What is Genius?

[UnbornTao]

4 hours ago, Princess Arabia said:

I noticed that in the end; and I basically left the comment to show others that might feel the same way you did in the beginning before you thought it through using your compassionate side. That's shows maturity on your part. 

Okay, thank you.

Edited October 18, 2023 by UnbornTao

[Princess Arabia]

13 minutes ago, Razard86 said:

Let's see if we can make him arrogant by letting him know how much of a genius he is....cause I love what he posts.

I do love his posts too. But I can tell he got those statements from somewhere. He didn't come up with them. Let's see how much of a genius I am for recognizing this @gettoefl . I must not be if I need proof. Hehe

Edited October 17, 2023 by Princess Arabia

[Razard86]

4 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

I do love his posts too. But I can tell he got those statements from somewhere. He didn't come up with them. Let's see how much of a genius I am for recognizing this @gettoefl . I must not be if I need proof. Hehe

Genius can be interpretation. He has a unique way of simplifying things. He can say a lot in very little words.

[Princess Arabia]

Just now, Razard86 said:

Genius can be interpretation. He has a unique way of simplifying things. He can say a lot in very little words.

I know, right. This is the beauty of diversity. Some might say we're all not genius, but I know we're all gifted in some way unique to only the individual. That's why no fingerprints match.

[Danioover9000]

@Princess Arabia @Razard86

1 hour ago, Razard86 said:

Genius can be interpretation. He has a unique way of simplifying things. He can say a lot in very little words.

 

1 hour ago, Princess Arabia said:

I know, right. This is the beauty of diversity. Some might say we're all not genius, but I know we're all gifted in some way unique to only the individual. That's why no fingerprints match.

??

[Carl-Richard]

I think if you made a thread that asked" what is water?", you would eventually conclude that water is dry.

[Razard86]

31 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I think if you made a thread that asked" what is water?", you would eventually conclude that water is dry.

You can scientists just discovered a new type of water.

Came across this from an article recently...this is a copy paste.

"

Scientists have discovered a vast underground reservoir of water that is three times the volume of all the oceans combined. The water is locked in a mineral called ringwoodite and located in a layer of hot rock 400 miles beneath the Earth's surface. 

The water is stored in a sponge-like state, which isn't a liquid, solid or a gas, but instead a fourth state. Research has found that ringwoodite can contain up to 1.5 percent water. If the ringwoodite under the surface has just 1 percent water in its molecular build-up, it would mean that it holds three times more water than all of the oceans on the Earth's surface. 

The reservoir is contained within highly-pressurized rock known as ringwoodite."

[Princess Arabia]

11 minutes ago, Razard86 said:

You can scientists just discovered a new type of water.

Came across this from an article recently...this is a copy paste.

"

Scientists have discovered a vast underground reservoir of water that is three times the volume of all the oceans combined. The water is locked in a mineral called ringwoodite and located in a layer of hot rock 400 miles beneath the Earth's surface. 

The water is stored in a sponge-like state, which isn't a liquid, solid or a gas, but instead a fourth state. Research has found that ringwoodite can contain up to 1.5 percent water. If the ringwoodite under the surface has just 1 percent water in its molecular build-up, it would mean that it holds three times more water than all of the oceans on the Earth's surface. 

The reservoir is contained within highly-pressurized rock known as ringwoodite."

Amazing. I wonder what would surprise me, because nothing does anymore. Every time i turn around I'm learning something new I never knew existed. Now I'm open to anything.

[Razard86]

5 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

Amazing. I wonder what would surprise me, because nothing does anymore. Every time i turn around I'm learning something new I never knew existed. Now I'm open to anything.

When I read that I was like wow...a fourth state I wanna see how they define it.

[Princess Arabia]

Just now, Razard86 said:

When I read that I was like wow...a fourth state I wanna see how they define it.

I googled it and i found the article. Never even heard of the term "ringwoodite". I look almost everything up that I never heard of. My poor brain.

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Razard86 said:

You can scientists just discovered a new type of water.

Came across this from an article recently...this is a copy paste.

"

Scientists have discovered a vast underground reservoir of water that is three times the volume of all the oceans combined. The water is locked in a mineral called ringwoodite and located in a layer of hot rock 400 miles beneath the Earth's surface. 

The water is stored in a sponge-like state, which isn't a liquid, solid or a gas, but instead a fourth state. Research has found that ringwoodite can contain up to 1.5 percent water. If the ringwoodite under the surface has just 1 percent water in its molecular build-up, it would mean that it holds three times more water than all of the oceans on the Earth's surface. 

The reservoir is contained within highly-pressurized rock known as ringwoodite."

Now you're talking about H2O. "I'll have a glass of water" is different from "I'll have a glass of water with ice in it". Is ice "wet"? As a Norwegian, I can tell you I've experienced ice that you could confidently describe as "dry". They call solid CO2 "dry ice" for a reason, in that it doesn't turn liquid, or "get wet". But again, all of this becomes inaccurate once you invoke actual physical concepts. Again, I'm talking about water, not H2O.

The point is that there is a way to use language in an accurate way (like in physics) and a common way (layman), and there is a way to do both of them wrong. The way you're doing both of them wrong is essentially by over-equating and over-generalizing ("genius is uniqueness", "stupidity is genius"), or when you conflate them like you're doing now. Either way, it makes it all appear pretty nonsensical. Even if it makes sense in your own head, on the surface and from the perspective of the people you're communicating with, it looks absolutely nonsensical.

You can either be happy with that, knowing that most people will not listen to you, or that they will pretend to understand, or be satsified with a subpar or shallow understanding, and that you can say essentially anything you want and maintain plausible deniability that what you're saying is crap; or you can be unhappy with the fact that people prefer to listen to you with a low signal-to-noise ratio and that there is little oppurtunity for deep and coherent connection with someone else.

Edited October 18, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Danioover9000]

@Razard86

1 hour ago, Razard86 said:

You can scientists just discovered a new type of water.

Came across this from an article recently...this is a copy paste.

"

Scientists have discovered a vast underground reservoir of water that is three times the volume of all the oceans combined. The water is locked in a mineral called ringwoodite and located in a layer of hot rock 400 miles beneath the Earth's surface. 

The water is stored in a sponge-like state, which isn't a liquid, solid or a gas, but instead a fourth state. Research has found that ringwoodite can contain up to 1.5 percent water. If the ringwoodite under the surface has just 1 percent water in its molecular build-up, it would mean that it holds three times more water than all of the oceans on the Earth's surface. 

The reservoir is contained within highly-pressurized rock known as ringwoodite."

   Isn't this from @Leo Gura's blog post on the growing earth?

[Razard86]

3 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Now you're talking about H2O. "I'll have a glass of water" is different from "I'll have a glass of water with ice in it". Is ice "wet"? As a Norwegian, I can tell you I've experienced ice that you could confidently describe as "dry". They call solid CO2 "dry ice" for a reason, in that it doesn't turn liquid, or "get wet". But again, all of this becomes inaccurate once you invoke actual physical concepts. Again, I'm talking about water, not H2O.

The point is that there is a way to use language in an accurate way (like in physics) and a common way (layman), and there is a way to do both of them wrong. The way you're doing both of them wrong is essentially by over-equating and over-generalizing ("genius is uniqueness", "stupidity is genius"), or when you conflate them like you're doing now. Either way, it makes it all appear pretty nonsensical. Even if it makes sense in your own head, on the surface and from the perspective of the people you're communicating with, it looks absolutely nonsensical.

You can either be happy with that, knowing that most people will not listen to you, or that they will pretend to understand, or be satsified with a subpar or shallow understanding, and that you can say essentially anything you want and maintain plausible deniability that what you're saying is crap; or you can be unhappy with the fact that people prefer to listen to you with a low signal-to-noise ratio and that there is little oppurtunity for deep and coherent connection with someone else.

^^^^ And that is how you have chosen to interpret it. Because H20 is water. The call the gas form water vapor and the solid form ice. But its still water. You are just being rigid with the label because in the article they refer to it as a VAST RESERVOIR OF WATER. So notice you act like I am the only one labeling it water. 

So according to you unless h20 is in a liquid state then it is not water. What you don't realize that is how YOU CHOOSE to define the use of the term. Physics does not have a more accurate use of language because how language is used is context related, your argument is like saying slang is not the proper use of language. That is the funniest thing ever because language is COMPLETELY MADE UP!!! Language is a mental game where people just make up terms on the spot, provide explanations and people just go along with it!!! 

And with a straight face you argue on the proper use of language? Go ask English people in Britain and they will tell you Americans don't even speak REAL ENGLISH!!! Objective= agreed upon. Subjective= Individual choice.

You are pushing agreement as an absolute which is intellectually dishonest. It is only objective if the two people conversing AGREE UPON the use of the terms. And that has its own host of problems you are not even aware of. Because when you pay CLOSE ATTENTION to how two people even expand and contract how far they take a definitional use of a word it varies so much that most people do not even communicate equally objectively in how wide or narrow they use the definition of words. 

Once you realize this...you realize that majority of communication= a shitshow that pretends to be consistent.

 

Edited October 18, 2023 by Razard86

[Danioover9000]

@Razard86

8 hours ago, Razard86 said:

^^^^ And that is how you have chosen to interpret it. Because H20 is water. The call the gas form water vapor and the solid form ice. But its still water. You are just being rigid with the label because in the article they refer to it as a VAST RESERVOIR OF WATER. So notice you act like I am the only one labeling it water. 

So according to you unless h20 is in a liquid state then it is not water. What you don't realize that is how YOU CHOOSE to define the use of the term. Physics does not have a more accurate use of language because how language is used is context related, your argument is like saying slang is not the proper use of language. That is the funniest thing ever because language is COMPLETELY MADE UP!!! Language is a mental game where people just make up terms on the spot, provide explanations and people just go along with it!!! 

And with a straight face you argue on the proper use of language? Go ask English people in Britain and they will tell you Americans don't even speak REAL ENGLISH!!! Objective= agreed upon. Subjective= Individual choice.

You are pushing agreement as an absolute which is intellectually dishonest. It is only objective if the two people conversing AGREE UPON the use of the terms. And that has its own host of problems you are not even aware of. Because when you pay CLOSE ATTENTION to how two people even expand and contract how far they take a definitional use of a word it varies so much that most people do not even communicate equally objectively in how wide or narrow they use the definition of words. 

Once you realize this...you realize that majority of communication= a shitshow that pretends to be consistent.

 

   Bro, everything is made of 80% water, and it takes anything made of 80% water to see and know another thing made up of 80% water dude. That's your broken logic. Don't pull a @Nahm on us now. 

[Razard86]

On 10/18/2023 at 8:37 AM, Danioover9000 said:

@Razard86

   Bro, everything is made of 80% water, and it takes anything made of 80% water to see and know another thing made up of 80% water dude. That's your broken logic. Don't pull a @Nahm on us now. 

^^^^Did you even read what you type? You said everything is made of 80% water...is calcium made of 80% water? Is lead made of 80% water? Is a car made of 80% water? It's not me that has broken logic....broken logic is believing that everything is made of 80% water. Please actually do research instead of just randomly saying things.

Many of you give away your age in your responses. So quick to debate and argue but lack the depth of understanding.

Edited October 19, 2023 by Razard86

[Danioover9000]

@Razard86

1 hour ago, Razard86 said:

^^^^Did you even read what you type? You said everything is made of 80% water...is calcium made of 80% water? Is lead made of 80% water? Is a car made of 80% water? It's not me that has broken logic....broken logic is believing that everything is made of 80% water. Please actually do research instead of just randomly saying things.

Many of you give away your age in your responses. So quick to debate and argue but lack the depth of understanding.

   I'm glad you finally understood @Nahm, the importance of doing your research, defining terms, and carefully debating people.I am glad you agree with me that your nonsensical postings in this thread needed fixing. Glad you conceded your argument and proved my point.

[Razard86]

1 hour ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Razard86

   I'm glad you finally understood @Nahm, the importance of doing your research, defining terms, and carefully debating people.I am glad you agree with me that your nonsensical postings in this thread needed fixing. Glad you conceded your argument and proved my point.

I did no such thing, and stop comparing me to Nahm the problem is you lack the fluidity of mind to understand my posts. How do I know this? Because I have interacted with plenty of people who understand me fine. I understand it is because you are young that you cannot understand.

Also I speak nothing like Nahm he doesn't even form coherent sentences and when you ask him to explain he goes even vaguer than before. I not only explain my points I go into detail. If anything some people complain I give too much detail. This shows your bias because the person you compare me to its not even close. This is why I said you have poor discernment because you can't even make good comparisons. 

For fun I could post Nahms posts here and show how he responds but I won't because I don't even think Nahm understood himself.