[One Degree]

I have been trying to think of a way to say this that did not sound condescending to the point of destroying my intent. Oh well,
If you value IQ, then @Hong Wu ‘s self reported IQ only shows he tests very poorly.
I enjoy your posts. Well, most of them.

[Albert]

Thanks man, it is pretty emotionally dangerous to actually attempt originality on the internet. There's more than a little bit of competition there : ) and we know what most people act like when they get anonymity and freedom from consequences...

I know what you mean, it get emotionally exhausting to hear the outburst of people who react negatively. It helps me to dispel their negativity by identifying the root of their distress. A lot of times it is something to do with them feeling threatened for one reason or another.

[Hong Wu]

You'd get the same response from Scientologists if you were to make a reasonable inquiry into the validity of dianetics. Also communists prefer to murder people such as yourself rather than examine their fallacies so you are inadvertently reminding them that they don't have the power to do so safely at the present time and that is another irritation.

Ouch lol. I think you might be right. I am a "debater" personality type, I don't 100% believe in those tests but it describes me well, so it doesn't really cross my mind sometimes that people are going to get really angry about debates...

@One Degree when did I self-report my IQ?

[Zamuel]

Ouch lol. I think you might be right. I am a "debater" personality type, I don't 100% believe in those tests but it describes me well, so it doesn't really cross my mind sometimes that people are going to get really angry about debates...

Nobody expects the Spanish inquisition …

Zam

[One Degree]

Ouch lol. I think you might be right. I am a "debater" personality type, I don't 100% believe in those tests but it describes me well, so it doesn't really cross my mind sometimes that people are going to get really angry about debates...

@One Degree when did I self-report my IQ?

I am sorry. Did I confuse you with someone else? I just remembered a post I thought was yours several weeks back. My apologies if I misremembered. It was something about only needing a certain level of IQ to perform at a high level.

[Hong Wu]

I am sorry. Did I confuse you with someone else? I just remembered a post I thought was yours several weeks back. My apologies if I misremembered. It was something about only needing a certain level of IQ to perform at a high level.

I don't think it was me or I don't remember it. I don't think I would give out an IQ number if that's what you're referring to.

[One Degree]

I don't think it was me or I don't remember it. I don't think I would give out an IQ number if that's what you're referring to.

That is why the post stuck in my memory (few things do ) Most people are not comfortable doing so for a variety of reasons and I thought it represented comfort with oneself.
Anyway, sorry again for my confusion and I think you are a insightful poster.

Now you know why I prefer arguing with reason instead of recalling facts.

[RhetoricThug]

We're born classified due to a poverty of the mind

Now, now, before we hang or harangue the other end of "intelligence." I'd like to state that there's a physical system, an objective happening or common experience, taking place in the universe. Ideas and therefore identity come out of this universe. How we interpret or organize the appearance of the available information will be determined by us BEING present. Consciousness, BEING filtered through its material vehicle, is in a state of perpetual interplay with the mind-matter interface. The mind-matter interface is an interconnected bridge (information feedback loop) that transports the immaterial and material expressions (integral aspects) of the universe. The gestalt of psychological phenomena involves the abstraction of a figure from a ground, called the ground-figure dialectic. The ground-figure dialectic is a side-effect of human cognition. There's no reason for us to believe that this ground-figure dialectic is a universal experience for all 'thinking' or living organisms which come out of the universe. In-fact, it's the human mind (figure) that invented the concept called Nature (ground). For the survival of its biological vehicle (a logical necessity for a fleshy entity), mankind has separated itself from Nature. Human thought thinks that it's not a whirlpool in the flow of the universe, and that is a curious contention. Especially when everyTHING must be occurring inside the parameters of the universe (in other words, there's only the ground, the figure is abstracted from the whole movement. The figure is not an independent thing, it must be an interdependent thing). The human mind is constantly fragmenting and compartmentalizing information inside the universe, assigning causal links (only after observing effects, because effects precede causes) to abstracted entities that exist simultaneously in a single moment called NOW.

Furthermore, the exact position of any whirlpool of information inside the universe must be relative to the observer and observed. This moment called NOW is a co-generated vibratory process created by everything in the universe. When I read your post, I'm observing the past, which had been the future for you. When you read my post, you're observing the past which had been the future for me. Again, this is a cognitive dialectic set in motion by the energy of the universe. The past cannot happen without the future and the future cannot happen without the past, thus there's only NOW. The past and future constitute figures, figures being abstracted from the ground, the ground we experience as NOW. NOW. NOW...

Again, actual progress is not taking place. There's only the permeating potentiality of the universe unfolding itself ad infinitum. That's what I am ad interim. Finite sensibility vs infinite potentiality. The universe contains ALL, the one-to-many, many-to-one, and many-to-many, data models. The data models are entangled together as one synergistic system. We're interrelated whirlpools of information, resonant intervals of energy, inside the system.

[Sivad]

the progressivism I'm familiar with is a metaphysical argument based upon supposed observations, allegedly the scientific method (the "moral arc of history" as a quasi-religion). I believe you are presenting it more as an ethical goal, modus or way. That isn't the progressivism I'm used to,

You seem to be talking about teleological progressivism a la Chardin or Tipler. That has nothing to do with the social and political movement of modern progressivism.

The Omega Point is a spiritual belief and a scientific speculation that everything in the universe is fated to spiral towards a final point of divine unification.[1] The term was coined by the French Jesuit Catholic priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881–1955).[2] Teilhard argued that the Omega Point resembles the Christian Logos, namely Christ, who draws all things into himself, who in the words of the Nicene Creed, is "God from God", "Light from Light", "True God from true God", and "through him all things were made". In the Book of Revelation, Christ describes himself thrice as "the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end." The idea of the Omega Point is developed in later writings, such as those of John David Garcia (1971), Paolo Soleri (1981), Frank Tipler (1994), and David Deutsch (1997).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_Point

I'm agnostic about any cosmic teleology, I'm more interested in evo/devo because there's actually some substance to it.