June 28, 2006

Matoko Chan - Shivers

I've watched too many "Japanese anime" shows that used "chan". Aziz might be getting a bit too cute here. Shivers down the spine, cute.

Aziz: irrelevant. he is talking about math at the 2+2 level as being more real than abtractions about the real number line

Great, here we go with spiritual vs empiricism again.

Science, in using inductive logic, bases itself on empiricism. Philosophy, and religions that deal with Revealed Truth and other truths, are operating on both levels, the inductive and deductive logics. But mostly on deductive logic, things that must be true rather than things that are "probably true".

Science can no more make conclusions based upon what they can't see as humans can avoid being blinded by the sun. Scientists are limited by what they can see and sense. Philosophers reach beyond the physical level, and trace it all back to the a prioris. If this, then that. While science does it back wards. If I see this, then it was that.

Matoko: but theorems and postulates are structure.

They are a posteriori, and science plus religion all use a posterioris. Ridiculous to suggest that science and religion/philosophy is inherently based upon a superior to inferior level. The basic fundamentals and building blocks are the same. It'd be like saying Iron (science) is superior to uranium (philosophy) because uranium is rarer.

Aziz: you don't need a shared language you need to explain why higher math is important and what makles it useful even though it is abstraction

Matoko: but how can i explain that? it is like explaining higher math to a dog!

Aziz: no it isn't. he's a human being not a dog. and someone had to one day say, hey let's take math beyond 2+2, what was their rationale?

Explaining that things like Good and Evil exist on a non-material non-physical plane of existence, independent of human existence, is not easy nor should people actually do it. Understanding comes from within, and Matoko obviously understands that but does not apply it to religion or philosophy.

However, I think that the conversation illustrates the difference between high IQ and high g.

I think it illustrates that intelligence is tri-luminary. IQ=innate problem solving, wisdom=true understanding, and knowledge=data learned in life. It is all linked. People without the knowledge, can solve the enigma and understand it. But if you can solve problems, but don't have wisdom nor the knowledge (of how to do it), then you won't know.

A sensei could have a great and talented student in the martial arts, but does that mean the student has a true understanding of what he has learned? Does that mean the student has an automatic access to the "knowledge" that long term training would give him as his skill increases? No. IQ can't be increased, since I am refering to Intelligence Quotient, not the test. So in this sense, IQ for me is G for others, innate intelligence and talents. The potential.

M looks like she knows the math, as a piece of knowledge and skill. She also looks like she has a high natural intelligence, born of the genes. What she lacks, is wisdom, true understanding. The ability to piece it all together, so that it means something. Knowledge about car mechanics is knowledge about car, and only, car mechanics. True understanding of car mechanics is true understanding of humans as well. Thus someone with a HIGH Iq innate intelligence are better at both knowledge retention and wisdom comprehension. But neither is guaranteed.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home