On January 19 2008 12:30 Eskii wrote: Is Eugenics really that crazy? And hes NOT talking about breeding smarter or better looking people, hes talking about taking out the genetic problems such as downs syndrome etc...
It's a slippery slope. The same justification for breeding "genetically healthy" people can be applied for breeding smarter and more beautiful people; all three are for the purpose of making human beings more "successful."
Ah but I dont believe that intelligence breeds intelligence, I know people that have grown up in seperate houses that are brothers and never interacted, one is extremely smart and the other is a twit. I believe its a matter of environment, although you can have negative genetic traits which will influence it in a negative way.
Maybe so, but assuming there is some way to breed intelligence, eventually people will try and take advantage of it and will start customizing their children. I think we're opening up a brand new can of worms though and should call it quits. :x
Why? Wouldnt you have liked to be born more intelligent?
I haven't come to a moral conclusion on the whole idea yet. I was just saying it would happen.
I believe that any highly intelligent person would relate to what he said to a degree or another, but the idea they lost might not have been as complex. But the process he speaks of is of course real, yet to someone without the ability it might seem arrogant and completely fuckheadish, but it's not.
Now everyone in here is going to claim to understand what he's talking about. :x
On January 19 2008 13:10 Lemonwalrus wrote: Holy crap, I want to gouge his eyes out with a soldering iron.
'I wrote a new theory about computing that is amazingly complex, but then a fight broke out and I lost it, and have no idea what it is that I actually wrote.'
What a douche.
I can relate to the process as I myself can think in highly abstract threedimensional symbols that mean things that are more complex than what words can describe, and these appear at random and has enormous amounts of information connected to eachother. And If concentration is broken I cannot recall the exact combination and therefor the general idea is broken and cannot be retrieved.
I believe that any highly intelligent person would relate to what he said to a degree or another, but the idea they lost might not have been as complex. But the process he speaks of is of course real, yet to someone without the ability it might seem arrogant and completely fuckheadish, but it's not.
So basically, I'm too stupid to understand, and I should just believe him unquestioningly, and hope that one day I can wrap my infantile mind around his beautiful theories. Thanks, o wise one, for showing me the light.
On January 19 2008 13:25 zdd wrote: I think intelligence is not about solving 300 problems on some test, but rather about solving one problem 300 different ways
On January 19 2008 13:25 zdd wrote: I think intelligence is not about solving 300 problems on some test, but rather about solving one problem 300 different ways
has this man contributed anything to the world besides a world record in IQ, what an uppity bitch. Holy shit with and IQ of 200 one would at least expect something from this man. Seriously who the fuck says that Intelligence = IQ? and the size matters thing got me laughing.
Plus a genius isn't born out of thin air for god's sake. Geniuses are raised in a group of like minded individuals. This man has been a loner for most of his life and thinks he can accomplish miraculous equations in his head, what a waste of IQ.
Hello, fellow TeamLiquidians. I've only posted a few times here, but I've been lurking the boards for quite a while But this thread caught my attention, so I figured I could share my thoughts:
I've read quite a few of Langan's technical articles, and have spent the last several months doing a whole lot of study and research into his theories and their mathematical and philosophical foundations. I can definitely attest to the fact that he shows incredible insight into many of the most plaguing problems in philosophy and mathematics.
He definitely seems to be pretentious guy though; So I'm not standing up for him in that respect. But I feel obligated to share my perspective and help give Langan the credit he deserves. The guy really is cool.
As for his views on Intelligent Design, I would urge anyone who's argued against Langan's views here to read his articles on ID where he specifically qualifies his position and makes clear exactly what he thinks about it. He is definitely not a typical ID'er. His ideas on ID are very sophisticated and carefully refined in my opinion (and this is coming from me, a former Christian-theist-and-ID'er-turned-atheist/agnostic).
On January 19 2008 14:40 BlackStar wrote: lol at some of the people in this topic. You definitely proved one of the the points he made which I had some doubts about.
that most people are jealous of his humongous IQ?
well he should be jealous of my 18 inch penis too...
"im working in a bar because i need money" oh please if you have a fucking IQ of 200 you can find a higher paying job where you can do a shitload more.
EPT
