It’s never too late to take a few short courses in the relevant industry you want to work in, and get a job in it… that’s what intelligence is… finding a way.
OR simply “problem solving” (not problem making and discussing).
That seems a bit narrow minded James. Are you saying gamers are smarter than programmers, even though the programmers program the puzzles for the gamers to solve? By virtue of solving the puzzle, you are saying that is what intelligence is, even though it takes both intelligence to solve and to make the puzzle, sometimes more intelligence to make the puzzle. And lets not forget the critics, you are saying James, that game critics do not use intelligence when they discuss games, because it is only a discussion. But reality says that discussion is also intelligence.
UP1001 is correct.
Puzzle making is more intelligent and difficult than problem solving. Philosophers are notorious problem “makers”, not problem solvers per se. This is why most people do not understand, and just routinely fail at, philosophy. Philosophy is more about creating problems than it is preventing or solving problems.
Solving problems is the scientific ideal, not the philosophical ideal. Philosophers create the biggest puzzles, mysteries, mythology, everything. Philosophers create the gods. Scientists try to understand the philosophers. And religions only pledge fealty and loyalty to the gods, produced for them.
Afraid not.
Trouble making is quite easy for the same reason chaos/entropy is easier than order, and in fact, are the same thing. Entropy can be generated by mindless creatures merely in sufficient number (such as ILP members) merely acting on or babbling their mindlessness (“discussing”).
To “make a puzzle” implies that one has a specific goal in mind. And to achieve that goal is “problem solving”.
No, it’s the difference of genius.
The man who created the idea of the Rubix Cube is a genius. Those who solve the Rubix Cube, are not necessarily, geniuses.
The creation of the Rubix Cube demonstrates true, undisputed intellect. Solving the Rubix Cube, another man’s puzzle, like completing another man’s IQ test, does not necessarily prove intelligence.
Creating the cube was “solving a problem/puzzle”. It wasn’t accidentally formed.
James, you lose this argument.
Creating a rubix cube was creating a problem, problem making, the problem didn’t exist, it was created from things. He created the problem of the problem.
It takes intelligence to understand intelligence.
You try to construct a rubric’s cube type of puzzle and see if you don’t feel a bit taxed for intelligence because of the challenge of trying to accomplish the goal (resolve the problem at hand).
The fact that the result is a puzzle for others is irrelevant. Problems for others can be created trivially by every child, especially if they are of low intelligence.
You are desperately clawing trying to save your argument.
I already stated, that the original problem of the rubix cube was created…they created the rubix cube problem in the first place.
You are desperately drawing for straws to save an argument which embarasses you.
Except, that the breakthroughs come not when seeking specific goals, but in changing general rules, witch have outlived their usefulness. They will have future multi fold applications, perhaps someday, if not now.
THe reason that you are wrong James, and we are not, is because you already stated in your argument that problem solving was intelligence. We agreed with that. We also agree that creating puzzles, is solving the problem of wanting to make a puzzle. But it is also creating a problem, creating a puzzle, inherently so, so you’re wrong.
I am not wrong. You are merely stretching meanings so as to make an argument over this:
Problem making does not define intelligence. Problem solving does.
The problem must first be defined, or made, in order to be discerned. Problem making is a needed component of intelligence. If someone cannot see a problem, they cannot solve a problem. To an animal (or buddhist), getting a machine to work is no problem, the human makes the problem.
Discussion, both internal and external, is part of Wu take no action philosophy, a needed component of sane and rational deliberation, which is mighty fine and quite intelligent.
The ability to discern a problem is a part of intelligence. But that has nothing to do with making a problem, merely identifying it.
I didn’t say that discussion of problems wasn’t rational. I said it isn’t a part of intelligence, although it would be nice and polite if more intelligence was included in discussions.
No idea what he meant, but I can see where one can look at setting goals as making problems, problematizing something. Many problems we react to and then try to solve them. But other problems we create. How can I write a great sonnet? Might there be a way to store things in a house in something that is neither a closet or a piece of furniture? (a couple of examples off the top of my head) The latter could come out of an already existing negative or it could simply be a self-created challenge. Much interesting intellegence focuses on this kind of problem creation. Solving things that no one has even complained about. (there are horrible versions of this, of course, like the whole GMO fiasco) I say complained to emphasize that we are not reacting, even to our own negative experience of a problem, but creating a problem and then trying to solve it.
Your passions create the problems that require your intelligence to solve. Your passions choose to want for X or Y. Then your intelligence is invoked so as to get to the chosen goal - “solve the problem that you chose”.
The Buddhist attitude is to back off of trying to use your intellect until you learn to stop wanting uncontrollably. Afterward, your intelligence can see clearly and become much greater than it could ever have been while still in the clouds of desires, urges, wants, complaints, and reactions.
OK, I can accept that rephrasing despite what is coming.
Yes, the Buddhists create a problem and then seek to solve it. They attribute the source of problems to desire (I’ll focus there) and then seek to solve what they now consider the problem by techniques used to detach the connection with the desires. Their solution is also the result of desire and attracts certain temperments more than other temperments, temperments that like things a certain way and hence problematize those portions of themselves that do not fit with this ideal.
Others problematize other portions of the self. There are also approaches that do not do this.
Well, if there is a war between one’s intellect and desires or the ego and desires, urges and wants, to such a degree one cannot function, some approach will help. That it has to be the Buddhist one seems to me just one way of problematizing the situation and one chosen due to certain desires, often ones in the negative.
There are other approaches and I am not impressed by the range of creative intelligence by Buddhists in general. There are some poets and painters and surely some scientists who have Buddhaed there way to some really good work, but in general I don’t see that much to admire. In the end things are fine to a Buddhist and this runs counter to problem solving. They posit the problem internally and this affects their interest in solving outer problems or creating beauty even.
The deeper problems arise when your goal is to have no goal at all.
There are better solutions for the problem of being over reactive or emotional, but for a variety of reasons, a bit pointless to discuss it.