Who is intelligent? lawyers doctors scientist...

[dan020350]

Lawyers knows how to argue and knows how to write a good essay but what do lawyers lack which make them unknowing? Unless they lack nothing which mean they are the most intelligent being.

OR is it the scientist or docotors, who analysed and examine things, predict good hypothesis and have an a table of experimental data. The feminist eyen fox keller, never used any formula to know what is. The discovery of DNA.

What is intelligence and who is intellgent, does he lack anything?

[Lote-Tree]

What is intelligence and who is intellgent, does he lack anything?

Very good question.

Is DeepBlue intelligent?

It can beat any human chess player?

Is playing chess Intelligence?

[EAP]

Ents were intelligent.

So were gnats.

[dan020350]

Hm. so intelligence got nothing to do with knowledge if you are comparing humans to animals.

[kathycf]

What is intelligence and who is intellgent, does he lack anything?
Everyone lacks something, as the human condition denies perfection. We all are flawed, in one way or another. A person may possess incredible intelligence and still be lacking. Intelligence is one piece that makes up a whole.

One's vocational occupation (scientist, lawyer) doesn't necessarily make one more intelligent than other members of the population....so you can actually have a very bright unemployed person, or janitor, taxi driver, musician, cook, actor, and so on and so on. It is easy to speculate that if a job requires a great deal of education than the most intelligent members of society always gravitate to those types of jobs, but it doesn't always prove true.

[kiz_paws]

I really cannot say that one or another vocation has the most intelligent humans in it. It would take a high degree of drive, money and intelligence to make it in the fields of law, doctors, dentistry, etc., but who is to say that they are 'the most intelligent'. I admire greatly people who are well rounded, for example, Albert Einstein. This man was a genius, of course, for his contributions in science. But he was also a good violinist, a humanitarian, and had other admirable traits that rounded him out perfectly (in my eyes). Albert Schweitzer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Schweitzer) is another example of a well-rounded brilliant man, hmmmm I guess I could go on and on about him in a future blog entry, but anyhow that was my view on this question.

Sometimes a person has all the smarts that could enable he/she to outshine all the others in say, law. But lack the means by which to attain such things. Sad, really.

[snow9999]

i think that other people that are not lawyers, doctors, scientists.....are also intelligence. the only thing is that they don't have the opportunity to learn, or to do the things they want, that's why they can't show their intelligent

[ClaesGefvenberg]

Raw intelligence has little to do with your training or profession, even though it can be honed by training.

Examples: A couple of Masais I met in Kenya had no formal training whatsoever, and still came across as very intelligent. What they lacked in training and knowledge, they more than made up for by sheer inteligence. I have also met people with strings of degrees that have turned out to be astonishingly stupid...

/Claes

[dan020350]

I once said the most intelligent person are the janitors.

Because people believe philosophers are intelligent and they can do whatever they want after graduation but that is not true because most end up miserable thinking like this, they end up either in law school or grad school.
The person who is intelligent knows the most humble and poor person can do whatever he wants. A janitor is accepted in all fields of profession, NBA or hollywood if one is interested in seeing the sites.

[papayahed]

Because people believe philosophers are intelligent and they can do whatever they want after graduation but that is not true because most end up miserable thinking like this, they end up either in law school or grad school.


What people are you refering to?

[ennison]

'Examples: A couple of Masais I met in Kenya had no formal training whatsoever, and still came across as very intelligent. What they lacked in training and knowledge, they more than made up for by sheer inteligence. I have also met people with strings of degrees that have turned out to be astonishingly stupid...'
Absolutely agree. Education is a good thing but intelligence is something independent of that. Ignorance is worse than lack of education since some educated people are extremely rude and incapable of empathy.

[snow9999]

Raw intelligence has little to do with your training or profession, even though it can be honed by training.

Examples: A couple of Masais I met in Kenya had no formal training whatsoever, and still came across as very intelligent. What they lacked in training and knowledge, they more than made up for by sheer inteligence. I have also met people with strings of degrees that have turned out to be astonishingly stupid...

/Claes

i agree w/ u.
Bill Gate was dropping out of college or high school (i forgot), and now he the billionaire

[dan020350]

The stupid people I am refering to or ones who thinks but does not do.
Who they and believe and hopes the thinking will actualize itself, but the reality one must actualize himself.

[papayahed]

The stupid people I am refering to or ones who thinks but does not do.
Who they and believe and hopes the thinking will actualize itself, but the reality one must actualize himself.

That's pretty vague (and quite frankly a little unintelligable), could you be a little more specifc? Is it a specific group? What percentage of the population would you estimate?

[byquist]

Lawyers, doctors and scientists, like everybody else, goof around; they often get better pay for their games and make-believe. Nor are they any happier, even with their creature comforts, and some are pills. I would personally put more credit towards musicianship, music being a special commodity.

[Elly_blue]

i think that other people that are not lawyers, doctors, scientists.....are also intelligence. the only thing is that they don't have the opportunity to learn, or to do the things they want, that's why they can't show their intelligent

I totally agree with you:)
There are so many people living on this planet who are very intelligent and have the potential to do or invent great things, but they just can't, because they were not born in a community or household that can support this. The ones who made it to doctor or awyer or famous scientist, were just lucky to have had the opportunity to achieve what they wanted. That is why we shouldn't judge people only on what they do or what they have achieved.

[Scheherazade]

I think teachers are the most intelligent... And moderators (especially those who happen to be female)... But if they are female moderator teachers , then, whoa, dude! Like awesome!

[kathycf]

I think teachers are the most intelligent... And moderators (especially those who happen to be female)... But if they are female moderator teachers , then, whoa, dude! Like awesome!
Finally! An answer that is NOT biased! :p


(of course, everybody knows women who are interested in psychology, social work and P.G. Wodehouse are...of course INcredibly intelligent. Everybody does know that, don't they?)

[dan020350]

People with power like moderators are dangerous and quite intelligent.
Because they are like snakes, the shame is they are not gentle creatures like dove.

Power is one thing a person must have in order to be intelligent, if not you are not biologically successful.

[Turk]

A man who knows himself is the most intelligent.

[papayahed]

People with power like moderators are dangerous and quite intelligent.
Because they are like snakes, the shame is they are not gentle creatures like dove.

Power is one thing a person must have in order to be intelligent, if not you are not biologically successful.

So biologically successful is your criteria for intellegence?

[dan020350]

a man who knows himself can't be intelligent, all he knows is himself and the field of knowledge of himself, a person who knows himself is the dumbest creature because he is limited

papya

So biologically successful is your criteria for intellegence?
Surely, if you are not biologically successful you cannot kill a small ant or a chicken for you amusement or food.

[papayahed]

a man who knows himself can't be intelligent, all he knows is himself and the field of knowledge of himself, a person who knows himself is the dumbest creature because he is limited




Your kung fu is no good. You are presupossing that a man that knows himself cannot not know other things. Why? You are putting limits on universal ideas that may not obey your narrow limits. Therefore you are the only person standing in your way of greater truth/understanding/whatever your looking for. Perhaps if you think about what is being said around here instead of trying to trap people in your own little logic (semi-logic in some cases) games you might gain insight you seem to be looking for.



papya

Surely, if you are not biologically successful you cannot kill a small ant or a chicken for you amusement or food

Meteors have been know to kill people, are they biologically successful? Lightning? Conversly, vegans don't kill animals are they not successful?

[kilted exile]

Is playing chess Intelligence?

No, not really. Chess is about being able to memorise set moves and counter moves. Now, draughts/checkers on the other hand.......

[papayahed]

No, not really. Chess is about being able to memorise set moves and counter moves. Now, draughts/checkers on the other hand.......


uh oh, I've never been good at checkers...

[kilted exile]

uh oh, I've never been good at checkers...

If I remember correctly (which lets face it is not often) that statement is made near the beginning of the Poe story with the orangutan mudering people.

Also I like it 'cos I've never been that good at chess...


**EDIT** Ah yes, I was correct. see paragraphs 2,3 & 4 of Murders in the rue morgue http://www.online-literature.com/poe/38/

[dan020350]

Therefore you are the only person standing in your way of greater truth/understanding/whatever your looking for. Perhaps if you think about what is being said around here instead of trying to trap people in your own little logic (semi-logic in some cases) games you might gain insight you seem to be looking for.

Meteors have been know to kill people, are they biologically successful? Lightning? Conversly, vegans don't kill animals are they not successful?

Lighting and metors yes can kill people but the one who controls them is the intelligent being who is supremely biologically successful, and the one knows the way of those can be deem a sage.


And about me as an obstacle of gaining greater truth or whatever you call it. for myself, that is a lie. Don't worry about me, worry about yourself of obtaining greater truth. What will you do with that truth, set up organization and destroy people, or market a book base on your theory. I say this to you:

one who claims he knows the truth he doesn't know the truth
One who has the truth cannot transmit the truth.
truth is total not partial or fragmented
when one realize the truth there is nothing left to know more

How can one teach anything, if there is nothing to teach?

[SleepyWitch]

what's biological success got to do with intelligence?
in the worst case scenario, all it takes to be biologically successful is a lot of brawn, a big ..., and just enough brain cells to controll them.

i think if we still lived in the stone ages, some of those we regard as the most intelligent people wouldn't stand the slightest chance to survive.. e.g. lots of geeky professors aren't exactly physically strong... Stephen Hawking would probably have died at a very young age...
(no offense to Stone Age people, even back then people looked after their physically challenged relatives)

I'm not sure I can follow your arguments, dan, but your ideology seems to be a weird mix of religion, social darwinism and evolutionary theory all gone wrong.
you seem to have missed the last couple of thousand years of humanity's cultural development


edit: when Darwin talked about the survival of the fittest, fittest didn't mean "the physically strongest" but "those best adapted to their environment"... seeing as our culture values knowledge, people can be well-adapted to the requirements of their environment without being physically strong..
anyway, this argument is beside the point considering that human beings live in nature+culture, so the whole "natural selection" thing doesn't apply to humans anyway

[papayahed]

Before We go off on another tangent you haven't answered the original question:

You Said:

a man who knows himself can't be intelligent, all he knows is himself and the field of knowledge of himself, a person who knows himself is the dumbest creature because he is limited

I said:

You are presupossing that a man that knows himself cannot not know other things. Why?


I'll ask again why can't a man know himself and be intelligent?

[dan020350]

When one knows himself, all he knows is the field of knowledge of oneself.
And that is not intelligence, if you cannot understand this, then you can't understand it, theres nothing more I can help you.

Sleepywitch.
I have never said anything about natural selection through flesh, but natural selection through the wise.
You might be right I am mix with all kinds of things, but it is natural, the world is mix, if you are not mix then you are a freak. Biological sucessful is inteliigence, if you can decieve and control is deem as a king, a person who has great weapons is like a right hand person.

more specific, the more you believe or don't believe, further away you are. When there is nothing to believe in or not to believe in, then there is a total being that is absoultey free.

[kiz_paws]

What is intelligence and who is intellgent, does he lack anything?
Dan, what is your answer to this? You have asked us, but in a nutshell, what is your response? :)

[papayahed]

When one knows himself, all he knows is the field of knowledge of oneself.
And that is not intelligence, if you cannot understand this, then you can't understand it, theres nothing more I can help you.



Repeating that same mantra is not the same as explaining it. Just because you make a statement and repeat it doesn't make it true.


I'm guessing that the inverse is true as well a man who doesn't know himself knows all? Can the Dean be wrong? Is fat drunk and stupid is the way to go through life?

If you don't mind I'd like your definition of "knowing onself"? Perhaps then I will better understand your opinions.

I, myself tend to disagree, simply for the fact that I believe humans are capable of many things and choose not to limit their capabilities. Why limit?

[SleepyWitch]

When one knows himself, all he knows is the field of knowledge of oneself.
And that is not intelligence, if you cannot understand this, then you can't understand it, theres nothing more I can help you.



nope.. if a man knows only himself, all he knows is "the field of knowledge of himself".
If he knows himself, he can know lots of other things, as well.
example:
Mr Smith knows Latin
--> this doesn't mean he doesn't know any other languages. He might know Spanish, English, Korean and Swaheli as well.

[dan020350]

For Kiz:

I don't know who is intelligent that is why I ask the question.



I, myself tend to disagree, simply for the fact that I believe humans are capable of many things and choose not to limit their capabilities. Why limit?

You should be a teacher if you say you can make man free? How are you going to do that, make a system or a method, and make him restrict and hold on to that method?

Sleepywitch
That is nice deduction . But you said if a man knows himself he is capable of knowing other things as well. That is true, all he knows is the field of knowledge, but he doesn't know the essential thing. All he knows is description but doesn't know 'what is', that is why I say the one who says he knows himself doesn't know but only descriptions. It is good to know the field of techinical knowledge up to the extent when it is enough.

[jon1jt]

Lawyers knows how to argue and knows how to write a good essay but what do lawyers lack which make them unknowing? Unless they lack nothing which mean they are the most intelligent being.

OR is it the scientist or docotors, who analysed and examine things, predict good hypothesis and have an a table of experimental data. The feminist eyen fox keller, never used any formula to know what is. The discovery of DNA.

What is intelligence and who is intellgent, does he lack anything?

ahem...what about the philosophers and mad poets? :p

[kiz_paws]

ahem...what about the philosophers and mad poets? :p

Mad poets know everything, and seek to confuse. It is our task to harvest the truth and toss the chaff. Gotta love it. And glad you brought that up... :)

[papayahed]

For Kiz:

I don't know who is intelligent that is why I ask the question.




If you don't know the answer how do you know the rest of us are wrong?




You should be a teacher if you say you can make man free? How are you going to do that, make a system or a method, and make him restrict and hold on to that method?

Dan please stay on track. I have made no such claims and I have never spoken of freedom in this context. In fact, you are the one that has spoken of restrictions. Let me refresh your memeory I said:

"I believe humans are capable of many things and choose not to limit their capabilities"



That is nice deduction . But you said if a man knows himself he is capable of knowing other things as well. That is true, all he knows is the field of knowledge, but he doesn't know the essential thing. All he knows is description but doesn't know 'what is', that is why I say the one who says he knows himself doesn't know but only descriptions. It is good to know the field of techinical knowledge up to the extent when it is enough


Again your kung fu is no good, You are confusing assumptions with facts.


Mad poets know everything, and seek to confuse. It is our task to harvest the truth and toss the chaff. Gotta love it. And glad you brought that up... :)


I couldn't have said it better myself.

[dan020350]

Mad philosophers is our worst enemy, they speak to confuse as you said, they never solve. The one who can confuse or manipulate people I will say he is an intellgent mad philosopher, in addition evil.


If you don't know the answer how do you know the rest of us are wrong?

Again your kung fu is no good, You are confusing assumptions with facts.


I am exploring it together with you all That is how I know, but all you guys know is to disagree and not look.

My kung fu style is the art of no goodness or having no style at all. I confuse you with facts through your assumptions. :crash:

[SleepyWitch]

Mad philosophers is our worst enemy, they speak to confuse as you said, they never solve. The one who can confuse or manipulate people I will say he is an intellgent mad philosopher, in addition evil.





confusion and manipulation are two different kettle of fish.
e.g. Socrates deliberately confused his students so they could see through the assumptions they took for granted. that way they learned that lots of the things we take for granted as "facts" are really assumptions.
that way, they were able to look for their own solutions and explanations rather than parroting what they had heard from others.

would you say the best way to deal with people's confusion is to preach them "The truth is a), b) and c), simple as that. Learn it by heart and you'll be wise"?

[papayahed]

I am exploring it together with you all That is how I know, but all you guys know is to disagree and not look.


Odd, from my perspective you are the one who will not look. We really aren't exploring anything, you throw around lofty phrases without really saying anything, you dwell on semantics rather then a bigger picture.

[dan020350]

:thumbs_up

would you say the best way to deal with people's confusion is to preach them "The truth is a), b) and c), simple as that. Learn it by heart and you'll be wise"?

What happens once you have mastered it? How can you tell one have mastered it? You can't therefore you argue.


Brother papyahead

How do you look? When one is blind, how can you teach him to look, he has no eyes? The blind must have faith, do you have faith for me? No because you don't love your neighbor as you love yourself.

Good Job. :thumbs_up

[papayahed]

Good Job. :thumbs_up


Thanks Dan.



Brother papyahead

I think you may have proven my point.

[dan020350]

only if you believe but I don't believe in anything anymore

[papayahed]

A wise Woman once said:

If only you believe like I believe, baby
We'd get by

[SleepyWitch]

:thumbs_up

What happens once you have mastered it? How can you tell one have mastered it? You can't therefore you argue.




nope.. I don't argue... I agree that i can't but: those who can do, those who can't teach.
:)

er.. I wasn't saying that I believe you can sum up "the truth" as a), b), c) and make people learn it by heart. I don't think anyone can master "the truth", whatever that may be.
my question was as follows: If YOU believe confusing people is wrong--> would you therefore argue preaching soundbites for them to parrot is any better?

if you didn't get the meaning of my post, read it again or do something about your English to make it easier for other members to follow your line of argument. no offence, but either you keep deliberately switching from one opinion to a totally different one, or you just don't know how to express your ideas clearly.

[dan020350]

sleepy witch

You are right , I am wrong. Are you happy now. Have we learn anything through argument? I believe x, I have block myself, or I don't believe x, I have block myself. If I say I don't know lets go into this together, then we can know. Now do you have any beliefs, of course you do. If you can start out with no beliefs then we can proceed, but for the time being I am just pointing out people's ignorance.'

papyahead

A wise man once said

I believe I will not get hurt or die, falling down from my window , but it is one's fear of it that I will get hurt. But we should not try this experiment we will break our bones.

[kiz_paws]

but for the time being I am just pointing out people's ignorance.'
Dan, how do you think you have been pointing out people's ignorance? Have I missed something? Please clarify, as I feel as though I have been dancing in the dark with the way this discussion is going....

[SleepyWitch]

aaargh, this discussion is driving me nuts...
could somebody (apart from dan) read my posts and tell me if there's anything difficult to understand in what i said?

edit: dan, i never said you were wrong. all I said was I didn't get what you're talking about in the first place. if you've got something to say, express it in such a way that others can understand it.

[papayahed]

aaargh, this discussion is driving me nuts...
could somebody (apart from dan) read my posts and tell me if there's anything difficult to understand in what i said?




Your posts are prefectly clear.

[SleepyWitch]

Your posts are prefectly clear.

thanks :) sometimes i do express myself in way too abstract terms, so i was a bit worried.

[papayahed]

thanks :) sometimes i do express myself in way too abstract terms, so i was a bit worried.

You've clarified some of the points I've been trying to make. I think you've already hit the nail on the head:



if you didn't get the meaning of my post, read it again or do something about your English to make it easier for other members to follow your line of argument. no offence, but either you keep deliberately switching from opinion to a totally different one, or you just don't know how to express your ideas clearly.



but for the time being I am just pointing out people's ignorance.'


Thanks but shouldn't you also be open to others pointing out your ignorance?

[dan020350]

Can anyone understand the great sages and explain it to someone who doesn't understand it? Can someone write the definition of life, and create life?Can a obesse or skinny man turn into a body builder tomorrow?Words are empty, if you can fool , decieve, control somebody then you are intelligent being. But for the controled beings are not intellgent. If you are going to do something do it, why argue about it? So why are we moving further and further away from the question?

[SleepyWitch]

the answer is: 42 :)

[B-Mental]

Originally Posted by dan020350
"but for the time being I am just pointing out people's ignorance.'"

Originally Posted by Papayahed
"Thanks but shouldn't you also be open to others pointing out your ignorance?
__________________


I agree with papaya on that one, denying a response as ignorant while responding with questions which aren't related to the topic you chose. Not very well conceived or received.

The answer is 42.333

[kiz_paws]

Words are empty, if you can fool , decieve, control somebody then you are intelligent being. But for the controled beings are not intellgent.

So movie directors and fashion designers (just to name two) must be intelligent... scarey... **narrows eyes**

[dan020350]

So movie directors and fashion designers (just to name two) must be intelligent... scarey... **narrows eyes**

If you are fooled by it yes.

That is why I don't believe in anything what you are saying. I don't believe the answer lies in words or numbers. But Life itself. There is no life in words.
Words causes change, if you are believing in the words you are moving further away from original. But in order to live in a society one must start first in believing in the words , and then out of the words.

My ignorance is not different than yours, ignorance is from on original source, find that out. You be free, communicate it to others who loves ignorance, destruction.

[Virgil]

What is intelligence and who is intellgent, does he lack anything?

I say engineers. :p :p :p :D

[kathycf]

Gov't decieves me, forums envy me, moderators like to ban me, members argues with me, religions who preaches love curse me, who can say I love thee, who can be free from all of these?"

That above quote is just so...narcissistic. No offense, but I think you seriously underestimate the intelligence of people here, and somewhat um..inflate your arguments with some ego.

Dan, have you ever heard this slangy expression before?

"Get over yourself"

Please don't be angry, I am not trying to hurt your feelings, but I think you should at least entertain the possibility that you could be mistaken about some things. ;) Isn't it a philosopher's "thing" to see several different "correct" answers to a question? in other words, don't you at least consider that other people's opinions are just as valid as yours?

I like to be "right" about everything all the time too, but it just isn't humanly possible. :)

[dan020350]

Now that is a real answer, given by virgil.
But doesn't engineers lack, freedom, for say? Because I believe what you said engineers are perfect.

[dan020350]

That above quote is just so...narcissistic. ,

You have just been narcissitic.

Kathy, I love you, I don't want to lie to you and others about what they say. IF I have mistakes, say so, I am in the quest of mastering myself.
But can we look at an object without saying it what it is first, or assume what it is, just look at it? How do we look at it?

Do we need to recognize that is a man or a woman, or that is a wall? We just live. What is the point to educate ourselve to recognize and identify things?
But this is our culture is base, so we need to know what it is and identify , in order to live. The only things we neeed to know are the ways of technical living. But we are not satisfy, so we build more knowledge, in order to be more powerful and more superrior then others.

[Virgil]

Now that is a real answer, given by virgil.
But doesn't engineers lack, freedom, for say? Because I believe what you said engineers are perfect.

I was only fooling around, even though I am an engineer. What do you mean lack freedom? I work for someone, so yeah I am hired to perform a particular job. If that is lack of freedom, well, I can always quit.

[B-Mental]

Do we need to recognize that is a man or a woman, or that is a wall? We just live. What is the point to educate ourselve to recognize and identify things?
But this is our culture is base, so we need to know what it is and identify , in order to live. The only things we neeed to know are the ways of technical living. But we are not satisfy, so we build more knowledge, in order to be more powerful and more superrior then others.

Dan, you have a very long way to go if you think power is intelligence. Again with the ridiculous questions. You have no idea what free thought is if you continue to believe that you are leading others to the conclusion that you desire. Kathy was right, I would have said you are vain. No offense. I still don't know why you make the assumption that intelligence is only in proffessionals. Many people are professionals, and not very intelligent. Conversely, many non-professionals are intelligent. Why is power part of the equation? Please don't answer my question with a sophmoric attempt to appear deep...i.e. How does the clapper work? Is that words or life?

[kiobe]

I have a theory about intelligence. There seems to be 4 types of smarts.

There's photographic memory. A person that can recall all the info they have ever seen and read could be considered intelligent.

There's money smarts. Some people have an uncanny ability to make a lot of money in business but may not have a well rounded intelligence. Some very smart people never figured out how to make a buck.

There's making connections intelligence. Einstein is an example of a person that can bridge a large gap in information and put it all together. E=MC2

Then there's common sence intelligence. There area lot of very intelligent people that have the street smarts of a three week old kitten. Never underestimate the importance of common sence.

[dan020350]

I have a theory about intelligence. There seems to be 4 types of smarts.

There's photographic memory. A person that can recall all the info they have ever seen and read could be considered intelligent.

There's money smarts. Some people have an uncanny ability to make a lot of money in business but may not have a well rounded intelligence. Some very smart people never figured out how to make a buck.

There's making connections intelligence. Einstein is an example of a person that can bridge a large gap in information and put it all together. E=MC2

Then there's common sence intelligence. There area lot of very intelligent people that have the street smarts of a three week old kitten. Never underestimate the importance of common sence.

Yes. This is what I am refering to knowledge is power. The intelligent being has the power to perform an ability well. One who can use and control these people will be call a king ( chess board) or a God ( ultimate intelligent being). This is freedom, the king is free and wise. So how can any of you be free if you are control and slaves to your own securities, desires, and beliefs?You can still disagree, but I will not disagree and agree with you, just point.

[kilted exile]

I am interested as to why you would describe the king in chess as free & wise:

Ok, leaving aside the wise part (how can an inanimate chess piece be wise anyway?)

The king is perhaps the least "free" piece on the entire board. Its movement is incredibly restricted and requires protection from all the other pieces. The most "free" piece is undoubtedly the queen.


Danny Boy, I understand you are attempting to be deep and profound and would like to think you are pointing out everyone's flaws. However, I do at times think I have seen more profound random patterns in my alphabet noodle soup

[B-Mental]

from Dan

One who can use and control these people will be call a king ( chess board) or a God ( ultimate intelligent being).

I do believe you have taken your point to an extreme. The above quote is not only preposterous, but sacriligous. Maybe you meant god (lower case letters). The Capital "G" god is considered solo, while lower case denotes plurality. Do animals worship you because you are intelligent? Do they think you are a "god", or is it you that digress. the question you asked was "Who is intelligent?" Control, power, greed, avarice, etc. are not signs of intelligence! Maybe you could use some evidence to support your claims, but I doubt it.

[SleepyWitch]

The king is perhaps the least "free" piece on the entire board. Its movement is incredibly restricted and requires protection from all the other pieces. The most "free" piece is undoubtedly the queen.




thanks for bringing that up, Kilt. i was going to say something similar...
a powerful person in real life (i.e. the one who controls all others) is the most dependend one, in my opinion. for him to be on top of the food chain, he NEEDS subjects/subordinates/servants etc... his role and identity are defined in relation to others, because he's only the "king" as long as he has subjects. if someone is dependent on the existence of those who are supposed to be "lower" than him, how can he be free?

[B-Mental]

Danny Boy, I understand you are attempting to be deep and profound and would like to think you are pointing out everyone's flaws. However, I do at times think I have seen more profound random patterns in my alphabet noodle soup

ROFLMAO! Good points Kilt and Sleepy

[dan020350]

This is why you are all dumb because you all are being control by one source.
That is the value system giving by the gov't.
The King ( or God - the Player) is the most wisest, because his servants either love him or fear him. That is why the king just relax and is the most free being of all. His only work is his intelligene, foresight and natural resources. This is why I called this being-like intelligent.

One who is a slave to that thing, is not intelligent but that thing is. The person who is using that thing to control you. One who is free from the known can be 'one' like the Gods and kings. You all are slaves to your own particular desires, comforts, belief system, you cannot live without them. Therefore, hypocrites.You take notice of the beam of your brother's eye, but you don't recognize the log from your own eyes. First removed the beam from your own eyes then you can see clearly.

[SleepyWitch]

This is why you are all dumb because you all are being control by one source.
That is the value system giving by the gov't.
The King ( or God - the Player) is the most wisest, because his servants either love him or fear him. That is why the king just relax and is the most free being of all. His only work is his intelligene, foresight and natural resources. This is why I called this being-like intelligent.

One who is a slave to that thing, is not intelligent but that thing is. The person who is using that thing to control you. One who is free from the known can be 'one' like the Gods and kings. You all are slaves to your own particular desires, comforts, belief system, you cannot live without them. Therefore, hypocrites.You take notice of the beam of your brother's eye, but you don't recognize the log from your own eyes. First removed the beam from your own eyes then you can see clearly.

well, I can only speak for myself, but there isn't really much I belief in, there are hardly any comforts I enjoy (at least as compared to most other people of the same social class in my country), as for desires.. one of them is to get rid of what comforts I do have...
but I suppose that makes me dumb, coz without comforts I'm not powerful???


This is why you are all dumb because you all are being control by one source.
that's a compliment I will not return.
but apparently some people here are rather deaf, as they never listen to others' replies and just keep on churning out one-size-fits-all preach-isms

seriously, dan, some of your points actually make sense and I'd readily agree with them, if you could only present them in a more well-structured order and provide some transitions to link your ideas

[kiobe]

This is why you are all dumb because you all are being control by one source.
That is the value system giving by the gov't.
The King ( or God - the Player) is the most wisest, because his servants either love him or fear him. That is why the king just relax and is the most free being of all. His only work is his intelligene, foresight and natural resources. This is why I called this being-like intelligent.

One who is a slave to that thing, is not intelligent but that thing is. The person who is using that thing to control you. One who is free from the known can be 'one' like the Gods and kings. You all are slaves to your own particular desires, comforts, belief system, you cannot live without them. Therefore, hypocrites.You take notice of the beam of your brother's eye, but you don't recognize the log from your own eyes. First removed the beam from your own eyes then you can see clearly.

Please don't call these people dumb. And you may want to lay off the couchlock or white widow and pick up a magazine, time, newsweek, mother jones, vanity fair or there's some really good things on public television. Try to keep it respectfull.