Bringing intelligence to America

I’m going to have to concur with Mangetout here, Justhink. Your posts do show a complicated internal logic, but your overall theory seems to lack any external validity due to the fact that you refuse to, or are unable to, provide evidence for your viewpoints. For example, if your definition of intelligence extends to custard, perhaps you need to rein in your definition for the sake of practical purposes.

As this thread continues, your posts are apparently becoming more incoherent, and Mangetout is not the only one here concerned with your mental state. IANA psychatrist, and I may be wrong, but you’re either far above my head with this stuff (and I pretty much understood the gist of the OP) or you’re delusional.

Originally posted by Papermache Prince:

I have a request for JustThink. Answer the above question by making a numbered list and filling each entry with only one single proper noun or noun phrase.

You seem sure of the fact that the U.S (or Western culture, or whatever) is the epitome of counter-intelligence, so I assume that you also know of some people that do, or some place that has espoused intelligence. Give us some hard data, and let us draw our own conclusions.

No can do DemonSpawn52.

I have a system of falsification outlined; I haven’t done the actual research. I have plently of circumstantial evidence (harmonizations) and ‘axiomic’ trend evidence which short-cuts to the most educated guess, for why America ranks #1.
All of these points can be taken in the context of the exacting specifications I’ve been outlining.

In general; I’m working meticulously on a post that will salvage the major points of this post, and hopefully place myself in a situation where; if it is still opaque, then one of the general debates I want to recieve input on (exchange ideas with others); must have a serious problem. I’m attempting to construct it so that the problem itself becomes recognizable to others, even in the case that I personally possess a delusion.

This opaqueness mentioned repeatedly is, to me, intolerable.
I want to resolve this immediately and stop wasting all of our time. My posts are very long; if anything, and I should seriously respect the time and effort that individuals have allotted to reading them. I believe that I learned the “proofread all your posts” lesson the hard way.

The best I can do at this point is manage to provide valuable input in regards to this community, and salvage the trust placed in reading some stuff I’ve posted prior. If I can’t resolve this particular articulation in great debates (to have it comprehended, not necessarily believed); then I cannot see how my posts will be beneficial to the field of learning fostered here. I believe the other topics can be covered just as well, if not better, by others.

I see my relevanece here, in GD and the concept of truth meditated at SDMB in general, as being highly invested in a remote area of abstract forms of thinking. I feel that I can articulate ideas that I have observed people embodying in history, yet for whatever reason, they didn’t take the time to report them; or their record was lost in obscurity.

It’s like:
Q: “What’s the meaning of life?”
A: “Being consistant”

That’s my solution. How I arrived there, what it means, and how it suggests a direction are large topics. I think most people would agree with the conclusion, if not immediately, than a few paragraphs should suffice. What lies benieth that Q&A is what makes it relevant though… our slow & laborous unearthing of this conceptual structure, bringing it into observation.

Anyhow, if anyone would offer to recieve and place my next post on the web; (maybe last post here), I’d appreciate it. I’m not familiar with a process that, I imagine for some, would take a minute of browsing, cutting, pasting and clicking a few buttons.

If not, it could be another month or two until I am settled enough to do it myself. (in the process of moving - with no guarantees of an ISP the whole duration).

-Justhink

Being consistent with what?

There’s a major dichotomy developing:

When Justhink tries to explain things in detaill, he is incomprehensible.
When Justhink tries to explain this in simple terms, he is wrong.

The meaning of life is being consistant?

On a personal note, I hope you’re moving to a place with less hermit time and more face time.

“”"There’s a major dichotomy developing:

When Justhink tries to explain things in detaill, he is incomprehensible.
When Justhink tries to explain this in simple terms, he is wrong.

The meaning of life is being consistant?"""""

That’s what emerges from the fine detail. You’re using the mechanism of reason to determine a function called: meaning.
Reason is observed through discernment, and a simile between time and form. This is also the criteria for consistency. Reason, to a large degree is consistency. TO the extent that it’s not, reason is actually not being expressed; this is the property of counter-intelligence. Counter-intelligence being the use of reasonable mechanisms for purposes which reasonable negate the use of those mechanisms.
Consistency is difficult to pin down in the sense that it always determines reason; I’m outlining where those lines can be reasonably drawn.
However, if one suggests that the meaning of life is anything other than consistency (necessary for reason); then they have negated their existential value for stating the case.
They have proven their own suicide as being the logical conclusion of their reasoning capacity. I’m attempting to illuminate how this very precise mechanism is the source of everything which we consider to be crime. It is a unified field of sorts, in the area of morality:

Expressing something which negates the existential value of reason, used to arrive at and validate the act.

These boundries can be determined with flawless (impermiable) consistency, by applying the concept of suicide variable consistantly with the known enclosure which sentience cannot escape without being meaningless in and of itself.
Basically, you have to be catatonic to disagree; unless you are being fraudulant. I really need to reserve these long explanations for the reply I’m preparing though.

“”"“Being consistent with what?”"""

Not expressing ideas reserved for that which exists outside the enclosure required for senient thought. You have disproven your rationality, by imroperly associating truth with material. It is a state of delusion.

-Justhink

Justhink

Having perused some of your posts I’ve noticed that you occasionally mention that you are in possession of some “knowledge” which would support your theories but that you are too scared to post this “knowledge” for fear of the revolution in society it would cause.

Well, have no fear, we are all adults here. However bad your “information” may be, I’m sure we can take it. Feel free to just post it without giving us dark hints as to what it may be.

However bad your information is I think I will be able to handle it because there is something of the night about me. I delight in blood. Corpses please me.

Maybe you can include something about this in the “big post” you are preparing?

It’s not fear Jojo, it’s a calculation of reason. The last thing I’m interested in doing is embracing the very type of system I’m outlining as being definitive of crime in the moraliy issue. I see many resources falling like dominoes in my eyes; and I try to calculate whether there may be an inherent corruption in the system that my own ego designed into it, by analysing the possible outcomes of so many resources being collapsed. If one of these collapses contradicts the meaningful introduction of a system; then the system itself seems useless to me, maybe because I’m not wise enough to understand it. One aspect I tend to consider is that I’m positive that people will realize it, whether I speak on it or not in my life; which tends to make me a bit ambivalent as to the necessity of its emergence right now.
I’m still waiting on one last domino to fall; ironically it’s a paradox I’ve pondered since I was 7 - seems odd in retrospect. At that point, I will at least have a sense of pure existential value for the concept. It may end up being a negation, which pklaces me in a very tight spot relative to my life.

-Justhink

I can actually say quite a bit about the paradox, including how my feeble brain started thinking about it at 7. I saw Back to the Future at the theater =) The concept I remember processing at the time struck me with an immediate paradox…
In order for it to be true; I’d have to visit myself to hand over the solution before I realized the solution. This paradox has still hounded me all these years…

-Justhink

Why has it hounded me? I still haven’t processed a reason for the delay…

-Justhink

Did the Cubs win?

Many other posters have requested this, and I’m gonna ask again. Could you express yourself in a way in which people can understand you?

It’s common courtesy to simplify your statements. If I typed this: ‘the subterranean axioms of outlining the cognitive neural process of entities exhibiting littoral features (after you square the dichotomy’s and round off the effects of custard consistency) is logically deterring and recurring (or illogically, it’s mainly a matter of how empirically you parse the cubits). But, if, by this chronological instance, you have deduced (or induced, again it’s a matter of parsed cubits) that you will need a sanitized, well-oiled android (15.7 joules long), then the answer should have manifested it’s way into your consciousness already (through anaerobic osmosis), and you’ve been aware of which end of the rabbit goes into the blender first’.

This translates into ‘look at me, I’m smoking crack and masturbating with my dictionary at the same time’, or ‘I am a horrible human being, and I should be murdered immediately.’

Anyway, I don’t quite understand what you got against nihilists. I’m a nihilist, and the New Merriam-Webster Dictionary explains my philosophy well enough; “Nihilism: an attitude or doctrine that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless.”

That’s it. There is no nihilist code stating that I must destroy the government and hate everything. I acknowledge that government is the best way to organize, discipline, and provide for large groups of people, and I love many things. I just happen to think that all events and actions, all politics and relationships are ultimately meaningless.

I also think existence is senseless and useless. This is a belief I hold, and it simply states the way I think things are. No where does it say I must **do anything about it ** (I’m aware some definitions of Nihilism may state otherwise. Be aware that that’s not my brand of belief). No where did I sign away my rights to basic commodities. No where did I say I’d be better off if I jumped in one of your nifty suicide machines. I hold a certain view of the world. I fail to see how that is inconsistent.

Personally, I think it may be a fallacy to try and attribute meaning to our universe. Maybe it’s the equivalent of asking what’s the meaning of a coffee cup. Sure, it’s function is to hold liquid, but what is its meaning?

“”"“Anyway, I don’t quite understand what you got against nihilists. I’m a nihilist, and the New Merriam-Webster Dictionary explains my philosophy well enough; “Nihilism: an attitude or doctrine that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless.””""""

a.) I have nothing against nihilism
b.) The dictionary is ‘lying’. That is not an intelligent definition of nihilism. Your brand of nihilism would be: “Nothing possesses any meaning or sense, except for everything that satisfies me as behaviorally valid - until such point as I come across the concept of nihilism to validate my inability to change.”

Nihilists don’t continue to behave in any way; nihilism, by nature completely surrenders the ego/will to nature. This is not inherently an inconsistant act. The inconsistancy, the corruption stems from your belief that you are a nihilist without actually being one. That is the counter-intelligence routine being run on you. Ideas like absolute pacifism and suicide in relation to existential values are the key variables to decrypt counter-intelligent morality and existence. That’s why you don’t see them defined properly; it’s important to not let the logical application of these concepts be misdefined; that irrationality exist.
You’re seeing a mass denial system encoded into the dictionary itself; ultimately seeking to obscure the brightest light which can be shown on whether or not a behavior or belief has validity.
It makes it easy to divert you, for you to be diverted. You’re indentured system is being used against you; through misdirection.

Nihilism in its purest form is rational, however the acts and beliefs of a nihilist are not bound in the social contract. The declaration of nihilism is a declaration of ommission from all benefits and/or forms of reason. To smudge this clarity, is to dance around the impact that these types of rational thoughts have on the detection of delusion, misdirection, insanity and criminality.

“”""“That’s it. There is no nihilist code stating that I must destroy the government and hate everything.”"""

There is no Nihilist code at all. The ‘code’ comes from rationality, which uses a precise definition of property to discern Nihilism from any other idea or thought. Nihilists just starve to death; they have no code, they have revoked rationality until they starve to death; once the stance is declared. People who have no code, don’t do anything. People who don’t believe in meaning, don’t do anything. People who don’t believe in value or purpose or meaning, don’t do anything. If people do this stuff, and call themselves nihilists; then the definition has effectively become counter-intelligently integrated; resulting in a word which acts as a synonym for: anything and/or everything. That the concepts revolving around nihilism are the fundamental captures which allow for our sentience to abstract; and as such, allow us to define the rationality of its borders; makes the mis-defining of this term ‘important’ to all aspects of phenomenal delusion.
“”“I acknowledge that government is the best way to organize, discipline, and provide for large groups of people, and I love many things. I just happen to think that all events and actions, all politics and relationships are ultimately meaningless.”""

Nihilists don’t believe that. Love is one of the most counter-intelligent terms in existence. You’re making excuses, not rationalities. You’re making contradictions, not sense. You’re exhibiting nothing which distinguishes you from someone who calls themselves a Christian, and prays. Calls themselves a philanthropist, yet lives in the lap of luxury. “I believe this, as long as it doesn’t impact what I’ve already become accustomed to.”

Fine, that does not mean that what you are accustomed to and what you believe have a sane connection. That type of logic doesn’t build nuclear reactors, no matter how much you try to divide logic and insanity by nullifying them into a concept of the same individual. Inconsistency taints sanity irreconcialably into the existential oblivion of negation through contradiction.

“”"“I also think existence is senseless and useless. This is a belief I hold, and it simply states the way I think things are. No where does it say I must do anything about it (I’m aware some definitions of Nihilism may state otherwise. Be aware that that’s not my brand of belief). No where did I sign away my rights to basic commodities. No where did I say I’d be better off if I jumped in one of your nifty suicide machines. I hold a certain view of the world. I fail to see how that is inconsistent.”"""

You’re are recieving a commodity with zero work.
Your statement: “Nowehere does it say that I must do something about it.” is true; it is also ommisive. Nihilists don’t do anything about anything. The dictionary would be absurd to state that nihilists take a course of action; the belief however, always represents an effect observed through rationality. Nihilism has rational properties of expression associated with its belief, that are not mentioned in the dictionary. This is where it falls short. A nihilist who does something of their own ‘intent’ is not inconsistant, to the degree that they begin to degenerate and die of malnutrition. It is not our right to assume that a nihilist is insane until such time as they have engaged in something which clearly perpetuates the rational act of extending their lives. At this point, a nihilist is like ‘everyone else’, saying absurd things to gain attention, while not being what it is that they’re expressing.

““Personally, I think it may be a fallacy to try and attribute meaning to our universe. Maybe it’s the equivalent of asking what’s the meaning of a coffee cup. Sure, it’s function is to hold liquid, but what is its meaning?””"

Nihilists don’t have mays or may nots…
Nihilists know that there is no meaning to the universe. The universe in turn, consecrates that belief in a way that those of the social contract cannot understand, yet realize that it is a consistent belief in accordance with behavior. It is rational, a rational denial of existence; which rationally removes one from existence. Nihilism is not irrational at all; it is however a negation of all value. Walking around the earth, telling everyone that you’re a Nihilist is a counter-intelligence routine both on yourself and on others who might be confused as to what a nihilist represnts in true form. You’re an imposter, not representative of the actual power and work of conviction and consistency portrayed in the actual embodyment of a nihilist. Nihilists exhibit a lot of power, however, the nature of their rationality cannibalizes their effective use of glorification or sustination in relation to exersizing it. A nihilist, obviously has no problem with this truth; as they could care less.

-Justhink

““Personally, I think it may be a fallacy to try and attribute meaning to our universe. Maybe it’s the equivalent of asking what’s the meaning of a coffee cup. Sure, it’s function is to hold liquid, but what is its meaning?””"

Exactly. However, your indecision is a discussion; it is not nihilism.
Nihilism is a rational expression of not expressing. Nihilists don’t disbelieve in existence, they just don’t see meaning; which in effect is not believing in existence.

Lack of belief in existence and lack of belief in meaning; or reason to do or be; are not the exact same idea.

“There’s no meaning to this coffee cup”
“There’s no meaning to the hunger in my stomach”
“There’s no meaning to life”
“There’s no meaning to death”
“There’s no meaning to happiness”
“There’s no meaning to me or my thoughts, or my desires”
“There’s no meaning to my logic or my beliefs”
“There’s no meaning to my abstractions”

Nihilism is a choice; unless it takes the form of omniscient catatonia; induced physically and/or logically. At that point, nihilism is that beings absolute expression of reality. To the degree that there is no counter-intelligence in the omniscience; nihilism is the ultimate expression the reality enclosed in rationality and meaning. (i.e. they have proven their nihilism).

One aspect of nihilism is it’s logical expression of applying a unified belief consistantly; it irks the denial systems of the religious why require inconsistancy to have an existentially valid purpose for being or doing their own lives. Nihilism in action declares the actual evidence that someone is engaged in Pascals wager; the stasis of repitition required to give an idea meaning. What’s the point of giving a rats ass about Jesus if he died for our sins? What’s the point of living any sort of ‘clean’ life if the acceptance is a one-time ticket (“Baptize me, and let’s get it over with so that I can sin.”).

The only logical means to derive a moral system; a meaningful system out of this form is to apply frequency repetition to the expression. The only part of you that goes to heaven is the part that says “Jesus is my Lord and savior”; all the rest gets discarded… people try to get ‘all’ of themselves in by repeating the same phrase through various aspects of reality they enjoy.

This is not rational, as there is no connection between what you select and what actually determines the nature of a given system.
No matter how many times you say “Jesus is Lord”; only that one micro-fraction of you gets transferred. If you contradict the resolution though, by negating the value of the expression by symbolically doing something unrelated to it and then proceeding to validate everything else you do as representing it; you will not recieve any of the benefit implicit in the requirement.

You have to utter the statement until you arrive, in order to represent the value of even stating it once. This represents all superstitions; and all ideas which can equally be thrown in to Pascal’s Wager. The wager itself is a counter-intelligent validation mechanism, which obscures actual reason; and thus reveals hypocrisy as a result. The same applies to ‘knocking on wood’ for good luck. IF we only have to do it once; then knocking on it once brings good luck. If you believe this, than you must never ever complain about your condition, if you have ever knocked on wood… for it is impossible for anything to be bad; ever. If you believe that everything is now good luck for eternity on; you’re now locked into some very defined behavioral borders which represent an existential value to that belief. This also means that doing nothing, is also the same as moving around; as now EVERYTHING is good luck.

That’s why people don’t say:

Q:“What is the meaning to life?”
A:“To live”
Q:“Oh, I’m done here then… buh, bye”

That’s a logical application of Pascals wager with the ‘one-time’ admission scenario. So, it gets modified with a frequency scenario instead; to perpetuate the lifecycle of irrationality…

However, the frequency scenario has the same result: you knock and knock and knock until your knuckles get bloodied and your skin shreds and your bones chip and your hand falls off, until you die (although, anowledgment of death is removed from the picture counter-intelligently … that is a rational perception).

The pain that ensues as one moves towards death, is ALL good luck; because good luck is defined by frequency rather than quality or inherency.

Enough of that for now…

-Justhink

Whether or not nihilism is provable in this sense is an interesting topic in and of itself.

It is insane for rational beings to ‘interfere’ with the rationality of nihilism being expressed; as there is no possible existential inconsistency with the manifestation of that conclusion.

“”"“wager itself is a counter-intelligent validation mechanism”"""

A slight correction on this. The wager formulation is anti-intelligent; yet people can still express the formulation with consistency. In the areas that they are not expressing it consistently; is where the property of what it is to embrace this wager, is misdefined. This is the paralell I was drawing to terms like nihilism, reason, meaning, inteligence etc… being mis-appropriated to allow corruption. This mis-appropriation is observed between the properties which logically expres the idea vs. being defined by the properties which negate the existential value of the term; placing it into an indiscernable haze of counter-intelligent use. It removes 100% accountability to anything; while clearly people are being observed to embrace the concepts of accountability to something in order to subsist.

It completely destroys the meaning of any sense of standardization, reason and/or rationality; while ‘claiming’ to use it in that sense. Defining the properties of these terms intelligently, collapses the resource of corruption being used by this mis-appropriation. Intelligence, sanity does not select apologetics. Part of the issue, is that the existence of these apologetics is lost behind the shroud of not defining the word properly, and also assuring that a NEW term doesn’t emerge which contains the proper definition.

-Justhink

These NEW terms are called, opinions.

-Justhink

These NEW terms are called, opinions. The present terms are called facts. It thus considered opinion to argue with the definition and/or properties of word in the dictionary, which is considered fact. The concept: “We already have a word for that, you cannot re-define it, or say something is a synonym of it unless it is opinion. Not only is it opinion, it is confused and deluded.”

A: “The dictionary is defining the properties incorrectly, would you believe the dictionary if it defined steak as a vegetable found in rural texas? By doing so, it instantly creates an existential vaccuum for the purpose of seperating it from being a synonym of anything and or everything which is already there, defined correctly.”

A1: "That is opinion; if your idea had any truth, it would be in the dictionary; the dictionary doesn’t define steak as a vegetable. Although; I’m starting to think that maybe you should be defined as a vegetable… I’m worried for your sanity. You’re conspiracy minded, either calling us all stupid and having a Messiah Complex or a Narcissistic Personality Disorder; or you’re just a paranoid person who requires serious medication.
Billions of people can’t be wrong. The rest is just intellectual masterbation.

I would allow a term for what you’re saying into the dictionary; exctracted from the DSMV:

Justhink: disbelief in everything which rationally exists.

Now check your dictionary… see it; it’s there. That’s rational. You are insane."

-Justhink

Unbelievably, I waded through the above stuff. In short:

Justhink, I pretty much agree with you on the Nihilism issue. “Nihilism” comes from the Latin word nihil meaning “nothing” therefore “nihilism” is a belief in nothing.

Demonspawn seems to be saying: “I’m a nihilist but I think (…insert x political system…) works well”.

But I disagree with your casual disregard for dictionary definitions. I agree that Mirriam-Webster is shit, I would never rely on it. The only proper dictionary is the OED.

Dictionaries are important because the function of words is to impart information. It is therefore of the utmost importance that we are all agreed on what a particular word means - a common understanding of the meaning of any particular word. This is to ensure that we are at least talking about the same thing!

“”"But I disagree with your casual disregard for dictionary definitions. I agree that Mirriam-Webster is shit, I would never rely on it. The only proper dictionary is the OED.

Dictionaries are important because the function of words is to impart information. It is therefore of the utmost importance that we are all agreed on what a particular word means - a common understanding of the meaning of any particular word. This is to ensure that we are at least talking about the same thing!"""
I agree with you. I don’t care whether the roots trace back to the meaning, so much as there is a standardized value to the word which distinguishes it from something. I believe that a Russian philosopher actually articulated Nihilism as a ‘philosophy’.

I tried to access the OED, and was made well aware that a $550.00 yearly subscription was required to even read it. Aparently, only counter-intelligent dictionaries are distributed to the poor and uneducated. I wanted to see if the OED defined intelligence consistantly with the variable of nihilisms’ articulated concept. If they don’t, or didn’t; I believe I can make an air-tight case for a broad system of denial when confronting existential logic, that permeates to the core of ‘western’ educational output.

I accessed a variety of dictionaries with no results at all. I did manage upon a Cambridge series that unillaterally defined nihilism as: The belief that politics is bad.
This should be criminal IMO.

Of course, this all traces back to WHY intelligence needs to be defined consistantly with the belief that something exists, and/or has a meaning. Someone actually went out of their way to tell my that my definition was full of it, without running through the points I made. They also absurdly pointed out that I do not need to define intelligence to define counter-intelligence! This effectively means that it is impossible for me to make any point, they always ‘win!’.

I believe that I have excellent cause for articulating that the definition of intelligence requires anthropromorphism to be integrated into the logical mechanism required for discernment.
I also believe that I have excellent cause for articulating that intelligence needs to encompass:
That which can percieve.
That which can be percieved.

Without drawing this perfectly rational line of reasoning (IMO), intelligence becomes vulnerable to:
“that which cannot be reasoned”
which negates any point of articulating the term at all. The dictionary may as well have one word, if this is the case:

Anything:

With that exact definition.

A dictionary that defines itself as absurd, through logical inconsistency should be called on it.
Dictionaries create social policy.
Why use one that negates social value?!

-Justhink