IQ Tests- Any Geniuses here?

[greg]

     Points don't come from outside the system. They are endogenous, like money.

This sort of thinking tends to lead to the whole Buddhist "the point is the present," since when you develop your own goals in life, you realize that eventually even though you worked hard at something, it's either accomplished or you die, so what's the point?

But to me that is sort of a cop out. I think you could make it a point to accomplish one's goals as a middle finger to reality, since you were born, with desires, despite having no choice in the matter, so the only fate of life is to struggle. But no one can take away achievements, they exist forever, and nothing can change that. Even if no one is aware of it. Only reality itself is aware of it. So all of your achievements, and the point of your life, can just be a middle finger to reality, which might be the best way of looking at an existential question like that. Better than nihilism, I guess.

[drogulus]

   

This sort of thinking tends to lead to the whole Buddhist "the point is the present," since when you develop your own goals in life, you realize that eventually even though you worked hard at something, it's either accomplished or you die, so what's the point?

     You want your point to be the point in a kind of "view from nowhere" way.
     
     How do you not develop your own goals in life? You can make it a goal to discover the Meaning Of Life, if you're so inclined which, I'm sorry to say, you are. But it's still you choosing it.

[greg]

Yeah, but when it's temporary and completed, you can still ask "what's the point?" I think what I'm looking to for "points" is really permanence. Which seems to me a bit of a different question of you what you are saying, which is about who decides what the point is, rather than what the point is.

To put more simply: yeah, I can decide what the point is, but is there permanence to it?

Anyways, that sort of led me into thinking that maybe the ultimate god is either reality itself, or the entirety possibilities. If some god could rewind time and change history, it still doesn't mean that stuff didn't happen. It's like deleting stuff from a hard drive. It's not there now, but it was before. There may be a separate universe which holds information about everything that ever happened somewhere out there...

But that is an entirely different discussion. 

[drogulus]

     

But that is an entirely different discussion. 

     This one is different enough, don't you think?


     Q: Why don't you worry about the point of life?

     A: I'm busy.

[greg]

     
     This one is different enough, don't you think?


     Q: Why don't you worry about the point of life?

     A: I'm busy.

Yeah, except when you are able to juggle too many different thoughts at once, not many things will keep you busy enough to not worry about such topics (or other topics).

Especially when it's such simple tasks like mowing the lawn- I used to get into these types of thoughts a lot, but at the end, it's really... who cares?  The thoughts themselves were just useful as a fun way to cope with the incredibly boring and unpleasant task of pushing a lawn mover for an hour in sweltering heat.

[drogulus]

     Something that is not your thinking is interfering with your thinking. The answer won't be found by thinking the right thoughts but by dealing with the interference.

[Ghost of Baron Scarpia]

This sort of thinking tends to lead to the whole Buddhist "the point is the present," since when you develop your own goals in life, you realize that eventually even though you worked hard at something, it's either accomplished or you die, so what's the point?

But to me that is sort of a cop out. I think you could make it a point to accomplish one's goals as a middle finger to reality, since you were born, with desires, despite having no choice in the matter, so the only fate of life is to struggle. But no one can take away achievements, they exist forever, and nothing can change that. Even if no one is aware of it. Only reality itself is aware of it. So all of your achievements, and the point of your life, can just be a middle finger to reality, which might be the best way of looking at an existential question like that. Better than nihilism, I guess.

Why pine away over the fact that nothing is permanent, when nothing is, in fact, permanent. Does getting upset the things are not permanent make things any more permanent? No.

The process is what we have, so if there is enjoyment to be had, it is in the process, despite the fact that it is not permanent. Becoming attached to impermanent things is a recipe for dissatisfaction.

One should take advantage of the sources of satisfaction that evolution and biology has given us. Social interaction, the internal reward of helping others, the satisfaction of doing things well, the satisfaction of being in the presence of beauty, the satisfaction of creating something, whether it is permanent or not.

[greg]

Becoming attached to impermanent things is a recipe for dissatisfaction.

Yeah, but this leads ultimately to nihilism.

[Ghost of Baron Scarpia]

Yeah, but this leads ultimately to nihilism.

In my case, it doesn't. Not that I am not in some sense attached to things, but I accept that at some point they will be gone and I will have to find something else to occupy myself with. I don't feel that it is pointless to create something because it won't last forever.

[greg]

In my case, it doesn't. Not that I am not in some sense attached to things, but I accept that at some point they will be gone and I will have to find something else to occupy myself with. I don't feel that it is pointless to create something because it won't last forever.

I would qualify it as an attachment, though. Basically any goal that, once accomplished, causes positive emotions once achieved, necessarily brings attachment to it. Because if not achieved, negative emotions will be felt, even if shrugged off. If that isn't attachment, I don't know what is. Probably being overly attached is more in line to what you mean.

[Elgarian Redux]

It's at this stage of such a discussion that I ask myself 'What would Wittgenstein have said?' (Not, I hasten to add, that I would necessarily understand what he said!) But he would (I suppose) ask us to question what we mean by the words we are using - especially in this case, words like 'point', 'pointless' and so on - and then I think he would suggest we were asking nonsense questions.

Suppose I ask my wise friend Scarpia, 'what is the point of hitting this nail with that hammer?' He might reply, 'to drive the nail into the wood'; or 'to make a bird table' - or some such response. Our intelligence is capable of seeing, understanding, and expressing a 'point' of that limited sort. We get used to asking such questions, expecting such answers, and we expect that a question like, 'What is the point of my life?' also has an answer. It looks like an inoccuous question, grammatically speaking, but presumably Wittgenstein would include it among questions like, 'why is a mouse if it spins?', or 'how far is it to yesterday?'

The trouble with the Wittgenstein approach (even assuming I understand it properly, which is not a given), is that the moment I accept it, another, intuitive, voice pops up saying 'hang on, hang on - still, it feels, in my bones, like a proper question'.

Like the washing up, the thing never stays done. 

[71 dB]

I had a lot of thoughts about your post...

First of all, I did look up top IQ people before, so I've heard of that guy. What a strange existence it must have been. The curse is high expectations. There is a kid in Singapore with an IQ well over 200, and I can't imagine what sort of expectations he must have. It can cause a narcissism disorder- Sam Vaknin, who has one of the highest IQ scores in the world, has personally experienced this and is an expert on the topic.

Of living people matematician Terence Tao is said to have the highest IQ in the World, around 230.

So, in Jungian terms, especially based on what I've read from your posts before, you are almost definitely lead Ti (Introverted Thinking). People that have this often are socially awkward because of the inferior Fe (Extroverted Feeling). It is basically "My Reasons" versus "Your Values." They are basically opposites, and if you heavily identify/feel responsible for one, then the other is supposed to be the struggle. An example of lead Ti is Elon Musk, as his attempts to be likable are very awkward, but sometimes they just work. Other examples include Neil deGrasse Tyson, Michio Kaku, Jordan Peterson, Bill Nye... they sort of have to figure out this stuff, whereas for others it's natural (Fe users include Oprah, Tom Cruise, Katie Couric, Benedict Cumberbatch, etc.) You can sort of notice the difference, even disregarding profession. Intellect vs. Charisma.

Yes, I am introvert and subject oriented. Introvert people aren't anti-social, but social differently than extrovert people. I believe extrovert people are superior socially in larger groups of people.

For Aspergers, one possible explanation is high IQ, but low "EQ" (emotional IQ). I believe this is the same as the body language tests... basically Aspergers people are supposedly not great at comprehending social cues (I knew one guy that was literally this lol). It would be interesting to see what their scores would be when taking the body language tests. I did one once, and scored average (yawn). I never felt "socially awkward" much more than the average person (feeling this way is a pretty common complaint) but definitely a strong feeling of disinterest/alienation/avoidance, for sure, when not around people I genuinely click with (and this can last for quite a while at a time, until I meet the right people).

Asperger is a milder form of autism and my aspenger seems to be of milder type. If I had severe aspenger it would have been diagnosed in my childhood I think. My sister though I have asperger after reading about it and told me. I had never even heard the term, but I looked it up online. Some symptoms of asperger I recognized strongly in myself (that's me! -reaction), but not all and it's clear I don't have some symptoms and my sister agrees (such as not recognizing facial expressions). Anyway, it helps to know why some things are difficult for me and also why some things are easy for me. What is a bit depressing is that this World is optimised for normal people because normal people are the majority.

- social situations with many (more than 3-4) people seem chaotic and exhausting for me and I am in trouble. After learning about asperger I have practised "surviving" these circumstances. I can't control the situations any better, but they are less chaotic and exhausting when I give myself the license to relax and not controlling anything. In a group of 10 people I simple "ignore" most of them and concentrate on a few of them. Many that's what normal people do "naturally", but to me it's ignoring most people, pretending as if they wheren't there. One problem of larger groups of people is that the topics discussed circle around what interests most people, but I am excentric and what interests me is quite different from average people. So, the only way to participate is to make "stupid questions" about things I know less about (sports, alcohol drinks etc.) than others. Not my idea of having a good time... 
- I learn certain type of things very slowly.
- I am punctual. I am almost always on time (and when late it's not my fault - the damn bus driver f**ked up!). To me it's insane to be late. That's why we have clocks! Clocks are meaningless without punctuality. If I am 15 minutes late I rob someones 15 minutes when he/she has to wait for me. Being on time is relatively easy: Leave early enough!
- random detail are important to me. To me the hinge screws of a door can be of wrong shape or color while most people don't care at all how the screws of a hinge look like. Autistic people are like that too I believe, but I don't panic over wrong hinge screws. I just say myself the screws could have better shape and color. I think I am good at spotting things that could be improved, things that "normal" people don't see because they don't pay attention to random detail.
- to me all people are equal. Titles mean nothing. Hobos on streets and presidents are the same to me. People. Hierarchy is about people pretending some people are above other people. I want an equal fair World, one reason why am politically left. In Finnish sauna people are equal. Naked and equal. Titles are left to the dressing room.
- I keep what I promise and I don't promise what I feel can't perhaps keep. To me promising something you don't keep is insane. When you promise something it means other people rely on you keeping the promise and not keeping the promise has consequences from nonexisting to massive problems. In my opinion saying "I promise to do X" means "Doing X is easy enough/not too hard for me to do."

[71 dB]

Becoming attached to impermanent things is a recipe for dissatisfaction.

Yoda says that a lot. 

[drogulus]

     

I would qualify it as an attachment, though. Basically any goal that, once accomplished, causes positive emotions once achieved, necessarily brings attachment to it. Because if not achieved, negative emotions will be felt, even if shrugged off. If that isn't attachment, I don't know what is. Probably being overly attached is more in line to what you mean.

     You have framed the problem in a way it will never be solved. The problem is you feel bad, not that you have the wrong thoughts or the wrong point or no point. People who feel good, or good enough, can have any goal or point or think about anything. People who feel bad think there's no point. The arrow of causation goes from the feelings to the thoughts.

     

[Ghost of Baron Scarpia]

It's at this stage of such a discussion that I ask myself 'What would Wittgenstein have said?' (Not, I hasten to add, that I would necessarily understand what he said!) But he would (I suppose) ask us to question what we mean by the words we are using - especially in this case, words like 'point', 'pointless' and so on - and then I think he would suggest we were asking nonsense questions.

Suppose I ask my wise friend Scarpia, 'what is the point of hitting this nail with that hammer?' He might reply, 'to drive the nail into the wood'; or 'to make a bird table' - or some such response. Our intelligence is capable of seeing, understanding, and expressing a 'point' of that limited sort. We get used to asking such questions, expecting such answers, and we expect that a question like, 'What is the point of my life?' also has an answer. It looks like an inoccuous question, grammatically speaking, but presumably Wittgenstein would include it among questions like, 'why is a mouse if it spins?', or 'how far is it to yesterday?'

The trouble with the Wittgenstein approach (even assuming I understand it properly, which is not a given), is that the moment I accept it, another, intuitive, voice pops up saying 'hang on, hang on - still, it feels, in my bones, like a proper question'.

Like the washing up, the thing never stays done.

It is at this point in the discussion that I think, who is this Wittgenstein? 

It seems like I would generally agree with him. For a while I was interested in the writings of Bertrand Russell, who once remarked on Descartes famous statement "I think therefore I am," that never have so many errors been encapsulated in so few words. (I'm paraphrasing). Russell was also one of the people to note that often when early philosophers were drawing conclusions about the nature of existence they were really drawing conclusions about the grammar of their native language. Imagine then what it means to read philosophy in translation.

As to the question, "what is the meaning of life," I don't find it an invalid question, I find it an unimportant question. At one point I was working as a physicist in biology and the most difficult thing was finding out what is important. At one point I made a slide showing a cartoon with a group of mechanics studying a car to see why it won't run, and there was the physicist exclaiming, "the resistance of the cigarette lighter coil is 17 ohms!" I didn't want to be that guy.

What is the meaning of life? There is none. Soon we will be dead. The sun will swell and engulf the earth. Long before that the human race will be extinct, maybe sooner than we think. There is no ultimate meaning. Next question.

It doesn't mean that we can't find satisfaction in the life that has been given us.

[greg]

     
     You have framed the problem in a way it will never be solved. The problem is you feel bad, not that you have the wrong thoughts or the wrong point or no point. People who feel good, or good enough, can have any goal or point or think about anything. People who feel bad think there's no point. The arrow of causation goes from the feelings to the thoughts.

   

This isn't about me, just to clarify... I'm still getting on with projects and such, since why not. Gotta satisfy the drive to do cool stuff and have happy chemicals, even if what it produces isn't permanent. I guess that would be the point.

Just trying to describe some people who will feel this sort of nihilistic way of thinking- they do have logic to back up their negativity. If they place so much value on permanence, then yeah, everything will be meaningless and pointless.

And to derail the thread even further, because it's MY THREAD and I can derail as MUCH AS I WANT (HAHAHAHA  ), the conversation about attachment yesterday made me realize that psychopaths and Buddhists are actually incredibly similar. I think the Buddhist non-attachment is simply psychopathy taken to its final destination. Psychopaths aren't attached to anything, and barely attached to themselves, as proven by their fearlessness and recklessness. But I'd argue they do have a little bit of attachment to themselves- but mostly just their base fundamental drives- mainly money and sex. Buddhists, on the other hand, when you remove the attachment to the selfish fundamental drives, it changes everything, making the ability to put others ahead of themselves, while simultaneously not becoming attached to them, possible. So they just end up being great people instead.

[Elgarian Redux]

As to the question, "what is the meaning of life," I don't find it an invalid question, I find it an unimportant question.

I get that (see next paragraph). Wittgenstein, though, would insist that it isn't a proper question at all, so it is neither important nor unimportant because it isn't a 'thing'.

There is something to be said for the idea that when we are living life at its fullest, and richest, we don't ask the question at all. So perceived 'meaning' (if we can call it that) is a kind of existential state - experienced rather than understood. That seems to be the Scarpia philosophy? I think it has a lot going for it!

But always, always, I have to remind myself of David Hume: 'Reason is the slave of the passions'. Generally speaking, in these kind of abstract thought processes we will tend to use our 'reason' to reach the conclusion we want. Not perhaps because the reasoning, as such, is invalid, but because we choose premises (perhaps subconsciously) appropriate to a conclusion we prefer.

Intelligence, then, doesn't seem to be all that valuable in this kind of discussion. Great for measuring the resistance of a car's cigarette lighter though.

[greg]

I get that (see next paragraph). Wittgenstein, though, would insist that it isn't a proper question at all, so it is neither important nor unimportant because it isn't a 'thing'.

It would make sense as a question in the context of religion, since that meaning will be given by a god.

[Elgarian Redux]

It would make sense as a question in the context of religion, since that meaning will be given by a god.

Wittgenstein wouldn't accept that though. He would unpick the statement about 'meaning being given by a god' and show that it, too, was the result of a linguistic confusion.

I'm not speaking here as an advocate of Wittgenstein's philosophy (though some would regard him as the foremost philosopher of the 20th century). I'm just the (inadequate) messenger.

[Jo498]

I recommend Thomas Nagel's short book "The last word" (from the late 1990s or so) for a brief critique (among other things) why language analysis does not make metaphysics go away. The 20th century philosophers had many good points where they showed that their predecessors had been misled by "surface grammar". But they erred even more in the opposite direction and it is simply impossible to make all contentful questions (be they ethical or metaphysical) go away by language analysis. We can also develop languages if we encounter new fields in thought or nature that don't "fit well" with natural language. The very criticism of errors because of "surface grammar" show that our thoughts are not bound by any particular (natural or formal) language.

There are also some things that have to be recognized and accepted because otherwise we could not say anything meaningful. Wittgenstein would then say things like: I have hit rock bottom and the spade bounces back, so I can only say, that simply is the way I think. (quoted and translated from memory).
This sound like a relativization of the particular rock bottom structure to "my language game". But this is obviously not the only (or the most plausible way) to think about the "rock bottom". Far more convincing is that a rock bottom thing like the validity of modus ponens or some other basic rule of logic is simply valid and I could not argue at all if I did not recognize it as valid. It's part of any reasonable "language game" (or the "master games" or whatever) Cf. Carroll's funny text with the Tortoise and Achilles trying to found modus ponens in something else.
It's obviously more difficult to argue along similar lines for fields like metaphysics, ethics etc. that are not as indispensable as basic logics although they are still very general and presupposed by many other fields of thought. But it can be done, has been done (it was common core of most thinkers until fairly recently) and I don't think the skeptics or language relativists have refuted it. Finally, in practice there is no other way then to pretend. Scientists will usually pretend to find out objective facts about a world "out there", not to engage in a particularly difficult language game and similarly for fields like law.