Achieving Your Potential

The Game Show problem, logical fallacies, Marilyn's daily diet, multi-tasking and achieving your potential.

Moderator: Marilyn

not really that ephishient, pass

Postby Moiety Noire » Sun Sep 07, 2008 7:04 pm

you phish prophetic too much...it's a USCA Title 42 offense...

...and perhaps uncounted rules and guidelines going ignored in some other quarters...

Is bill head and shoulders above us mere moral americans, is bill of exalted "Dual Citizenship"?
Moiety Noire
Intellectual
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:52 pm
Location: North America

Yes

Postby bill » Sun Sep 07, 2008 10:58 pm

I am moral. I am mortal. I am not of dual citizenship.

I'll say it again. My IQ is extremely high. There is no subject that I can not learn quickly. There is no job that I can't do well.

Just because people like you, let this country and this world go to hell, does not mean I have to accept it.

As I said before, I am an emissary from GOD.

The truth, whether you like it or not.
love creation machine
bill
Intellectual
 
Posts: 1217
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 2:09 pm

Re: Yes

Postby Bodhisattva » Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:03 pm

bill wrote:I'll say it again. My IQ is extremely high. There is no subject that I can not learn quickly. There is no job that I can't do well.


And so modest about it, too. :roll:

Jk, bill.
"Does reality matter?"
--Christopher Wiley
Bodhisattva
Scholar
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 1:51 pm
Location: Colorado

bill:

Postby Moiety Noire » Tue Sep 09, 2008 2:00 pm

emissary vis a vis: "Antagonistic cooperators of the peer group", Cf. [phraming a phish for PHISA].

What do you mean people like [fitb] are letting the "world go to hell"?

And do you really have to keep swearing so. Try sucking it in, nobody here's interested in your deistic psychodelusional lathering at the mouth--get help :!:
Moiety Noire
Intellectual
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:52 pm
Location: North America

Moiety

Postby bill » Tue Sep 09, 2008 2:50 pm

Let's have a challenge, if I win you remove everything you have said on Marilyn's site and promise to never write to it again. If you win I will remove everything I have written and never write on this site again.

Are you man enough to joust with me?

Marilyn will name the task. PERHAPS WHO CAN TRISECT AN ANGLE WITH ONLY AN UNMARKED STRAIGHTEDGE AND COMPASS. NO CHEATING IT HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE. A VARIATION OF ARCHIMEDES METHOD HAS BEEN FOUND WHERE THE STRAIGHTEDGE NEED NOT BE MARKED. I KNOW OF TWO METHODS ONE YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SO WE BOTH NEED TO FIND THE OTHER. SINCE I HAVE AN IDEA ALREADY I'LL GIVE YOU A WEEKS HEAD START. BE CAREFUL THIS MAY BE A TRAP.

Hey Bod, you know what they say it pays to advertise. I may not be modest but I at least have humility. Do you know the difference?

IF YOU GOT IT FLAUNT IT. IF YOU DON'T NO ONE WILL KNOW YOU HAVE WHAT THEY NEED. YOU WILL NEVER GET A GOOD JOB BEING MODEST ABOUT YOUR ABILITIES. ONE MUST BE ASSERTIVE.

MOIETY I LOVE AND RESPECT YOU, BUT WILL NEVER MARRY YOU.
2 OUTA 3 AIN'T BAD. STOP LETTING YOUR MEATLOAF.
love creation machine
bill
Intellectual
 
Posts: 1217
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 2:09 pm

Postby Moiety Noire » Wed Sep 17, 2008 11:10 pm

You can iterate an attractor method to trisection nicely in straight edge and compass, but it is proven there is no constructive algebraic solution.

It's based on the convexity of the set.
Moiety Noire
Intellectual
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:52 pm
Location: North America

Postby bill » Tue Jun 23, 2009 9:31 am

Perhaps perhaps not.
love creation machine
bill
Intellectual
 
Posts: 1217
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 2:09 pm

Postby Optimus » Tue Jul 07, 2009 1:16 pm

The article speaks of an intersting subject. It would be interesting for someone to think what are his motivations. People who work hard to achieve something usually have an inner motivation that makes it possible to be dedicated to the goal instead of following the common path most people follow.

Personally, my initial motivation to excel into something (computer programming was for me) was headed from a lack of self-esteem. The truth is that I bumped into too many obstacles and personal obsession and it didn't ended exactly as I have wished. Nor was it happy. But I've learned some things and I have evolved towards that path, I am only making corrections from that point to move on under new conditions and slightly different focus (but I don't quit what I am doing, nor did I forgot everything and transformed into a common human as they want me to do, what is inside you doesn't change in the core). I am trying for happiness, in the sense of accepting who I am and what I have gone through, accepting that I was a bit obsessed with that bit without though killing my personality. I am in a good road.

About IQ, usually we assume that if someone has very high IQ he will become a great scientist or artist or politician or anything famous enough. We assume the same thing also about people with autism, asperger's or similar disorders that makes you look weird and differentiates you from the average joe. I was in the second category, maybe that helped to wish to not live a regular life but be focused into something special, a bit later although (maybe trying to protect myself from having a not certain aspiration that I will become something) I tried to be more realistic and thought that yes, we see famous scientists that were autistics or had high IQ or generally were eccentrics and we falsely assume that all or most people with high IQ or neurodiversity will become great persons in the future. But how many non famous people you know with high IQs and how few of them are known as great people?

And so I became more realistic on what to except from myself and accept what I have now without although stopping to be engaged in those special activities that somehow make me feel I can reach the goal. These kind of things became an obsession and it feels bad now but I am trying to fix things here. Not to kill the dreams of anyone of you though. Go on with your goals, just be realistic and take care.

Also, high IQs alone are not enough. Someone may be able at solving quizzes but how about creativity or intuition? How about hard work and the extreme motivation I talked about? Most of the great people have worked hard and also had so strong motivations to stay there and focus and not quit. Solving iq tests and think you are smart won't help it alone. I have rarely taken IQ tests and I was just above the average which was good enough but I hadn't the blown up high IQs. However, because of my extreme motivation (even if it became an obsession that killed it in the process) I spent endless hours programming and only recently I discover that I have breed a high intelligence concerning solving hard programming problems, being very intuitive and creative with it, understanding very fast anything new on the field, etc. That's because I was focused for ten years into that thing and part of my neural networks have evolved in that way that it makes me very intelligent in that. As a counter example, at the same time I am bad at solving math problems no matter if I was studying it. Because I never had the motivation to spend time as a hobby getting every possible math problem and trying to solve it just for the sake of it, I never became smart at it. Just see how topical intelligence is! Someone would think that if I am very good at solving programming problems then I would be the same clever at solving math problems or any related or not related problem. Intelligence is topical and evolves according your motivation and interest on one subject.
It's pi/2.
Optimus
Thinker
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 10:49 am
Location: Thessaloniki/Greece

Postby bill » Sun Sep 13, 2009 5:21 pm

To Optimus I agree with you but throughout history there has also been multi-talented or universal geniuses. When I say IQ I also mean Imagination Quotient I also have a low IQ -Idiot Quotient. Hope this better helps people understand me :D
love creation machine
bill
Intellectual
 
Posts: 1217
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 2:09 pm

Re: Moiety

Postby emilynghiem » Wed Oct 14, 2009 3:32 pm

Dear Bill:
1. Does folding the paper into overlapping thirds count? Or is that not precise enough?
2. Here's a better challenge: Organizing a network of artists and scientists to "prove" the existence of God by agreeing the various definitions or aspects of God all point to the same source. Are you up to the challenge?

I am already putting together a network of spiritual healing ministers with connections with the medical community to organize teams to get grants for research studies to "prove" the process of spiritual healing prayer.

I also personally interact with people one-on-one to align our vocabulary, since different terms or concepts are used for the parts of the trinity, depending if you relate to religious, political or psychological structures.

Are you interested in this challenge? To prove the existence of God by consensus on terms that various cultures assign to universal values?

Please also see backpage dot com (under "religion") if you care to join the debate I was having with a fundamental atheist who doesn't just "disbelieve" in God but is advocating that God "does not exist."

There were other atheists or nontheists on the same forum who pointed out varying degrees of tolerance or intolerance, instead of the "either/or" "all or nothing" approach.

Come join us. I would love to partner with you on a historic proof. And to organize into lemmas that if those are proven first, then together, these would show the universal nature of "God" despite diverse perceptions and terms for the various aspects of this one "God."

Yours truly,
Emily
emilynghiem at hotmail
See also
backpage dot com under "religion"



bill wrote:Let's have a challenge, if I win you remove everything you have said on Marilyn's site and promise to never write to it again. If you win I will remove everything I have written and never write on this site again.

Are you man enough to joust with me?

Marilyn will name the task. PERHAPS WHO CAN TRISECT AN ANGLE WITH ONLY AN UNMARKED STRAIGHTEDGE AND COMPASS. NO CHEATING IT HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE. A VARIATION OF ARCHIMEDES METHOD HAS BEEN FOUND WHERE THE STRAIGHTEDGE NEED NOT BE MARKED. I KNOW OF TWO METHODS ONE YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SO WE BOTH NEED TO FIND THE OTHER. SINCE I HAVE AN IDEA ALREADY I'LL GIVE YOU A WEEKS HEAD START. BE CAREFUL THIS MAY BE A TRAP.

Hey Bod, you know what they say it pays to advertise. I may not be modest but I at least have humility. Do you know the difference?

IF YOU GOT IT FLAUNT IT. IF YOU DON'T NO ONE WILL KNOW YOU HAVE WHAT THEY NEED. YOU WILL NEVER GET A GOOD JOB BEING MODEST ABOUT YOUR ABILITIES. ONE MUST BE ASSERTIVE.

MOIETY I LOVE AND RESPECT YOU, BUT WILL NEVER MARRY YOU.
2 OUTA 3 AIN'T BAD. STOP LETTING YOUR MEATLOAF.
emilynghiem
Intellectual
 
Posts: 546
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 12:31 pm
Location: Houston

Postby bill » Thu Dec 03, 2009 6:14 pm

emily,

GOD(S) EXIST OR GOD(S) DO NOT EXIST

I HAVE WRITTEN THIS PROOF ELSEWHERE ON THIS SITE MORE THAN ONCE!

WE ARE ALL CHILDREN OF LESSER GODS

does one supreme GOD in the highest exist!? sure just replace one supreme GOD in my proof.

it is a proof based on pure logic. an atheist would say it is just nonsense but to any intelligent person who appreciates logic and reasoning it is a beautiful proof.

please feel free to look up my posts and see it completely. no one so far has been able to find flaw although some say it does not prove anything.

if you cannot find it i will reprint it.

Thanks

Bill
love creation machine
bill
Intellectual
 
Posts: 1217
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 2:09 pm

Postby Kemosabe-TBC » Fri Dec 04, 2009 1:53 pm

bill wrote:it is a proof based on pure logic. an atheist would say it is just nonsense but to any intelligent person who appreciates logic and reasoning it is a beautiful proof.
l

Your "proof" is not a proof. Because it toys with the definition of "existence". Sure, I can prove *anything* is true, given the right definition.
Kemosabe-TBC
Intellectual
 
Posts: 1268
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 5:08 pm
Location: Portugal

Postby bill » Fri Dec 04, 2009 5:01 pm

it does not "toy" with it. it enhances the definition of existence to include that which exists but cannot be proven by empirical data. According to you numbers do not exist. By the way on one of the science channels they discovered the full intact remains of an actual flying fire breathing dragon [sic]. They were thought never to exist. They found it in a cave that had opened up due too global warming [sic].

it includes that which exists and exists logically or metaphysically.

it therefore is a proof.

Nice try though Kemo.

Bill
love creation machine
bill
Intellectual
 
Posts: 1217
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 2:09 pm

Postby Kemosabe-TBC » Fri Dec 04, 2009 5:28 pm

bill wrote:According to you numbers do not exist.

That's not what I said. Before you produce a proof of any kind, you must explicitly state the definitions you're using. Especially if those definitions are not an accepted standard, or if there is no consensus about them.

You can call a proof to whatever you want, but a real Proof is something very rigorous, and it's not easy to produce. Proving even something as simple as "sqrt(2) is not a rational number" is *not that simple*. So you may be using the term "proof" a bit too loosely :P
Kemosabe-TBC
Intellectual
 
Posts: 1268
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 5:08 pm
Location: Portugal

Postby bill » Fri Dec 04, 2009 10:03 pm

Well Kemo my friend you seem to have a problem with my usage of existence.

Considered this: all/everything in existence is abstract, a configuration of our minds imagination to support our survival.

I.E. We utilized symbols and sounds to communicate, which do not really exist except as symbols and sounds. But we can see the symbols and hear the sounds so we call them real which leads us to believe they exist. This is what we call concrete existence. GOD has an existence that is only logical. But logic has a concrete existence to humane's. Therefore GODS existence is a two step mapping instead of a one step mapping, where the only thing missing is what some would consider physical/concrete or empirical evidence. But logical evidence is stronger than concrete or empirical evidence in many cases. My proof uses rigorous logic and reasoning, therefore it is just as good a proof of GODS existence as GOD HIMSELF making a live appearance on TV or your doorstep.

Your quibbling about the definition of existence astounds me.

Main Entry: ex·is·tence
Pronunciation: \ig-ˈzis-tən(t)s\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century

1 a obsolete : reality as opposed to appearance b : reality as presented in experience c (1) : the totality of existent things (2) : a particular being <all the fair existences of heaven — John Keats> d : sentient or living being : life
2 a : the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence <the existence of other worlds> b : the manner of being that is common to every mode of being c : being with respect to a limiting condition or under a particular aspect
3 : actual or present occurrence <existence of a state of war>

© 2009 Merriam-Webster, Incorporated

By the axiom of choice I choose definition 2a.

There now this makes my proof completely rigorous.

Your Friend

Bill
love creation machine
bill
Intellectual
 
Posts: 1217
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 2:09 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Online Articles By Marilyn

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest