Math Is Fun Forum

Yes, things like intelligence are very ambigous, so they can't be calculated with utmost certainty, however unlike you i first assess someones intellectual ability by interacting with them (although even here their is discrepancy as different people using my method might get different results, and even i cannot say that i can perfectly calculate someones intelligence) like talking, discussing ideas, philosophical or scientific reasoning and the like and the properties i most look out for are: out of the box thinking, thinking in different perspectives, flexibilty (not the apologistic type), freedom of thought, broader views, quickness, wittiness, focused, clarified and understandable breaking down of concepts as i firmly believe Richard Feynmanns saying that to truly know if someone understands something, they should be able to condense a certain topic in a few sentences, kind of like picking up the main idea, i believe people who try to manuever and be dismissive or people who use many words with less significance to the main topic, to in certain cases hide their understanding of a concept are not as intelligent as certain other people, although don't take this for absolute truth this is just my experience and perhaps the experience of certain other people, however their can be subjectivity and bias based on the person, and their ability to assess a situation.

thank for clarifiying that, also is Rod the mathisfun admin and are rod and bob also physics or maths or related graduates like you.

A few days ago i watched a video on different levels of intelligence, where there was said that people from ranges of subnormal (need help to do basic cognitive tasks) to trancendant (those that indulged in very complex areas and questioned and thought of different out of the box perspectives), even though you said intelligence involves various factors and variables, some differences were quite substantial, examples given were like carl jung, socrates, buddha and various others who were considered on such a league where there thought and ideas were percieved as foreign and dangerous but proved to be more efficient in the long run,and certain of these people were able to make connections between wide varieties of subjects known as polymaths. I know intelligence differs on different scales, but isnt it also true that when you compare the normal person to a such a trancendant level intelligence person, it seems the overall intelligence and effficiency of that person is a lot higher and there cognitive ability spans over multiple subjects and is more flexible, than the average person, so wouldn't it be true to say the trancendant person is more intelligent and exceptional than the normal person, by normal here i mean can perform basic cognitive processes and problem solving, not having as you say that further intellectual ability.

Yes, this forum is a no-ads free forum for people to discuss mainly math and other stuff that isn't harmful, i very much respect the administrators and how hard it must be for them to take care of the constant posting, i was a memeber of this forum previously with a different account although i lost the details to it but on that account i noticed that the admins were very helpful and taught me, which i am very grateful for as i have grown up hearing that nothing comes for free especially when someone is dedicating they're time and effort to enlighten you're knowledge, as the saying goes: time is money. Although for the past few days i have been noticing that for no apparent reason i was blocked, even though i did not post anything harmful, and i didnt even post enything irrelevant to the forum section, that hasnt happened to me before so i was a bit stupified i tried to say that it must've been an accident but it seems i am still framed for not following the forum rules though i believe i clearly did, although if the forum administrators wish that i do not countinue with that post then i fear i may have to, i am after all grateful for the help they offer, so i will not countinue on bugging them further on this.

Mr.Ganaish are u deliberatly preventing me and stopping me from posting here, i thought this was a free-forum not somwhere u got blocked for no reason.

These are the forum rules as far as im aware i don't know which one i violated:

By MathisFunForum:

This is a Forum, it is not instant chat. Leave your message, and come back later (hours or days) to see what responses you got.

RULES

If you are 13 or under, never give out your personal details (including any contact information) without permission from a parent or guardian

No Personal Attacks or Put-Downs. This is a type of bullying, and just makes you look insecure.

This is not a place to be mean to others and these posts will not be tolerated. Light banter or constructive criticism can be allowed if it is polite and friendly. Remember, other people have feelings too. "Those who give respect shall receive it."

No Swearing or Offensive Topics. Young people use these forums, and should not be exposed to crudeness. There is a bad language filter on this website, do not try to "get around it".

No Spam. Spam includes messages that have no relevance to the topic, that are annoying, repetitious or promotional in nature. Overuse of short comments is also spam.

Make Yourself Understood. It is ok to sometimes use shortened words such as gr8, but too much of this will classify your post as spam.

Possible Actions: At first you will be gently warned or have your message edited or deleted. More serious cases may result in banning or other measures.

Yes i was thinking that too, perhaps this should've been on the dark discussions at cafe infinity, though i meant to leave a thought behind and under the guestbook section it said you could leave a thought behind, though i didnt expect this to be this long, sorry for the inconvenience.

P.S To KerimF: If you want to continue this its best this should be done in the proper section i suggest dark discussions at cafe infinity.

I just simplified it for you, in evolution and natural processes, there are no predefined goals. A mutation isn’t “failed” or “successful” in an absolute sense — it either allows survival/reproduction, or it doesn’t. Nature doesn’t “save” the rules anywhere; survival itself is the only filter. When you make a controller, yes, you have goals. But nature doesn’t — it just filters out what doesn’t work. You're right to say that “failure” and “success” are relative, but in evolution, the reference point isn’t an abstract “goal” but whether something survives long enough to reproduce in its environment. That’s it.
If you're asking me "whose keeping the score"  then the answer to that is: No one is. The environment itself is the scorekeeper. Nature doesn’t plan — what works, continues; what doesn’t, disappears. No intelligence needed.

Yes, the question that has frustrated many great minds: “What is the purpose of life if I am to die anyway?” Personally, I believe there is no inherent purpose. The universe is neither intelligent nor foolish—it is simply blind. There is no higher set of rules guiding everything. Life itself was a chance occurrence that continued. Your existence, like mine, came about more as part of the continuation of a species than as an individually intended purpose. Our individuality, however, helped us survive better and longer.

Ultimately, life did not occur because some higher purpose deemed it so, but because previous events happened to lead to it. I too once struggled with this existential crisis, but I realized that we cannot change it. Instead, it is better to use the time we have to actually live, rather than wallow in distress forever.

Also, to correct your earlier misunderstanding: I did not view this purely as an exchange of ideas, but also as an educational debate—a way to understand, learn, and sharpen my ideas, while seeing if you might offer a logical alternative.

In the end, I’m not forcing you to change your way of life. I am simply suggesting that it is not wrong to be open to foreign ideas and ways of thinking. I do believe a person can become trapped in his faith, precisely because his belief reinforces itself and justifies its own existence.

Hmm intriguing indeed, but there are many persons like which you describe youreself to be, people who as you say do not give in to their instincts (and as i said before it is equally human to not give in to you're instincts as it is to give in to them), i have tried to find the root for you're ideology and it seems it's grounded in you're belief that you do not follow the instincts "normal" human's follow and hence it must not be realated to you're human biology but rooted in something higher or beyond yourself, which you refer to as the "WILL" that causes you to oppose these, but these acts of opposition in itself are what makes us human we are not just bound by our instincts infact we go as far as opposing them to the point of even death, just to name a few whom resonated with you on this i will mention many historical figures that share this so called instinct override:

1. Socrates (470–399 BCE)

Chose to drink hemlock (execution) instead of fleeing Athens, even though he had the chance.

Went against the instinct of survival to remain loyal to his principles and the law.

2. Jesus of Nazareth (c. 4 BCE – 30 CE)

Preached love for enemies, forgiveness instead of revenge.

Went against survival/self-preservation by willingly accepting crucifixion.

3. Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama, 563–483 BCE)

Renounced his royal life, wealth, and power.

Abandoned superiority/selfishness instincts in pursuit of enlightenment.

4. Mahatma Gandhi (1869–1948)

Advocated nonviolence and fasting, even when under threat.

Refused the instinct for aggression or self-defense, choosing peace and suffering.

5. Martin Luther King Jr. (1929–1968)

Preached nonviolence and love despite receiving death threats.

Put justice and morality over survival instinct.

6. Nelson Mandela (1918–2013)

Spent 27 years in prison when he could’ve compromised.

Chose forgiveness instead of revenge when he gained power.

7. Stoic Philosophers (Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, Seneca)

Emphasized rejecting desires, ego, and revenge instincts.

Lived by rational control over instincts rather than indulging them.

So it is not just you but a trait of the human species in itself to sometimes "override" their instincts, Infact it may be due to the marvelous complexity of the human mind. We have the ability to think for ourseleves unlike other mammals, it was even said somewhere that humans have this intriguing "ability" sometimes referred to as cognitive dissonance and in George Orwell's 1984 book referred to as double-think where a person can have two ideas which are totally contradictory to each other, this is just an example of one of the many marvelous ways the in which the human mind works. Now lets go back to you're situation, you for example have this belief that you are going against you're instincts but isn't that just another one of you're instincts, perhaps necessary for evolutionary progress becuase diversity and change was required for evolution. To really establish if a human is actually going against his instincts we cannot use one or even many life experiences, to truly find out if a human has escaped his/her intincts (which in my opinion is near impossible (if not impossible)) is to put a human at his/her breaking point or limit, as im sure you know or have heard that a wolf takes off his sheeps disguise when he is triggered, according to which we can devise an experiment to see if a human has truly went above and beyond his instincts. This exact test was mentioned in 1984 and was done on Winston Smith (the protagonist of 1984) where he was tortured and beaten yet he did not give in to his instincts of denouncing his love for Julia and want for freedom until he was faced with his most horrifying experience yet, which for him was placing his hand in a cage full of wild hungry rats (he loathed rats) which would bite of his hand, now when faced with such a situation his instincts kicked in and he immediatly said "don't do it to me do it to Julia" (his lover whom he previously declared his love for), he denounced his love for her and told the torturers to do the evils to his lover instead of him. That was one example of the many where if a human is pushed to his limits his mind would force him to submit as submition can't be prevented due to the fact that the human instincts of survival are built in or programmed as you say into the human mind. To conclude i tell you this to wonder upon: Are you really opposing you're instincts?, Is it a WILL or is it just another forging of the mind which causes you to seemingly oppose you instincts?. Using Logic to justify Philosophy is not an easy path to tread as there are many hurdles you have to overcome since these are both grounded in different systems, one is of the human minds ability to wander across seas of imagination and another where it builds itself on bricks of reason and Logic.

Well, that may be specific to you. For me, dreams have always felt more like reflections of what I’ve lived — or distortions of them, as if I were walking through parallel versions of my own life. To me, they seem less like messages from beyond and more like the work of the mind itself — perhaps shaped by evolution for survival, or simply a byproduct of its complexity.

I’ve even noticed that I can influence my dreams. If I dwell on something deeply, it may appear when I sleep. And like many others, I’ve experienced lucid dreams — where I felt transported into a vivid world where I had more control. This makes me think dreams are not the voice of some higher WILL, but simply another theater of the brain. Without evidence beyond personal experience, I find it hard to treat them as anything else.

That said, I respect the way you choose to live — with peace, love, and comfort. I only question whether we should root that way of life in an ambiguous higher power. For me, we are not buttons switching on or off some hidden system, but the system itself — always changing, breaking, and rebuilding through time.

I do not mean to inhibit your view; I only extend mine. If you’ve lived seventy-five years, your perspective is born of deep experience, and I value hearing it. I simply offer my side — a broader view shaped by my belief in nothing beyond the physical. Still, I remain open to understanding the many ways people shape their lives through their own beliefs.

I cannot see beyond death. To me, it is the end — no realm, no dream, no awakening, only nothing. Every other vision of afterlife is only a possibility, yet if one were to chase a single possibility, would it not follow that we must chase them all to truly be secure? And since they contradict one another, how could any path be certain? Perhaps that is why I choose to walk with the void — the only truth I can conclude.