Who is the Greatest Genius Ever?

The highest mind to have inhabited earth is certainly a wondrous examination to spring into debate. We’ve been gifted with extremely marvelous thinkers from many walks of life, and yet, there’s very wide ranging opinions on who the smartest of them all was. From Einstein, Nietzsche, George Lucas, Michio Kaku, Stephen Hawking, and so forth, the diverse pool of talent that we have to choose from of who we revere most dearly is a charmingly inviting question to entertain.

viewtopic.php?f=25&t=194933&p=2727105#p2727105

viewtopic.php?f=25&t=194933

As the above quote from the thread/post linked above called “My best guesses on a couple potential sock puppets…” that forum member Ecmandu entails, I pick Albert Einstein, because his words are electrifying. It wasn’t just science (and even there alone, Einstein may surpass da Vinci/Newton), but it’s especially Einstein’s quotes that get redistributed everywhere. He’s like Yoda grounded into the ether of our real life playing field. Einstein’s ruminations are so profound, so mysterious, luminous, and enchanting, that I can’t think of a single person that says things in a more elegant way than he did.

So ya, i think the greatest genius ever is Einstein. Who do you think it is?

Well… I already made a good case for Archimedes, thousands of years ago, he developed two branches of science: physics and chemistry … barring belief in various god myths, Archimedes is by far the person who had the most impact on human history as a whole.

There is an honorable mention though!!

While Einstein was doing his thing… there was a 250 iq prodigy named William James sidis… he was the first person to figure out that dark matter existed and was pushing galaxies apart (not to be confused with black holes)

I like bringing in William James, since he brings in the humanities, social sciences also. I don’t think geius should be restricted to the natural sciences. I’d like to suggest that the greatest genuis might have a very hard time getting noticed by society at large, since their genius might be hard, even for very smart people, to bridge to. If you can make ap roduct, be an inventor, t his may not matter so much, since your product will be noticed. But if you realize things about the fundamental nature of things or about people and how they relate are, you may just get dismissed.

Spiritual work done is spiritual work done, you don’t need to be famous to do it.

Eventually people will curiously ask “who did all this work”, and then eventually, that person will be famous, but they won’t care about the fame once it comes. All they’ll care about is truth.

many people like the person who first made chocolate, or many chocolate makers for this matter.
But more importantly the person who discovered that if you heat meat it gets really nice. And the person who built the first campfire.

Can Einstein beat that?

Einstein talked about the stove, and related that to relativity. 5 seconds on fire is just as long as 50 minutes in a hot tub. And Einstein did open the chocolate box, or pandora’s box with his famous equation.

The real gem of Einstein is his imagination. He so freely meanders through the cascade of abstract negotiation and farfetched schemata. Nothing is too impossible or groundbreaking for Einstein. The wonders of yesterday are for him are common occurrences for today.

Barbarian horde,

cooking was discovered by every culture on earth, that’s not the same as one dude of of 10 billion discovering something novel.

Okay okay, fine.

Back to Einstein and Archimedes.

And what if it was a woman?

How philosophers are ranked

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194688

I’d say Aristotle, because he profoundly revolutionized so many fields of inquiry, from physics and biology to logic and ethics to economics and politics, for two millennia.

Jesus, because he overcame every obstacle, all adversity, resisted temptation of the most extreme measures, and rewrote the bonds of time.

To work that hard, to be that invincible, indomitable, and unstoppable would take willpower of the highest measure.

Therefore, My new choice is Jesus.

Serge A. Storms

I have to go with Moses now because it was his genius that allowed all these geniuses of yours to be born.

actually the correct answer is John von Neumann…
who Einstein said was a quite a bit smarter then he was…

Kropotkin

It could actually be Toni Victor Moldovan, who wrote “The Terra Program”.

It’s a Romanian document about galactic super civilizations, God’s interdimensional cruiser having flora and fauna, arboretums, a lake of fire as a nuclear furnace soul destroyer, a tree of life, a river of life, and so forth.

The question is based on what defines great genius. The degree to which metrics of genius can be objective seems limited. The first basic problem with “genius” is that it could be broadly defined as encompassing two types of people. A genius could be one with holistic abstract intelligence, and a genius could be someone who leads discovery in specific domains of knowledge. Early philosophers are known for their broad domain of knowledge, while current “geniuses” are most often recognized for discoveries within specific branches of science.

But, I’d much prefer to expand on areas of applications conscious that have been less thoroughly considered. Given a specific person, what is it they want in comparison to what is it that they achieve. Many geniuses are quite miserable because they expect much more than they accomplish. For each complex problem domain space, how efficient is the person at solving each of those problem domains? For problem domains involving factors of uncertainty or confidence, how accurately can a person make predictions within each of those problem domains?

Genius implies specific goals in specific problem domains that are metrics that can be measured with such concepts as an IQ test. However, if a genius is miserable, you have to ask the question, “If you’re such a genius, why can’t you resolve your own misery?”. That is why genius splits into holistic intelligence and specific domain intelligence.

Specific problem domains seem to take precedence, in which case “genius” is a biased version of intelligence. For example, the people who can memorize phone books may not considered as genius as the people who memorize and apply physics formulas even if the memorization takes the same level of complexity.

Next, you have information capabilities of a human brain. Some people have the ability to watch two TV shows at once. Comparing this to someone who can memorize a phone book, you are not comparing apples to apples. But by necessity, you may need to find a way to compare apples to oranges to compare two people’s holistic intelligence. The challenge would be akin to saying “is this apple better at being an apple than this orange is at being an orange”?

“Genius” is also very closely tied with “intelligence”. Do you wish to define genius as being a certain magnitude of intelligence? Or, does genius instead require a specific subset of intelligence as a quality?

Finally, I’d note that qualities having little to do with a human brain’s calculation ability such as patience, persistence, and even tolerance could be factors of genius. There are many different factors which go beyond “book smarts” which cause people to discover new science. Someone’s ability to learn from others as a social skill could come into play for example. Interesting question!

Hello
Let me add some cents

Genius is a concept quite closely related to “genere”, Latin for bringing forth, birthing, generate.

A flawed but useful definition of genius is: the ability to create something (as) out of nothing.

People are considered genius who come up with stuff that is both useful and unpredictable, things that aren’t available by mere deductive methods. Genius I would say always involves a high degree of inductive skills.

God’s genius, in a parable or analogy, is to have created the world from nothing. This creative genius or, as William Blake calls it, poetic genius (poesis : creative power) pervades our world and is manifest in many of its beings, only few of whom are theoretical thinkers.

Pretty sure it’s me.