At 2/18/10 01:42 AM, RoboJesus wrote: Passionate=/=Emotional

Uhhhhhh...what?

passion: a strong feeling or emotion

At 2/18/10 01:42 AM, RoboJesus wrote: Passionate=/=Emotional

... seriously. Wow, lol.

The ability to show and control emotion shows intelligence, but does not measure it.

At 2/17/10 11:40 PM, visiblecrumpet wrote:

At 2/17/10 07:27 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote: Emotions = Intelligence. case closed.

But basically what your entire argument is hanging on is the fact that we need emotions to thrive for advancement and change. Unfortunately emotions have literally nothing to do with that. Our natural strive for self improvement is a self supporting action regardless of the help of emotions. Emotions make us do radical and illogical things like say jump in front of a bus for the ones we love. How is something like that intelligent, and if anything isn't that a step backwards?

I don't disagree with the rest of what you said, it just doesn't have anything to do with emotions or the matter. Your failure to properly describe what emotions are ended up with you becoming dependent on a fact which isn't actually a fact at all.

The idea of emotions? Can do buddy!

So in fact unless you have a better refutation to that: Intelligence is independent of Emotions and vice versa.

That's true that's true. But such a strife for perseverance, to further and better myself for instance. I only do it because I feel compelled towards some of my subjects. Being compelled invokes the emotion of pleasure. I feel pleasure because I feel that I am bettering myself with my learning, that I am learning more about myself and thus invoking the emotion of pleasure, happiness in the sense that I am achieving my goal.

Physics being one of them, philosophy the other, and in my personal time, martial arts, which tends to have ties in with philosophy.

I believe that such 'natural strife for self improvement' is not simply an emotion, but more like a dynamic compound of different emotions, because that self improvement demands a supplimentry purpose, on why we must improve. I can't see how purpose can exist without emotion.

That a person will feel the emotions, which then that emotion will compel an action. Yes jumping in front of a bus, is a compelled action which could possibly come from the emotion of 'love'. But there must co-exist an underlying cause.

In the same way heat cannot exist without perspiring. Love cannot exist without it's balance of hate. Motivation cannot exist without a pleasure, such pleasure is derived from the happiness of newer learning and thinking. Both purposeful and instrumental actions and activities, may only exist because of psychological causation. Ethics, irrationality, rationality, motives (a need). All give purpose to that behaviour of 'self development'.

If emotions are chemicals, hormones in our body, that would also mean that such feelings are natural to the human race. It is only emotions which truly differ man from machine, after all.

Yes. the advanced his intelligence is, the less emotions he would feel.
Explanation: self mind controling.

No they do not, they are completely separate.

At 2/17/10 07:27 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote: Yes. Intelligence cannot exist without emotions.

If we remove everyone's personalities, and replace it with a clockwork toy that functions in a systematic way, we would not have the freedom to express our opinions and virtues

Whether or not we exist within a purely deterministic set of events is debatable as it is.

therefore criticism and counter criticism, emotions to strive for freedom of thinking, and all integrity could not exist, because everybody would always reach the exact same conclusions.

You are completely disregarding the fact that other conditions can determine variance. If I'm two miles from point A and you're three miles from point A, arriving at point A requires that we take different routes. Likewise, if we've both arrived at A, we both require different routes to return to our starting positions.

This pioneering, campaigning for what we call acceptance, the strive for the truth, across the infinity expanding engine which is our universe, is just one of the things which makes us human after all. Remember, gravity is just a theory.

If you're going to argue that it's motivated by emotion, then for fucks sake be consistent and don't act like human scale normatives are some kind of universally ordained decree. This idea that there's some imperative to be human and move forward is still serving emotion - personal and small.

Having your own opinions, and not the generic views of everybody else means we can truly express our thought, and expand our capacity to think.

And here we get the meat of what you're really talking about: personal novelty - or originality. Which, by the way, is no proof that emotion equals intelligence. Infact, it's a nonstarter. It's flawed all by itself. **

Yet those who expressed there capacity to think, through denial, and through there emotions, great scientists with true motivation, developed the idea that 1+1, does not in fact equal 2.

You're taking A level physics. I take it you know how math works. So then I take it you're aware that you're being dishonest as all hell when you characterize a quantum application as a refutation of an algebraic application. And I also take it you know your portrayal of this particular case of skepticism is itself dishonest.

[...] great minds are sceptical

We have the freedom to express difference [...]

Natural selection my friend. Those cavemen who didn't follow the other cavemen [...]

** The extent of creativity, nor the height of creativity, is in revolution nor radical novelty. Independent thought is not only manifested as action against the norm. You have disregarded the absolute importance of iteration and precedent.

And you know your caveman story is utterly unfounded and/or circularly derived.

Emotions = Intelligence. case closed.

No. If anything you've been arguing that emotions are a means to intelligence, which, while being something I agree with, is still a ridiculously simplified analysis of the relationship that it verges on dishonest.

You disregard the existence of other motivating factors, explicitly other visceral feedback mechanisms.

You disregard the presence of very similar spectra of emotion in other animals, which, despite their emotions, are still relegated to a more primitive mode of life. Furthermore you disregard the inherent abilities that actually make the difference (like thumbs for instance).

You disregard the role of intelligence in interpretation of emotion. More precisely, as an affect of putting emotion before intelligence you disregard intelligence before intelligence, in the genesis of explicit goals. While you talk about intelligence before intelligence, it doesn't make it into your conclusion... why? I'll tell you.

You characterize an essential part as the sole part when you say "emotions = intelligence." You're flat out wrong.

So please. Try being less 'deep/inspirational' and more intelligent. It's immensely frustrating to see someone who can communicate like you do, communicate what you do.

Intelligence defines emotion. Think of a mentally retarded person. They fly off the handlebars or fall in love or anything you can imagine. Someone with a higher intellect can have self control, can rationalize and understand.

At 2/18/10 02:55 AM, Alphabit wrote:

If people didn't act based on emotion, there would be no war, no conflict

You're implying conflict cannot be organized logically. What do you think causes most wars? It's a fight for resources and territory a.k.a. things you need to survive. There's nothing illogical or emotionally charged about wanting land and resources so you don't die off. It's basic biological imperative.

To feel the emotion of something like love, you don't need to be intelligent. But to use the word right, now that may take a little intelligence. To communicate that you love someone or something may also take a little intelligence, but it never has and never will take intelligence to feel the emotion of love.

Well I think it's a good idea to look at the animal kingdom regarding this question. Because the difference in intelligence in the animal kingdom are much more obvious than differences in intelligence between humans.

And after doing a little bit of research, it appears that so far it has only been proven that primates, dogs, cats and fish have some sense of emotion. Probably dolphins as well. So apparently one of the smartest animals, pigs, don't have any emotions. At the same time fish, cats and dogs, who are not known to be not that clever, do have emotions.

I guess you could conclude from that that emotions and intelligence are not very connected. Maybe loosely, but I'd say that they don't have much to do with each other.

At 2/17/10 05:47 PM, sandordude wrote: I think that really smart people have less emotions and more stupid people lot of emotions and creativity.

I don't think you can really link creativity to a persons intelligence like that. I believe most really creative people are actually quite intelligent usually.

yes, intelligence and emotions are linked very closely. Take the term 'ignorance is bliss'. If you never knew there was anything better than what you already know, you will be content. If you find that your situation may be improved, it causes want. If you can't have what you want, you are frustrated. I just demonstrated how the emotion of frustration and resentment can be linked to intelligence.

At 2/18/10 12:35 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 2/17/10 07:27 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote: Yes. Intelligence cannot exist without emotions.

If we remove everyone's personalities, and replace it with a clockwork toy that functions in a systematic way, we would not have the freedom to express our opinions and virtues

Whether or not we exist within a purely deterministic set of events is debatable as it is.

therefore criticism and counter criticism, emotions to strive for freedom of thinking, and all integrity could not exist, because everybody would always reach the exact same conclusions.

You are completely disregarding the fact that other conditions can determine variance. If I'm two miles from point A and you're three miles from point A, arriving at point A requires that we take different routes. Likewise, if we've both arrived at A, we both require different routes to return to our starting positions.

I'm not sure what your trying to say here. That we both live different lives and live by different experiences? Are you trying to say something along the lines of this. Or am I way off?

Drawing a picture of the grim reaper may share the significant visual properties in which the grim reaper is classically described as looking, which is generic expression of the grim reaper. Another picture may depict a river without depicting any river in particular by displaying significant visual properties, shared by our most experienced cases of rivers. When we refer to a picture of the grim reaper we generally illustrate, or associate an image of death, because that is what society over a period of time has come to accept. But when we refer to a picture of a river we do not all imagine the same stream that we have come to accept as being classed as a river.

The mathematical certainty lies that we have each had an individual experience of the idea of rivers; so to generalise anything as beautiful, can only be generalised, based on the experiences we have had in our individual lifestyles, and again based on our experiences, what we define as beauty, may change any instance of any day. There thus can be no generic beauty, because beauty is by definition 'an outstanding example of it's kind', but this is consciously a quality limited by our experiences which tailor what we characterise as beauty.

Having your own opinions, and not the generic views of everybody else means we can truly express our thought, and expand our capacity to think.

And here we get the meat of what you're really talking about: personal novelty - or originality. Which, by the way, is no proof that emotion equals intelligence. Infact, it's a nonstarter. It's flawed all by itself. **

If we only accept social stereotypes and beliefs, and thus try to eliminate all the beliefs and lifestyles that a society says are wrong. We are removing the difference in society that we base our choices on; and we are only presented with one way of life. With only one way of life we would never have to make choices, which expand beyond the map that society has drawn, so we would never exercise our minds beyond such proportions.

By allowing different ways of life, we force ourselves to exercise our minds. By making a conscious decision based on choices, we improve proportionally our capacity to be educated by these choices rather than diminishing them.

You're taking A level physics. I take it you know how math works. So then I take it you're aware that you're being dishonest as all hell when you characterize a quantum application as a refutation of an algebraic application. And I also take it you know your portrayal of this particular case of skepticism is itself dishonest.

As I said before I only briefly understand the subject, and my apologies if the physical application for an example isn't particularly a good one!

** The extent of creativity, nor the height of creativity, is in revolution nor radical novelty. Independent thought is not only manifested as action against the norm. You have disregarded the absolute importance of iteration and precedent.

That's not to say that we should totally disregard what we see as the norm. I never said there should not be a balance between the two, since we are picking on words here. An inspiring man once said, "Do not deny the classical approach, simply as a reaction, or you will have created another pattern, and trapped yourself there". I believe there needs to be a distinction between capacity to learn, how much we know, and how we can remodel such thought.

And you know your caveman story is utterly unfounded and/or circularly derived.

Emotions = Intelligence. case closed.

No. If anything you've been arguing that emotions are a means to intelligence, which, while being something I agree with, is still a ridiculously simplified analysis of the relationship that it verges on dishonest.

You disregard the existence of other motivating factors, explicitly other visceral feedback mechanisms.

Can you evaluate this one? I have never thought of motivation in any other way than to be something that is churned up through emotion.

You disregard the presence of very similar spectra of emotion in other animals, which, despite their emotions, are still relegated to a more primitive mode of life. Furthermore you disregard the inherent abilities that actually make the difference (like thumbs for instance).

Again, you are right, and thus I think intelligence needs to be broken up into more dynamic categories, but that's not to say that emotion does cannot lead to it's own intelligence, or progress.

You characterize an essential part as the sole part when you say "emotions = intelligence." You're flat out wrong.

I understand that. But can you expand on other idea's of intelligence? I'm only a growing monkey you know!

So please. Try being less 'deep/inspirational' and more intelligent. It's immensely frustrating to see someone who can communicate like you do, communicate what you do.

I appreciate the compliment! And I leave myself entirely open to criticism. In this world of opportunity, why hamper a chance to learn! I'm afraid A Level English has warped me sir!

At 2/18/10 01:31 PM, estrago1 wrote: To feel the emotion of something like love, you don't need to be intelligent. But to use the word right, now that may take a little intelligence. To communicate that you love someone or something may also take a little intelligence, but it never has and never will take intelligence to feel the emotion of love.

How can we ever know that? Does anybody have experience of love without it's communication?

No.
Long Answer: Just like the first guy. No

At 2/18/10 03:47 PM, RoboJesus wrote: I mean it in the sense of being passionate about a belief or idea. Such as Einstein was passionate about physics.

Read between the lines. I shouldn't have to explain everything.

That IS being emotional. Having a passion for a certain belief or idea means you're putting emotional and mental effort into that certain subject because you feel that it holds a special meaning for you or others. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that passion has nothing to do with your emotions.

You bet i'm itnellegent.

At 2/18/10 04:00 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote: I'm not sure what your trying to say here. That we both live different lives and live by different experiences?

Yes, and that emotion is just one variable, albeit a big one. Emotion alone does not determine variance.

what we define as beauty, may change any instance of any day. There thus can be no generic beauty, because beauty is by definition 'an outstanding example of it's kind', but this is consciously a quality limited by our experiences which tailor what we characterise as beauty.

Generic beauty can be defined through abstraction, such that a sunset is beautiful.

The identification of a thing as beautiful, that is the identification of novelty, is subject to the individual's acknowledgement of that thing. Common place-ness does not automatically exempt a thing having beauty or being beautiful.

The human condition is generally not as all-over-the-place as you're portraying it in this context. There is generally a fair amount of consistency between individuals, and between one individual's past and future.

What does this have to do with your argument about conclusions?

If we only accept social stereotypes and beliefs [...]

Your distopian view of the a potential future is a bit exaggerated.

By allowing different ways of life, we force ourselves to exercise our minds.

Social homogeneity is not and most likely cannot be absolute. Stop arguing from extremes.

As I said before I only briefly understand the subject, and my apologies if the physical application for an example isn't particularly a good one!

There's still the issue of portrayal. Your brief telling of the story, and the context of your argument, makes it seem like these guys set out to disprove basic addition. When what is much more likely is: they were puttering along with their research until something happened that contradicted basic addition.

That's not to say that we should totally disregard what we see as the norm. I never said there should not be a balance between the two

Well then good.

Can you evaluate this one? I have never thought of motivation in any other way than to be something that is churned up through emotion.

Pain is not necessarily an emotion, but it does motivate action - though you could translate pain to fear in a prospective application. Hunger is certainly no emotion, and lust is borderline.

Again, you are right, and thus I think intelligence needs to be broken up into more dynamic categories, but that's not to say that emotion does cannot lead to it's own intelligence, or progress.

Well there's always room for more nuance. I just wanted there to be some explicit nod toward nuance to begin with. Which is what we're doing now so I'm happy.

I understand that. But can you expand on other idea's of intelligence? I'm only a growing monkey you know!

I'm never good at expanding on such broad topics. Then, I'm probably no expert on specific ones. But if you can maybe narrow down "intelligence" to more specific areas I might have a few words.

I appreciate the compliment!

A concealed one at that. I apologize. It was unwarranted.