Is it possible to grasp concepts almost regardless of an IQ?

1 Feb 2005

Quote by zootle
Actually, and with increasing despair on my part, NO. Some people just never quite get some things.
Consider Shrodinger's Cat - there are some for whom it just never sinks in.

I tried to do that experiment once. After a few days I thought I'd better check on the poor cat, see just where it was between dead or alive. However, when I opened the box which should have contained a dead/alive cat I was somewhat startled to discover it had, at some point, quite clearly turned into a small china tea set.

:rotflmao: :rotflmao:
/Venus, trying hard not to make martie depair :uhoh:
Venusxxx

1 Feb 2005

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

1 Feb 2005

Bilko, my dad said he`s going to beat you up! evil

Venusxxx

1 Feb 2005

Quote by VenusnMars
Bilko, my dad said he`s going to beat you up!
Venusxxx

1 Feb 2005

Quote by cool4catz
You've all got it wrong, the idea is that if you could see in 4 dimensions you would see time. Therefore a "cat" as a 4 dimensional object is everthing from when it was conceived to when it dies - the reason it looks a bit like a carrot is because as it gets older it gets bigger (At least to start with)
Of course this image ignores the fact that the cat moves about so maybe a 4 dimensional cat would look more like a timelapse photo of car headlights as it would exist in every place it had been in its entire life.
Roger the Dragon

I don't go along with that. Seeing a two-dimensional object in three dimensions does not allow you to see the entire duration of its existence. Besides, the matter that the cat is composed of exists before it is born and continues to exist after it dies, so you would see more than just the cat.
Surely time is the first dimension, not the fourth dimension? Nothing can exist without time, and therefore even one-dimensional and two-dimensional objects need to include time as a dimension?
Did you have to reply? :confused: lol

The matter of seeing the whole existance depends on whether time is transparent or opaque - if you view a two dimensional glass tumbler in 3 dimensions you can see the entire object. As far as viewing the matter that makes up the cat after the cat has died - I was considering the cat to be a singular entity and therefore to have a distinct temporal start and end.
As far as which is the first dimension that surely irrelevant as numbers are merely a human way of quantifying abstract concepts - the dimensions of space and time still exist even to someone who cannot count.
Roger the Dragon 8-)

1 Feb 2005

Quote by VenusnMars
Venus, trying hard not to make martie depair :uhoh:

How does one depair?? Is that what you do to socks when you put them in the wash?? confused

:? :? :? :? :? :? :? wink

1 Feb 2005

Quote by rogerthedragon
You've all got it wrong, the idea is that if you could see in 4 dimensions you would see time. Therefore a "cat" as a 4 dimensional object is everthing from when it was conceived to when it dies - the reason it looks a bit like a carrot is because as it gets older it gets bigger (At least to start with)
Of course this image ignores the fact that the cat moves about so maybe a 4 dimensional cat would look more like a timelapse photo of car headlights as it would exist in every place it had been in its entire life.
Roger the Dragon

I don't go along with that. Seeing a two-dimensional object in three dimensions does not allow you to see the entire duration of its existence. Besides, the matter that the cat is composed of exists before it is born and continues to exist after it dies, so you would see more than just the cat.
Surely time is the first dimension, not the fourth dimension? Nothing can exist without time, and therefore even one-dimensional and two-dimensional objects need to include time as a dimension?
Did you have to reply? :confused: lol

The matter of seeing the whole existance depends on whether time is transparent or opaque - if you view a two dimensional glass tumbler in 3 dimensions you can see the entire object. As far as viewing the matter that makes up the cat after the cat has died - I was considering the cat to be a singular entity and therefore to have a distinct temporal start and end.
As far as which is the first dimension that surely irrelevant as numbers are merely a human way of quantifying abstract concepts - the dimensions of space and time still exist even to someone who cannot count.
Roger the Dragon 8-)
Can`t someone do Kant?! :shock:
Bilko, you are not taking this at all seriously are you? :dry:
Venusxxx

1 Feb 2005

Quote by VenusnMars
Bilko, you are not taking this at all seriously are you? :dry:

Too many long words for me!! confused

:? :?

1 Feb 2005

Quote by VenusnMars
Can`t someone do Kant?! :shock:
Venusxxx

From what I can gather it is an argument that moral laws should be worked out purely by reason rather than by considering actual experience as all experience is subjective.
Roger the Dragon confused

1 Feb 2005

Then Kant was an intellectual minnow too.
I`m happy now :mrgreen:
Venusxxx

1 Feb 2005

Quote by VenusnMars
I`m happy now :mrgreen:

Oh good !! Does that mean we can, errm ....................................................... bolt

1 Feb 2005

No. I`m not tired yet :twisted:
Venusxxx

1 Feb 2005

Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.

1 Feb 2005

Quote by VenusnMars
No. I`m not tired yet :twisted:
Venusxxx

I am. :sleeping:
Good night. biggrin

Roger.

1 Feb 2005

Guys!!!!! Come back!!! Don't leave me on my own with her!!! :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:
She'll start talking about dynamics and time travel and things!! confused

:? :? :? :? :?

1 Feb 2005

Which is why we're leaving you two to it.
Enjoy. :giggle:
Goodnight sgt kiss

:therethere:
Goodnight Venus hun :kiss: Do your worst... :lol2:

1 Feb 2005

Night pet

So Sarge. Morality. Objective or subjective? confused

: :mrgreen:
Venusxxx

1 Feb 2005

But........... but........................... but................... :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

1 Feb 2005

:whistling: :whistling:
Venusxxx

1 Feb 2005

Morality -
Surely it is objective according to Kant's reasoned description of the Categorical Imperative.
This makes sense as a subjective morality allows us all to decide what we want to do, making societal cohesion impossible.

1 Feb 2005

Quote by martie
Morality -
Surely it is objective according to Kant's reasoned description of the Categorical Imperative.
This makes sense as a subjective morality allows us all to decide what we want to do, making societal cohesion impossible.

Yet if extending morality is to cater for other people`s feelings, which are by nature subjective, then surely pure reason would not apply? Morality alone would dictate that we do not do what we want to do, we would let feeling determine this, not reason.
Venusxxx

1 Feb 2005

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
No!!! You've started her off again!!!! :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: lol

:lol: :lol: :lol:

1 Feb 2005

Quote by Sgt Bilko
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
No!!! You've started her off again!!!! :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Perhaps it would be prudent at this point to highlight the differences between irrational and subjective?
Eg. A good example of subjective would be any of the posts I make when I am trying to think. A good example of irrational would be the above quote. :mrgreen:
Venusxxx

1 Feb 2005

Quote by Sgt Bilko
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
No!!! You've started her off again!!!! :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :lol: :lol: :lol:

uuummmmm . . . does that mean i better bin the carefully researched and well argued essay i was just about to post to keep venus busy then? dunno

sorry venus, best pop off to bed then! :P
n x x x x ;)

1 Feb 2005

Whereas a good example of a rectal inhabitant would be Mr Leeds. rolleyes

Venusxxx

1 Feb 2005

Quote by Sgt Bilko

YES!!! I`ve reduced him down to one emoticon! :bounce: :thrilled: :evil2: :taz: :karaoke: :smug:
I now feel like I`ve acheived something!
Goodnight! :mrgreen:
Venusxxx

1 Feb 2005

Damn and blast!! See what you miss when you decide to have an early night?!
Right -I'll be back to this one when I come back from doing things in the real world for a bit.
eeeek!!!!! I am venturing into the real world!!! :shock: :shock: Putting on a suit and meeting other people who are not SH people. Not sure I can cope with that all in one go!! confused

1 Feb 2005

Yes, I think that any concept can be conveyed - regardless of the recipients IQ (within reason!!). However, the question is really how much would I have to generalise and chunk up in order for the concept to be understood..
Popular science books are a great example of this - they take the deeply complex and largely mathematical theories and "translate" them into layman's terms and illustrate with everyday analogy.
I think the art of it would be to convey the concept with diluting it to such a degree that is could not be usefully used by the recipient or that the "concept" was now so full of holes that it was largely incorrect...
My $ worth... rolleyes

1 Feb 2005

Thankyou Ghostie smile

Well, after reading up on what Philosophy actually is, I`m not entirely convinced the subject leaves much room for common sense...... :uhoh:
Venusxxx