Jump to content

Western Civilization’s Last Stand

The Art of The Argument

Available Now | artoftheargument.com

Freedomain Radio Amazon Affiliate Links: United States - Canada - United Kingdom

Sign up for the Freedomain Mailing List: fdrurl.com/newsletter

Libertyblues

Could a IQ 130 still learn math at 20 even though he never had an education?

Recommended Posts

Could a IQ 130 still learn math at 20 even though he never had an education?

 

I wonder if there is any evidence for this, I really could need this in a current discussion with government employed teachers..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Might want to elaborate a little. What kind of math, and what kind of education, are you talking about specifically?
Math is a learned topic. It's not and emotional or biologically embedded trait. I can't fathom what age would have to do with learning it.

I found some articles on a quick search of 'math learning age dependent'. I see that the education industrial complex seems to think an inability or difficulty learning maths is some kind of disorder, which is fuckin scary albeit perfectly predictable. (Mostly)Women refusing to take responsibility for poor teaching? How about common core! Still not working? Oh, that's a disorder...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051027082434.htm
 

 

Results show that boys are more likely to have Math LD than girls.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is so specific and so esoteric that I think you're being hoodwinked if you're being told you need to produce this as evidence to support an argument about government education.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To reach a conclusion that a person has 130 in IQ, you would have to test the person with an IQ test. IQ tests include math as far as I know. So the question is a bit self imploding.

 

All people are able to learn anything as long as the motivation is there, like social pressure, personal goal, or survival.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The math question ist just a specific one. I was arguing that if there is motivation then things like math can be learned when its needed. Government schooling does 10 years of math, many kids just hate it to the guts and hate school for it - so I said, let them drop the subject once they are bored of it. But I do wonder if math is like playing the piano - can you develope a genious math skill, eventhough you only started to learn math in your thirties? Can you only get a piano-genious if you force the kids to train hard?

 

My conclusion is: kinda. If math is like learning a language, it's extremly hard to get a native-like accent once you're past a certain age. But who minds a mathematician with an accent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course they could.

 

The govt employed teachers want to steal your money to "educate" (brainwash) kids because they think it's necessary and that they won't be able to function without it. The burden of proof is on them, not you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course they could.

 

The govt employed teachers want to steal your money to "educate" (brainwash) kids because they think it's necessary and that they won't be able to function without it. The burden of proof is on them, not you.

 

You might be right but factually right now "we" have the burden of proof problem ;)

 

The closest I got to my answer is that I've heard a couple of times that high IQ people tend to talk very early, like at 6 months or so - here an example:

 

Not a whole lot you can do wrong with an infant!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might be right but factually right now "we" have the burden of proof problem ;)

 

The closest I got to my answer is that I've heard a couple of times that high IQ people tend to talk very early, like at 6 months or so - here an example:

 

Not a whole lot you can do wrong with an infant!

Deadset smartest guy in the universe believes in God. Whyyyyy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deadset smartest guy in the universe believes in God. Whyyyyy

 

What he means by God is probably much different than the God of the Bible. He should have been asked for a definition of God.

 

He does say though that:

 

1) "The essence always remains preserved"

 

In other words, the soul is immortal. Socrates made the same claim. Also, an eternal essence is a Platonic form - Plato's theory of the forms.

 

2) "Nothing in this universe is wasted. Nothing seizes to exist."

 

A bold claim given that everything we observe does exactly that - it dies, and therefore is arguably wasted. Even galaxies die.

 

Things die, granted. The problem is that you can't get something from nothing. If you accept this premise, the logical conclusion is that everything is and has always been - which frankly f*cks with the mind even more. Nevertheless this already suggests "God" or "God is all". Or as Spinoza claimed, there is nothing but God. I think even Leibniz claimed that man is a small God, which really follows from "All is God", and then, with that other asexual genius, invented Calculus - arguably because Calculus, specifically the limit function, and more specifically its proof, like God, requires an understanding of infinity. I guess the joke here is, "Thank God for Calculus"

 

Of course, even if all this is true, coming up with a definition of God isn't easy. The problem is that we know of things in relation to other things/parts - much like we know a word in a dictionary by other words. In technical terms, "Things", at least to minds, are "Relationships" - "IS" and/or "IS NOT" like X... which is "likeness" or Plato's first principle, or the Bible's, "In God's image".

 

We know of black because of white and vice versa. We know of background because of foreground. In other words, our empirical knowledge is dual in nature. The question then is, "What's the background, the black, the context, to God?" There isn't one, if there nothing but God. How can one understanding something in itself, by itself, without any reference, context or relationship to anything else? If one can make that jump, solve that problem, she or he is a step closer to discovering God - or perhaps closer to being admitted to a mental hospital.

 

Another major obstacle is time, or rather the meaning and understanding of "eternal". Eternal, if anything, means the opposite of time - no time. In particular you have to show that this universe has no time, otherwise it's not eternal and therefore will seize to exist.

 

This is not that difficult if you can transition your thinking from "parts" to "whole" and realize that time is motion and more generally change,  and therefore a relationship between "parts". The "whole" has no time, as there is no reference point, no other "part" to use to measure it by. In more basic terms, time is the universe measuring change in itself, much like a "meter" is distance measuring distance. This is why, for instance, Alan Watts once claims that the universe will expand when we look through our telescopes, and become smaller when we use our microscopes. Why? Because, quoting Watts again, "You are an aperture through which the universe is looking at and exploring itself." Or as he often put it, "You are it" - which is Spinoza echoed.

 

Believable? I don't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could a IQ 130 still learn math at 20 even though he never had an education?

 

I wonder if there is any evidence for this, I really could need this in a current discussion with government employed teachers..

 

Mark Twain said, "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education"? Newton invented Calculus when he was 23.

 

Learning must be an innate skill, as without it, nothing can be learned. Education therefore is, if good, a means to learn or get the facts faster. If you don't have to rediscover everything for yourself, you get to know a lot more facts and truths than otherwise you would in a life span. But education is not the same as the skill to learn - although it can improve it.

 

The education system in the US and Canada is basically daycare with the sprinkle of few, often useless, facts.

 

I learned the Pythagorean theorem (and later how to prove it), but not about money, the banking system, loans, investing or for that matter how to do my damn taxes.

 

If money represents labor (and therefore life) and we spent most of life laboring away we should teach kids business and money the moment they can walk. Those damn triangles can wait.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

High IQ doesn't mean you don't believe in stupid things. Lots of smart people believe stupid things because they don't have the integrity to explore things in a more philosophical and first principles approach and have emotional and social attachments that prevent them from really considering things outside of the box they were put into. Seems kind of wrong to call a guy the smartest when there are some apparent deficiencies. What good is a super fast computer processor if it's stuck with some overly limited software that prevents the speed from ever really being useful or well utilized?

Maybe instead of asking if it's possible to learn match you should just do it and see how far you get. Learn what you can and have help with any barriers. Then you'll get a good sense of the limits of your abilities and will be able to do as much math as is possible and then you can assess from whatever wall you may hit as to what you want and can do from there.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What he means by God is probably much different than the God of the Bible. He should have been asked for a definition god.

You put a lot of effort into that reply I appreciate that, however I don't think the subject deserves it. It is all unknowns, the soul, the universe, infinity etc. Sure matter is never destroyed just changed this doesn't mean it carries on in some conscious form, why can't the mind or "soul" be changed into a different form that has no access to consciousness? These loons are begging the question and wasting their lives, in this particular case his considerable talent.

 

Who knows maybe he finds god or the theory of everything, that would be cool!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You put a lot of effort into that reply I appreciate that, however I don't think the subject deserves it. It is all unknowns, the soul, the universe, infinity etc.

 

I don't wish or intent to defend God or anyone's views. I've long ago given up on that. Everything I say is food for thought. Maybe someone can benefit from the logic, the connections or the perspective I offer. I can equally take the other side and argue that God is just an extreme version of Santa Claus, expect the naughty kids go to hell.

 

 

Sure matter is never destroyed just changed this doesn't mean it carries on in some conscious form, why can't the mind or "soul" be changed into a different form that has no access to consciousness?

 

 

Suppose you're right. Suppose mind or soul can be changed into a different form without consciousness. Doesn't that beg the question? Why not the opposite way? Why not from no access to consciousness to some or full access? We're conscious, aren't we? If we were once unconscious, and now conscious, we somehow "got" consciousness.

 

If you think about this for a bit you might ask another question. What about the very first consciousness? Did it come from nothing? Once you do that you're back to a choice - either it has always been, or it come from nothing.

 

Of course, you might object to this type of reasoning. You can point out that if I apply this type of reasoning to apples instead of consciousness or God I have to conclude that apples have always been or come from nothing - and for apples both conclusions sound ridiculous. Apples go away in the winter and come back in the sprint/summer. Fair argument.

 

I would point that for the apples go away in the winter and appear back in the sprint/summer they require a constant, like the apple tree. If you take that as an analogy and push it to its limit the conclusion is that everything that changes requires a constant on which the change can take place. I'll go one step further.

 

If existence is defined as "that which has a beginning and an end" which is another way of saying "it changes", then there is a constant on which a "beginning" transitions/changes to an "end" - for an apple that's the apple tree. For existence that constant is _______ . It's the nature of that constant that interests me. The constant on which this universe changes also interests me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Suppose you're right. Suppose mind or soul can be changed into a different form without consciousness. Doesn't that beg the question? Why not the opposite way? Why not from no access to consciousness to some or full access? We're conscious, aren't we? If we were once unconscious, and now conscious, we somehow "got" consciousness.

 

The guy used the fact that matter is never destroyed, simply changed, to argue that consciousness must therefore continue to exist in some accessible form. He is begging the question, I am merely calling him out on it.

 

Consciousness is just a function of a living human brain, like a heart beat or a nerve impulse it dissapears when the gears stop turning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The guy used the fact that matter is never destroyed, simply changed, to argue that consciousness must therefore continue to exist in some accessible form. He is begging the question, I am merely calling him out on it.

 

Consciousness is just a function of a living human brain, like a heart beat or a nerve impulse it dissapears when the gears stop turning.

 

I understand. It's a great point. And you are justified on calling him out.

 

But why stop at "consciousness is just a function of a living human brain"? Why not make the next step and say the living human brain is just a function of it's environment, for without air, water and food you can't have one. Well, the environment is just a function of the planet. The planet is function of the solar system, and so forth. At some point you have to admit to yourself that it might be that consciousness is a property of the universe for it, the universe, makes brains much like an apple tree makes apples. If so, conciseness might persist as long as the universe does. Sure, it's not the best argument, but it is food for thought.

 

Also, in a way you too are begging the question by qualifying "human brain" with "living". What is "living"? Isn't that another way of saying "conscious"? "Living" can't just mean a functioning brain, as someone's who's asleep (or sleep walking) has one, but is not conscious. If the living brain can turn on and turn off conciseness why can't we say that the living brain is like a radio? When it's on, it receives the radio stations (conciseness), when it's off it does not.

 

I'm not saying this is the case, but it's certainly a possibility and to justify without a doubt that "consciousness is just a function of a living human brain", you need to address the possibility that the brain is like a radio as it is an equally good explanation for why we might think conciseness ends when the brain ends (just like someone who doesn't know about frequencies and radio stations might think turning off the radio turns off the radio stations).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But why stop at "consciousness is just a function of a living human brain"? Why not make the next step and say the living human brain is just a function of it's environment, for without air, water and food you can't have one. Well, the environment is just a function of the planet. The planet is function of the solar system, and so forth. At some point you have to admit to yourself that it might be that consciousness is a property of the universe for it, the universe, makes brains much like an apple tree makes apples. If so, conciseness might persist as long as the universe does. Sure, it's not the best argument, but it is food for thought.

 

Yes I suppose in a sense consciousness is a property of the universe, I think it depends on how you want to qualify and define things though. However we all know that gold does not exist outside of the specific chemical composition of 79Au, it's like Plato's theory of forms, there is no consciousness in the universe outside of a functioning human brain (bar the caveats you enumerated above), that we know of. If there is then we will one day be able to detect it. Same as the human radio receiver, I have no problems entertaining this idea but there's kinda no null hypothesis, because if it is not there to find we will never be able to invent something capable of detecting it (duh) so people who believe this will always have somewhere to hide. That's why I'm a bit dismissive, I just think it's silly and if someone thinks it's possible great for them but what a waste of life to try find something that isn't there :(

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However we all know that gold does not exist outside of the specific chemical composition of 79Au, it's like Plato's theory of forms, there is no consciousness in the universe outside of a functioning human brain (bar the caveats you enumerated above), that we know of.

 

The phrase "you are stardust" comes to mind. All the elements that make us were made in stars first.

 

Also the phrase "You are the big bang" and "Where there are rocks, watch-out!" by Allan Watts. Watts on the "rocks" stuff:

 

Again, food for thought.

 

Same as the human radio receiver, I have no problems entertaining this idea but there's kinda no null hypothesis, because if it is not there to find we will never be able to invent something capable of detecting it (duh) so people who believe this will always have somewhere to hide.

 

Good point. Proving (or disproving) the radio theory of consciousness might be difficult, maybe impossible. But in some way, it doesn't matter if it is a stepping stone to another or better thought experiment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Radio theory? What is the theory? It's "there is a magical radio that stores your consciousness safely with magical transmission abilities". Just promoting the insanity of souls and eternal consciousness and fractured people.

 

It's not a formal theory. It's the idea that the brain might be a like a radio that receives consciousness like a radio receives radio frequencies. More specifically, it's the suggestion that the brain does not have consciousness just like the radio does not have radio frequencies as its own property. The implication is that like a radio, the brain accesses consciousness by it does not posses it, it's not a property of the brain, but perhaps a function.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris Langan gives no proof that he has a high a IQ, which is why they say "estimated".  "Estimated" = lie.  IQ tests now don't even go up to to 200.  There are also no records of Einstein etcetera taking IQ tests.  That is common hoax data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Math isn't hard.  Maybe applied math like engineering which takes the ability to abstract and hold multiple competing concepts to integrate into an answer that will mean something in reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/29/2016 at 6:39 AM, Libertyblues said:

 

You might be right but factually right now "we" have the burden of proof problem ;)

 

The closest I got to my answer is that I've heard a couple of times that high IQ people tend to talk very early, like at 6 months or so - here an example:

 

Not a whole lot you can do wrong with an infant!

This guy is impressive!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ofd said:

What's impressive about him?

He (supposedly--I will assume it's true since it doesn't matter to me) has an IQ of 200. 

'Nuff said.

I mean, his brain cock is big enough to submerge the world in his *censored insert dirty joke here*

I don't know how reliable retroactive IQ guestimates are, but if they are accurate then this guy is basically Jesus Christ's little brother. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, ofd said:

What's impressive about him?

Well, I said it rather off-handedly, and based it off of a short little news video. 

He seems really smart and I personally find the byte-sized intro into his theory of the universe romantic and hopeful. And he seemed like a guy I’d like to get to know. So maybe that’s a more accurate statement! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough. He didn't say much. Perhaps if he had more time explaining his theory he'd make more sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.