came back from Turkey where he had hair transplant surgery. Its wonderful how medical tourism is so easy to do nowadays.
The Philosopher said:
Is that the Versailles palace in your blog pic Puppy? I had to laugh when that idiot loaded said you must be a billionaire based on how complicated this website is. That picture is the default pic with this theme. I used to have a blog a long time ago and this was the default theme I chose to begin with too. Loaded is such an idiot its unbeleivable…he was being sarcastic I hope.
pumpkinperson said:
He said multibillionaire & I see his point.
LOADED said:
Thanks, Pumpkin. You’re a good guy and I can tell that you’re good at spotting out talent in commenters when you see it.
The Philosopher said:
I bet loaded thinks Sarah Palin must have a 200IQ based on her speeches.
LOADED said:
Haha, that’s funny. I tend to over exaggerate the quality of things because it makes me see things in a much more positive way. It’s how some people delude themselves into feeling important or seeing the world as less chaotic than it actually is. I can tell you do the same with many things, though you have a more keen sense for realism. I am lost to the point where I can’t see the difference between fiction and reality. To me, all fictions are realities, and all realities are just fictions.
I’d peg my IQ around 120, probably close to 125, same as yours, Pill. You’re only bright spot is your perceptiveness in things, a quality all schizos share, but other than that, you lack a sufficient ground for trying to find truth and meaning behind things. You’re lost, Pill. You’re no more than an ant and the people whom you despise are all walking giants compared to you. How does that make you feel?
The Philosopher said:
Why do you keep saying my IQ is 125? And its funny because you probably do think that if you think puppys website is ‘complex’
pumpkinperson said:
125 is a complement pill. If you had an HQ of 125 (Height Quotient) you’d be 6’2″ which a lot of men would kill to be.
The Philosopher said:
I just want to know where he gets these random facts and figures from? I don’t know if hes ever mentioned this, but I think he might have a screw loose.
pumpkinperson said:
It’s just his subjective estimate. Kind of like when you estimated George Soros has a verbal IQ of 160 based on no data.
LOADED said:
Pumpkin’s right in his analysis that that was just an estimate from reading your comments. Sounds like you’re very daft and 125 might be an overestimate. As I said you’re perceptive, but your critical thinking skills are limited to the basics. You have no real depth to your arguments. You might be an utter moron, Pill. Sorry if that offends you, but it’s only the truth.