"Well, I’ve never called myself a genius, but unfortunately my IQ scores do - I score between 145 - 160 on average - that falls into the “Genius category”, and I have High IQ societies membership certificates to prove that."
My IQ is at 172. IQ tests however do not equate to intelligence. Just knowledge.
-AC
IQ test doesnt always tell the real truth though , when I was in the military I had soldiers who scored very high on the tests, but when it came to manage it in the nature many were more or less helpless.
So one can be a genius in the theoretical aspects of things and completely the opposite practically
IQ tests are just for fun IMO, for example, the great physicist Richard Feynman scored 124 - just above average, so it doesn't measure intelligence really. Also the more of a creative thinker one is, the lower ones IQ score will be - in fact, I've read that the genius does not always have a high IQ, because deviancy plays a role. An IQ researcher has said that the highest IQ scorers are typically not genius and the typical genius don't have a high IQ. IQ tests only test certain areas of intelligence, but not intellectual creativity though.
MornGlory, you can take an IQ test on tickle.com, highiqsociety.org, or search for GliaWeb for extremely difficult IQ tests - my highest score there was 189.
Sorry Storm.
Well, let me put it back on topic: In essence, my philosophy is that Being is mere sensation trying to escape itself. By that I mean that in the endeavor to vindicate and exercise self-conciousness, the mind is actually attempting in a very absurd fashion to escape itself. Because only by not being a part of itself, or for that matter, a part of existence, can the mind really obtain an absolutely objective view on Being as such. This is the absurd problem which the definition of self-consciousness and indeed the ontology of philosophy face. Can we really be absolutely self-conscious and obtain a complete understanding of existence as such, while we are parttaking in it?
Originally posted by Philosophicus
Well, let me put it back on topic: In essence, my philosophy is that Being is mere sensation trying to escape itself. By that I mean that in the endeavor to vindicate and exercise self-conciousness, the mind is actually attempting in a very absurd fashion to escape itself. Because only by not being a part of itself, or for that matter, a part of existence, can the mind really obtain an absolutely objective view on Being as such. This is the absurd problem which the definition of self-consciousness and indeed the ontology of philosophy face. Can we really be absolutely self-conscious and obtain a complete understanding of existence as such, while we are parttaking in it?
Words like vindicate and ontology certainly aren't going to help put this back on track. Let me try (flexes muscles, cracks fingers)
Escapism is where a person creates a fantasy to get away from reality. A fly might fantasise swatting humans. Your mind constantly tries to interpret reality, from what you see.
However, since your brain is made from matter, it forms a viewpoint biased by matter. Only if the mind was separate from the brain (i.e. you had a soul, and died?), could you truly form a true vision of reality. Then you have to ask yourself the question, can we really trust what we see if we see from the tainted glasses of matter?
Philosophicus, could you define matter for me? I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to, emotions, dimensions, prejudice etc etc.