At 2/18/10 12:35 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:
At 2/17/10 07:27 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote:
Yes. Intelligence cannot exist without emotions.Whether or not we exist within a purely deterministic set of events is debatable as it is.
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
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!