IQ

[sp1nzoK]

Re: IQ

This is actually a commonly asked question. I would answer no. Even if there was some being located in the 10th dimension, it would not necessarily be godlike. I do not think being in the 10th dimension would allow you to turn water into wine.

I edited my post to reflect it better after thinking about it more. I'll say it even better in this one: If we come to a point that contains _every possible outcome of every universe_ then wouldn't "God" be the force on the dimension above the highest possible dimension a human mind can produce, disregarding what God may be or do and just using it as the "unknown" factor in the big picture. In that regard proving God is nigh impossible even if it exists in any form, since we can hardly gain information of the lower dimensions as it is.

Enough mind**** for today I guess haha.

EDIT: I see you answered my EDIT too now, well basically what I was after is that no matter how hard humankind tries, God is of an incomprehensible level, if we have to relate to already very difficult subjects as alternate universes and time travel, and God would be beyond that, maybe in the sense that it will surpass the last dimension that is imaginable.

I don't believe in religious God, but it would be fun to believe in it as that unknown factor or force, that will almost certainly remain incomprehensible.

[MrRubix]

Re: IQ

I really don't believe in a God, nor do I think there is a dimension that contains or IS God. Having such a thing doesn't really explain anything. I mean, although it's valid to ask, "Where did everything COME from?", which may include this 10th-dimensional framework, simply adding a creator doesn't really solve the problem of the initial question. Under the 10th dimension theory, what role can God possibly play? The 10 dimensions alone contain all universal outcomes anyway, and so if there is a God, he isn't doing a whole lot.

[Ice wolf]

Re: IQ

I've always had a huge problem with the 4th dimension being "time," be-all-end-all, because it would imply that, say, a 2 dimensional world has no "time." Can I not move around in a 2 dimensional world? I think too many people try to understand the 4th as "time" and then they get confused when they think about what higher dimensions really mean.

I would say the 4th dimension is "time for 3d beings" or something similar, since I think we can define 3d as "time" for a 2-dimensional being. We need some way to explain how we change from one state to another within a given dimension by utilizing the dimensions above.

I am not incredibly well versed in the 10-dimensional view of reality, but I would say that the 2nd dimension would still utilize the 4th dimension for time, not the 3rd dimension.

After all, the 2nd dimension is a spatial dimension just as the third is. I think it would help people if they imagined the first three dimensions as one big spatial dimension.

I edited my post to reflect it better after thinking about it more. I'll say it even better in this one: If we come to a point that contains _every possible outcome of every universe_ then wouldn't "God" be the force on the dimension above the highest possible dimension a human mind can produce, disregarding what God may be or do and just using it as the "unknown" factor in the big picture. In that regard proving God is nigh impossible even if it exists in any form, since we can hardly gain information of the lower dimensions as it is.

Enough mind**** for today I guess haha.

I think I am starting to understand you a little better, but I see no reason to think that there is some unknown factor or force above the highest dimension of which we can think.

You will have to more clearly define God before I can come to a better understanding of your thoughts.


This is going to turn into a critical thinking thread after a while.

[MrRubix]

Re: IQ

I am not incredibly well versed in the 10-dimensional view of reality, but I would say that the 2nd dimension would still utilize the 4th dimension for time, not the 3rd dimension.

After all, the 2nd dimension is a spatial dimension just as the third is. I think it would help people if they imagined the first three dimensions as one big spatial dimension.

I would say that "time" is not a dimension in itself, but another function of space (as per the "spatial dimensions").

[Ice wolf]

Re: IQ

I would say that "time" is not a dimension in itself, but another function of space (as per the "spatial dimensions").

I guess it really just depends on how you look at it. In the 10-dimensional view, time is considered a full dimension. Let me find the video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfhOBevrN2U

[sp1nzoK]

Re: IQ

Well I agree with the statement that it's useless to try and figure out unknown and using the word God to place on that unknown was silly of me. It was just something interesting I started to speculate and we all know speculation is mostly only good for fun and games

On topic: Most random online IQ-tests definitely have dumbed down ceiling and rarely even work as an IQ-test in the first place, they are more like a crappy quiz.

[MrRubix]

Re: IQ

I guess it really just depends on how you look at it. In the 10-dimensional view, time is considered a full dimension. Let me find the video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfhOBevrN2U

Errr, that video clearly indicates that he agrees time is NOT a dimension by itself, i.e. the 4th dimension is how we 3d creatures experience time, but that doesn't make the 4th dimension "time for everything." It's all about using the additional dimensions as perceptions of "time" by changing states.

[danny53x]

Re: IQ

I tried the IQ test Reach posted. It seems better than most of the junk out there ]:

[ieatyourlvllol]

Re: IQ

This thread is going in all sorts of directions...

People don't realize how easy they have it. I feel like nobody really understands the context of my situation, and it's very isolating. So in some sick way my arrogance is a cry for help or desire for some kind of acknowledgment or understanding for what I've done in life.

I had always figured there was some underlying force, though I didn't imagine it had such extent. Having not been subjected to such circumstances, I can't really empathize, but I can at least offer an understanding of the arrogance. I suppose it's a justified complex, especially when it manifests via internet, which provides the dual convenience of social access and pseudo-anonymity.

What bothers me is that some people either ignore evidence that they are wrong, or are simply unable to understand the evidence.

I think the problem is often that they're so focused on establishing a reputation of credibility (or perhaps maintaining a longstanding one) that they basically remove admission of fault from their list of options. It's particularly prevalent on forums, where all people have to judge you by are your posts. Consequently, first impressions are paramount. If you leave someone a bitter afterimage, they usually use it as a filter to judge subsequent posts, and the shadow just grows exponentially. Since most people don't like to admit they're wrong, trying to convince them that they've unjustly branded you tends to put them even further on the offensive, which only exacerbates the situation. For the most part, people are much more willing to bestow approval than to acknowledge defeat. Thus, as I'm sure you're aware of, in many forums, it's not so much about intelligence and evidence as it is about adaptation and tact. It's a bit bothersome, yes, but that's just the way it is.

I'm trying to work a bit at being more humble, since I tend to get carried away from time to time. As most of my arrogance stems from bitterness and jealousy, I have to remember that while my situation has sucked, I have a decent life right now that many, many others would love to have, and so I have to be thankful and humble for my good luck.

At least you're aware of it and have reasons to back it up. It's a shame that your foray into FFR/ODI forumgoing went the way it did. You've definitely toned it down several notches since then (though I guess part of it is from no longer having the scores catalyst and whatnot), so most of the drama has faded. That is, at least on the FFR side of things; ODI, unfortunately, is much more unforgiving (but in your case it's not like there's anything worth salvaging anyways).

tl;dr - the explanation cleared things up a lot

[MrRubix]

Re: IQ

ieat: Thing is, I feel the online aspect is only a small part of it. I can blast off at people online because I can simply vent and get away with it -- if I don't want to see that person again, I don't have to. In real life, I have to be a bit more constructive and reserved with how I interact with people I strongly disagree with.

Like, I was damn-near ready to kill my Finance group. I never called them retarded like I might have done online, but rather just became more and more frustrated. They seemed to favor groupthink at the expense of accuracy. It's like trying to explain to someone, "If I drop this apple, it will fall to the ground" only to have a few people go "Ehhh, I think that's wrong. It'll probably go up." I can rant and rave with a billion examples and proofs as to why they're wrong, but it doesn't seem to matter. I can't imagine any other reason as to why people would still insist their incorrect way is right unless they're stupid. Of course, nobody wants to be called stupid, and by doing so, you come across as arrogant. My group was losing points on **** THEY were getting wrong, and they just kept ignoring my contributions. Even if it's about maintaining credibility... I mean, who are they fooling? They're obviously wrong -- the proof was in the score, the explanations, the class, etc.

As for the FFR/ODI thing, I just had to come to realize that it's impossible to win an argument with stupid people who enjoy bandwagoning. Ah well. My time spent trolling and getting people riled up didn't help much either. I don't play anymore so it isn't a big deal.

[danny53x]

Re: IQ

So when's Omnipwn Tricore?

[Zageron]

Re: IQ

First time I took the test I got 134.
I took this test again and got 126.

The last 4 questions are REALLY confusing. x.x

[Ice wolf]

Re: IQ

Errr, that video clearly indicates that he agrees time is NOT a dimension by itself, i.e. the 4th dimension is how we 3d creatures experience time, but that doesn't make the 4th dimension "time for everything." It's all about using the additional dimensions as perceptions of "time" by changing states.

I probably am wrong. As I said, I'm not most well versed in these ideas.

We should probably start talking about IQ again anyway, so here are some more tests from Reach: http://webs.ono.com/iqtests/

[mhss1992]

Re: IQ

I really don't believe in a God, nor do I think there is a dimension that contains or IS God. Having such a thing doesn't really explain anything. I mean, although it's valid to ask, "Where did everything COME from?", which may include this 10th-dimensional framework, simply adding a creator doesn't really solve the problem of the initial question. Under the 10th dimension theory, what role can God possibly play? The 10 dimensions alone contain all universal outcomes anyway, and so if there is a God, he isn't doing a whole lot.

It's not related to the thread, but I'll answer anyway.

You are probably considering the theist conception of God.
Well, I am a deist. God doesn't have to "do" anything, if the physical laws are the way they are, they are supposed to work by themselves. The human problems are supposed to be solved by the humans.
I believe in god simply because I think everything is too intelligent, and because I have logical proof that my mind is not going to disappear, but it would be insanely frustrating to try to show it in this forum. Anyway, I don't believe in any dogmas, I just believe in an intelligence.

[MrRubix]

Re: IQ

It's not related to the thread, but I'll answer anyway.

You are probably considering the theist conception of God.
Well, I am a deist. God doesn't have to "do" anything, if the physical laws are the way they are, they are supposed to work by themselves. The human problems are supposed to be solved by the humans.
I believe in god simply because I think everything is too intelligent, and because I have logical proof that my mind is not going to disappear, but it would be insanely frustrating to try to show it in this forum. Anyway, I don't believe in any dogmas, I just believe in an intelligence.

What, then, is your opinion of the concept of evolution and mutation and natural selection as it applies to intelligence? Are you an intelligent design advocate?

In my opinion I feel like we do not need a God to explain anything.