You should read up on neurology, seems you have doged that bullet for too long.

Now I better understand why anything I say escapes you.

What excatly in "You should read up on neurology" is too hard to understand?

dparrott wrote:What part of "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough," do you not understand?

1) it takes that I would actually explain an aspect of neurology to you, which I don't feel like, because then I should explain everything in very long posts to each and everyone here on the forum, which would get me excatly nowhere, which suggest you don't understand psychology either.
2) since you don't even know the very basics of it, it would be much better for you to study it youself.
3) if I explained it to you, there would always be a small decay of information, where I might get a few things wrong, therefore again it's better for you to read it youself, then we can discuss it.

dparrott wrote:We are all made of vibrating atoms to put it most simply. We are all homosapien. A so called Genius, you, and I all have the same brain structure that when studied all appear normal. The genius just thinks differently and so does the individual, so in my opinion the genius is really just an individual that society exalts as Great when they are only different.

That's something some random rainforest dweller may say, sorely ignorent of basic science, now please, I must insist that you read up on neurology, it's a huge science that one such as you sorely needs!

dparrott wrote:It's funny you say that when I was young I wanted to live in the rainforest. I still havn't gotten down there yet but I will some time in the future. If we are not made of vibrating atoms and we are not homosapien then provide some proof. If your so in love with science then I suggest a science forum this is philosophy. I read up on neurology apperently you haven't, what I read I posted and expert neurologists cannot find any conclusive evidence to suggest that Einstien's brain is any diffrent from ours. Are you a neurologist or someone who just admires the field of study?

Philosophy without a bit of science these days, becomes nonsens and babble.

Jklint wrote:

HexHammer wrote:Philosophy without a bit of science these days, becomes nonsens and babble.

...I couldn't agree more. A philosopher who is only a philosopher without knowledge of overlapping disciplines has a kind of flat earth Weltanschauung. The "world" is much larger than it used to be and require philosophy to be in sync.

-- Updated March 3rd, 2012, 12:52 pm to add the following --

dparrott wrote:Here is a quote I found from a great individual.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”

...sorry! have to ask, who's the "great individual" who came up with this gem. This is thoroughly out of context and an insult to fish!

At last someone who understands!
Imo Einstein came up with halfwitted analogies. He was asked what weapons WWIII wold be fought with, to that he didn't know, however WWIV would be faught with clubs and rocks.
You can't have a world war if you only have such primitive technology, you can't coordinate such huge masses of troops, no logistics for supplies, etc.

wanabe wrote:Is there any such thing as a Genius?

No, just people who respect the accomplishments of others.

Very politically correct, beautiful rethorics that will fool the less smart people, but you are wrong.

wanabe wrote:HexHammer,

(What a surprise HexHammer thinks somebody is wrong, just save yourself the time and put it in your signature already)

It's just a fact, some people admire others for their skills, it's why they are extraordinary to others.

You should watch the movie Rain Man, it gives a good insight in how savants behaves.

wanabe wrote:I have seen the movie rain man.

He is good at what hes good at, and if a person admires his skills then we they are free to call him a genius or a savant, or whatever other complementary term they like. Same goes for anyone else.

Thereby you are saying that those who have an IQ of 50 is a genious, wow!

wanabe wrote:

HexHammer wrote:Thereby you are saying that those who have an IQ of 50 is a genius, wow!

No HexHammer. My point is that genius is ultimately a subjective term that can be applied to anyone, for any reason. If your definition of genius is some one who can score high on a IQ test then so be it.

If some person thinks that this 50 IQ person is a genius because they play guitar better than Hendrix then they are a genius to that person.

If a large number of people revere the mathematical intellect of Einstein than so be it he is a genius. If genius is a person who scores over a certain number on a test then he is a genius to people who use that defintion.

What you are trying to say, is that most people have a genious side, where they excel, which indeed are true.

You still need more knowledge on this area as your arguments a vague and strangely overlapping.

@wanabe
I'm afraid you are wrong again. If you actually knew anything about about neurology, you would know depending on who you ask, humans has 7-9 major intelligences.

Some of the first major studies in neurology started at the Vietnam war, where warcasualties with braininjuries would be studied. It was found that some of our intelligences could work together or work independantly.

Sometimes a brain injury will stimulate other areas and create a genious intellect by the plasticity principle.

Plese read up on neurology, you have need of it.

wanabe wrote:HexHammer,
Ok that's great I can look up stuff on google too. What's you point, you got a head injury? Oh no, wait, almost missed it, there it is, right in the beginning: I'm "wrong"...but what's this?...

HexHammer wrote:Sometimes a brain injury will stimulate other areas and create a genious intellect by the plasticity principle.

Oddly enough, this statement by you reaffirms that anyone could in fact be a genius; subjective as I said.

Open your mouth one time and you look pretty foolish.

We can't have a discussion without your puerile personal attacks?

wanabe wrote:HexHammer,

HexHammer wrote:We can't have a discussion without your puerile personal attacks?

I would love to have a discussion with you, except you don't say anyhting of any value. You just say wrong, and mention an area of scientific study.

And excatly why am I wrong?

wanabe

It's kinda hard to link to a living neuroscientist, or debates I've had over the years, etc. So sorry.

Look at it from my point of view, you don't exactly have the same attitude you would like me to have towards others, as you have towards me, practice what you preach.

If a person claims 2+2 = 5, then he most likely wouldn't comprehend the truth, when I explained it to him, why I won't bother with a long detailed answer/explanation.
I believe in most of my posts I am factual right, if you prove me consistently wrong, I will shut my stupid mouth and go elsewhere and do other things.

There are many kinds of geniouses but basicly it's about how many neurons you have to precive things, but what divides the masses from being "Rrain Men" to "intelligent" is rationallity. The more rationallity we have the greater abstract logic we can produce, without rationallity geniouses can still produce elaborate results by liniar logic.

In the movie Rain Man you can see him calculate extraordinary numbers, memorize entire phonebooks, but not understand a simple joke nor set a rational price on things.