Evaluating Greater Minds

spherical1

AN INFERIOR MIND CANNOT EVALUATE A SUPERIOR MIND.

Imagine that you are a big game hunter and you have hunted all of the deadliest animals all over the earth and you want an animal that will challenge you and give you a thrill.  You have hunted grizzly, great white shark, and rhinoceros.  You decide to hunt the man eater, the Bengal tiger.  For a year you stalk this wraith never catching sight of one, it imagines to allude you.  Determined to succeed or at least to have an interaction with the creature you redouble your effort.  Convinced that you have the drop on the creature you slide into position and raise your rifle, suddenly you hear a low guttural vibration, not even a growl, just a little noise to let you know it is right behind your ear.  Not until that moment do you realize that you were hunting a creature that was smarter than yourself.

For the sake of the story the tiger is made   smarter, but in actuality it is probably just the better hunter.  I was trying to illustrate a point however.

cir

There is a similar concept in comparing different types of minds.  A plane can only know a sphere as circles.  At the first introduction and the last contact the plane would know the sphere as a point that expands and then retracts and then disappears, but the plane could never know anything about the SPHERENESS of the sphere.  It could only evaluate the circleness of the sphere.  You can’t comprehend a mind greater than your own unless you become equal to that mind or superior to it.

760px-Plane-Sphere_Intersection_svg

To put it another way, what can the plane know about the coneness of the cone?  The cone can grasp the planeness of the plane, but the reverse cannot happen.

2ddcm-conic_sections_tcm1023-134628

The reason I began to ponder this is because I am constantly the subject of scrutiny and judgments and attacks by people who can’t understand me and are not inclined to do so.  I understand them, and they understand their own perspective, but they do not know that I understand their perspective and they are not capable of understanding my own, not because I am concealing it, but because they are not capable of grasping it.  They presuppose the superiority of their opinion without testing it, and they start to attack, they don’t use Socratic dialogue or scientific method, we don’t have experiments, they just begin attacking, and not until the end do they realize that they never had a chance, they never saw me coming, I wasn’t even on their radar…

Everybody bets against me.

Advertisements

26 thoughts on “Evaluating Greater Minds”

    1. Because I can predict them and remain rational towards them and they fall off. They don’t self falsify, the don’t adhere strictly to socratic dialogue, they use logical fallacies and cognitive biases, and they are not open to experimentation to see which of us is correct. does that answer your question?

      1. How do you know they aren’t any of those things? Theoretically they could be but just not be expressing it. In their mind they might be. Who knows why they wouldn’t express it, but that’s not the question at hand. Furthermore you’re suggesting that those are the only characteristics necessary to be superior? What about creative superiority?

      2. That would be a different type of intelligence and therefore a different type of mind. Why don’t you make your own philosophic calculus to replace mine? if you don’t like mine…

  1. I would argue that prioritising intelligence as the superior intelligence over creativity is subjective to you and your own personal blik and isn’t objectively true. I agree with your premise (at least to an extent) that some things are incomprehendible to other things that are inferior to them. But I just think your last paragraph is rather ego centric and absurd

      1. I mean disagreeing is what philosophy’s about and what having a blog inevitably intales, it’s also how we progress. Don’t know what angry people who aren’t willing to consider others views are actually doing on a place like this

      2. explain to me in a positive rational assertion how your experience of yourself allows you to offer your stupid opinion on a person you haven’t met and whom you know literally nothing about. Do you claim to be psychic or clairvoyant?

      3. I would if that was the problem at hand. What I think you’ll find is that I have actually offered my opinion about a view point shared openly online. I’ve made not one personal comment on you as an individual but have instead focused on your statement. What do you think the comment buttons there for?

      4. kind of like how you ignored my entire post and offered your opinion, huh? listening to speak, not listening to understand. I didn’t just say that I was smarter than people, I showed how people don’t know how to evaluate others through brilliant metaphors.

  2. I’m stumped. Joxua you criticized Metal Pixelation for not knowing who you really were and therefore not being able to make a valid assumption (this is all based on your post) as to if she could comprehend your level. Ergo, she had no idea if her circle was as big as yours. If you only can know if your circle of thinking is greater than someone by knowing them fully, wouldn’t it be ration to say that no one can know if their circle is bigger than any others? As we can’t fully know someone else like we do ourselves?

    1. No, we have Socratic dialogue and scientific experimentation. We also have the logical fallacies and cognitive biases. She judged me tacitly from analogy a cognitive bias. She doesn’t know the logical fallacies or the cognitive biases and therefore she cannot know if she is making them.

  3. Joxua’s models provide an insight to our own biases and judgments. It would behoove us to be able to at least entertain the possibility to scrutinize ourselves and our own processes. When we have the ability to at least entertain ideas without reacting we are better able to get our point across.

    Joxua is giving his perspective of his observations of feminine behaviors that he believes are faulty ways of relating to one another. He deconstructs, analyzes and takes into consideration 1 million years of neural mylination, which is pretty fascinating. It is interesting to entertain the ideas, theories and models that Joxua brings to the table. It may seem appalling to hear as a woman and I can understand how one can be offended by such sweeping statements, although it could be beneficial and used as a tool to evaluate and self-introspect.

  4. There are no comments on the content of this…illusion? This is where I started. Skimmed though a sampling of things attributed to the facets of your interests, It might be interesting enough to exercise my thought processes. Would you say, it would be a hard task to grok the gesalt
    of your footprints here? At least I could see how long I could read without posting something showing the true quality of my thought process. I will be continuing to stop stagnating in the swirls of my self deception.

  5. You got reactions. No one said a thing about the rationality of the metaphor. To know capability one must use ability. Evaluation is sometimes useful to guide, comparing is only valid for likeness.

      1. No, I just found it interesting that no one did. There are so many people (internet folks) who react by reflex. My thought is not to engage in judgement of how you choose to explain the obvious.
        My purpose is only to see if I can understand the whole of the large (To me) amount of material published by you. I test myself to guide in choosing what of my survival skills need work.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s