Before I had a chance to read the opinions of all these smart people about
intelligence-related ideas (with inclusion of most of the mental
capbilities the huamn-like 'minds' may produce) and dissecting those
'ideas' in due course,
I started out from ethymology: intelligence ('is?) "inter - lego", I read
between the lines (the expressed words) and include sometimes unrelated
connotations into something. That was long ago. Then. after some more
thinking, it dawned on me that for such eviscerating of hidden connotations
into a wider meaning, one must have a good memory and connective capability
together with logic (any? mostly common sense) extended over a wide variety
of wordly knowables.
I tried to name all these paraphernalia by their special noumena, leaving
the darn 'intelligence' to the core connectivity-based understanding -
whatever that is worth.
It simplifies the dictionary, even for an agnostic. No "science/religion"
involved.
I could expand the term from 'everyday's life topics' into music, in some
cases into geometry, I leave the application in arithmetics to Bruno.
Just a different view.
JM
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 1:44 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 3/20/2015 12:57 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:24 AM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 20 March 2015 at 12:31, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/19/2015 3:54 PM, LizR wrote:
>>>
>>> On 20 March 2015 at 10:56, Kim Jones <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Clark is that desperate order of human whose only creative ability lies
>>>> in shitting on the thinking of others. He is quite simply bereft of any
>>>> thinking of his own and has clearly never once in gis life experienced a
>>>> creative idea - even by accident. He is therefore exists only as a parasite
>>>> on the back of others since he lacks the means to exist as a thinker in his
>>>> own right.
>>>>
>>>> This might be of interest...
>>>
>>> http://writersfestival.co.nz/events/the-role-of-the-critic/
>>>
>>> I wonder why only art needs critics?
>>>
>>
>> Science has peer review etc, sport and business have commentators, and
>> so on. I think you'll find there are critics in most fields.
>>
>
> A fundamental difference in science is that peer reviewers are other
> scientists, working on their own research.
>
>
> And also their critiques go to the producer, not to the public he's
> addressing.
>
> Brent
>
>
> There are no professional critics in science.
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected].
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
