ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

What is Intelligence?

Updated on March 13, 2013


We’ve all heard of these popular claims:

“We have limited intuition. Only God can understand everything.”

Collectively we know a trillionth of what there is to know... we still are in the dark of intelligence.”

“We humans are mere ignorant mortals. Our intelligence is extremely limited. There may be an alien race out there that has Super-Intelligence and knows all the intricate details of the Universe. And they could have the technology to Time-Travel to Earth at any moment and take over our planet.”

Ever wonder why these often-parroted claims are never accompanied by justifying arguments? Do they sound plausible to you? Why or why not?

As this article will explain, such statements are often parroted by people who have no answers to the questions which make or break their arguments. Hence, they are quick to inject the mystery of “limited intelligence” into the conversation in order to save their argument from instant death. There are even folks out there who claim that we humans are utterly confused because the Universe is so complex. Just because they are confused they shouldn’t assume that others are as well. If these folks had bothered to educate themselves to understand the difference between an object and a concept, they may have a chance at understanding the root of their confusion. But for many folks out there, confusion, ignorance, complexity and mysticism provide a sense of comfort and security.

Does intelligence have physical limits, like a border of sorts?

Can a God be more intelligent than us?

Is there a possibility for Super-Intelligent aliens in the Universe?

Is it possible to quantify intelligence with an IQ test?

Was Albert Einstein a genius?

Let’s examine these and other issues in detail.


The Universe may “seem” extremely complex to us. Almost everyone assumes that humans have limited intellect and can never hope to understand the workings of the Universe. If we hypothesize a God who created the Universe, could He not communicate in our language all the intricate workings of the Universe? Would we not understand His teachings? What is it that could possibly prevent us from understanding anything in reality, even with the proper instruction? Is it possible for other intelligent life in the Universe or even for God to have superior intellect compared to us petty humans?

Q: What is the physical limiting barrier for intelligence? Is it some barrier where information can’t get through?

A: None! There is no barrier when it comes to learning and understanding (ignoring any medical issues of the brain).

It is our sensory system which has limits because of its physical bandwidth response to sensory stimuli. Fortunately, our intellect has no such limits. Our intellect is not predicated on external stimuli. We are in full control over our intellect. We can conceive of anything and most certainly can understand anything that God can explain to us. Intellect has no physical bandwidth limitations like our senses do.

Why not?

Because intellect is a dynamic concept! Intellect is an action that WE perform with the atoms of our brain. Intellect is not an object, like our retina, which responds to external stimuli from light and thus has a physical bandwidth limit (i.e. frequency response or detail resolution). Objects have physical limits; concepts don’t. Concepts are the relations or interactions between objects. Intelligence is first and foremost a concept or verb; an activity that is mediated by the interactions of atoms in our brain. It is our brain biology that is responsible for mediating this verb we call “intelligence”. So the fundamental question to ask all the skeptics out there is:

Q: What limits could such atomic interactions (brain activity) possibly have? I mean, atoms do indeed interact with each other via surface-to-surface contact and signal transmission. What else could they possibly do above and beyond that? What else could an atom do to another atom other than physical interaction, which would lead to an alleged increase in intelligence? Anyone???

These are the critical questions which, when answered, make or break the “limited intelligence” claim put forth by the skeptic. And these are the issues that people fail to understand because they never sat down to critically analyse the concept of intelligence. So it’s no wonder why Religion has enjoyed the prosperity it has had here on Earth. And it looks like it will enjoy it forever more! Your Priest will always tell you that we humans have limited intellect because us mortals cannot possibly understand the mysteries of the Universe. God works in mysterious ways. Most people (theists, atheists, brights, secularists, freethinkers, objectivists, etc.) will memorize this by rote and chant it like a mantra in forum discussion all over the Internet. Only God (or insert other authority) can understand the Universe because of His superior intellect. This is why we need to trust in gods, authorities and celebrities. Actually your Priest or Figure of Authority is telling you to trust in him. So you’ve just been bamboozled without even realizing it.

Intellect is a dynamic concept that is ultimately subject to the process by which atoms in our brain interact to mediate the activity we call comprehension/understanding. Intelligence facilitates understanding via the process our brain performs when relating the objects of our experience and identifying patterns and utility of application. These associations are called “concepts”. There are only objects out there in our environment (i.e. Universe). All of our understanding is ultimately rooted on associating these objects.

The primary purpose of concepts is to allow intelligent beings to form cognitive units of understanding that can be used in the communication of thoughts. Concepts are therefore used to build languages and to provide beings with a system of cognitive classification and organization, which enables them to acquire intelligence on an unlimited scale.

Since this article makes reference to concepts, you may want to visit the article below to understand what a concept is:

Understanding is the process of conceiving of relations between objects or other concepts and being able to apply them in accordance with their specified context of utility. Therefore, understanding has no limitations. Understanding is strictly a thought process which identifies relations between objects and gives meaning and utility to them. Intelligence and understanding go hand-in-hand. If you can understand the Mathematical relationships of the concepts in Calculus and apply them towards solving problems, then you are said to be “intelligent in Calculus”.

Let’s consider God and His alleged infinite intelligence. If God can understand it Himself and explain it to us, then so can we! There is no reason why God can understand how He created space & matter, and we cannot....this is just an excuse to create mysticism and spread a Religion to establish a following.

All animals have intelligence, otherwise they wouldn’t be able to hunt and do other activities to support their lives and their offspring. Even a cat can associate the objects: mouse, ground and herself with the concepts: chase, catch, eat and “live another day”. So when we say that we are more intelligent than animals, what we are actually saying is that we have the capability to conceive of and utilize many more concepts than animals do.

As living entities we are similar to cats, but we are no longer confined to just hunting for food. Our usage of concepts has evolved along with us to facilitate language, education, societies, culture, jobs, etc. Furthermore, the evolution of our social worth has led to the explosive emergence and utilization of even more concepts that are applicable to the anthropocentric utility of our era. For example, our technology, computers, financial economy, national structure, laws, taxation, etc. has led us to establish new relations of concepts and even abstract concepts to support applications in these new domains. Hence our collection, understanding and utilization of concepts (i.e. intelligence) goes above and beyond the cat’s domain of ‘chase’, ‘catch’ and ‘eat’.

And it is these complex interrelations between objects, concepts and even abstract concepts which have led to our mass confusion about what constitutes intelligence and whether it has any limitations. Many will conclude that they don’t have the intelligence to understand how the complex global financial economy works. But that’s not what they mean. They are actually telling you that they have not committed themselves to learn and understand all these inter-woven conceptual relations in this domain of study. Just because they don’t “understand” these complex concepts as of yet, we cannot objectively label them as “less intelligent” than a prestigious PhD and Nobel Prize winner in Global Financial Economics. Is this Nobel winner a “God” with super-wisdom? Is this Nobel winner smarter than the rest of us peasants who can’t ever hope to attain his celebrity status? Obviously not! Any peasant has the intellectual capacity to learn all these complex concepts just as well, if not better, than our prestigious Nobel Prize celebrity. It is impossible to reason why a measly peasant can’t accomplish this in light of the fact that human intelligence has no limitations.

REMEMBER: Intelligence does not bow down or curtsy to whatever idol a human ape wishes to subjectively worship. Mother Nature couldn’t care less about the Nobel Prize beauty pageants humans invent to reward subjectivity. Reality is objective. Reality does not depend on human apes and their petty opinions. If the proponent of an argument can’t rationally justify his claim, then even he doesn’t understand it. So what does the fact that he has a Nobel Prize have to do with intelligence? If the proponent cannot justify why human intelligence is limited, or even why those with prestigious titles and celebrity status have greater intellectual capacity than a mere peasant, then this charlatan has just created a new Religion. And it is quite evident that this Religion is alive and well and with a huge following. I mean, just look at everyone who parrots “we have limited intuition” or “you’re not smarter than the authority XXXXX”; without even being able to justify their trite empty statements.


The word “intelligence” derives from the Latin verb "intelligere" which derives from “inter-legere” meaning to "pick out" or discern.

Indeed, that’s what intelligence involves: the action of discerning relations between objects. We need to perform some action which will have a beneficial mental effect (i.e. understanding) before we can classify ourselves as “intelligent”. This is what the whole realm of human intelligence is ultimately rooted on: picking out relations and applying them in context to their utility.

Intelligence can be rationally defined in no ambiguous terms as follows:

Intelligence: The ability to conceive of concepts and apply them.

Q: For those who still think that a concept such as “intelligence” can have limits, please explain where “physical limits” could fit in the definition of intelligence. If you don’t like this definition, then you are free to provide your own rational definition and use it to answer the question.


Obviously there is no provision for any physical limitation when it comes to intelligence. Remember: all of our understanding and reasoning ability comes from the conception and utilization of concepts. Hence our intelligence is only limited to what we are WILLING to conceive, learn and apply towards the building of our pool of concepts (i.e. intellect). If we don’t want to be any more intelligent, nobody can force us. We don’t have to take those Math courses and learn the relations of Calculus or Algebra. We don’t have to take Grammar courses to learn the relations of words in language. And we certainly don’t need to waste any brain activity to critically reason what objects could mediate the phenomena of light and gravity in the Universe.

But if we want to be more intelligent, then we must force ourselves to do so; we must be proactive! There is no magic pill which gives us intelligence. If people are limiting their participation in this verb which we call “learning”, then what does this subjective behavior have to do with whether intelligence has intrinsic physical limits or not?

Intelligence is a concept with no limits. But as a concept, intelligence requires a mediator. The mediator is YOU, not the person who spoon-feeds you. "Intelligent" is what YOU make of yourself!


Super-Intelligence is a self-refuting notion. Mythical stories of Super-Intelligent beings such as God or aliens are usually uttered in Church bake sales, Atheist Conventions, pseudo-philosophical assemblies and Scientology Conferences. It is impossible for any being in the Universe (including God) to have a superior intellect which no other being can achieve.

If there really is such an assumed superior being (i.e. God, alien, a PhD, a Nobel-decorated Authority or other celebrity) then there is no reason why he can’t rationally explain his proposals. God obviously works with objects in His cosmic shop in the Universe. He allegedly moves objects like planets, moons, stars and atoms around the Universe. He even uses objects as mediators to establish these conceptual relations (i.e. phenomena) we call gravity, light, magnetism and electricity. All of these phenomena are dynamic relations which are mediated by objects. God certainly doesn’t work in mysterious ways by moving “concepts” around. I mean, concepts are relations, so they have no way of moving if they are not entities in and of “themselves”, right? Therefore God should be able to explain to us all the static and dynamic inter-relations between the objects in the Universe. This is how we can understand the internal workings of the Universe. If He can’t explain it, or if He gives us excuses that our intelligence is too limited.....then obviously He is not who He claims to be! He is but another man-made Messiah who is looking to be decorated with a fancy title and establish a following.

If the authority (i.e. Priest, PhD, Nobel-decorated Authority or other celebrity) which we worship (and hang his autographed picture on the wall) cannot explain to us the conceptual details concerning his claims, then he is nothing but a snake-oil salesman! This charlatan has appealed to the HUMAN-ENFORCED dogma of “authority” which emotionally compels every human on this planet to WORSHIP and never question anything. This charlatan has just pulled the wool over our eyes because we have been systematically conditioned to be trite followers and pathetic pushovers for authority.

Unfathomable Super-Intelligence is a myth perpetuated by authorities and special interest groups who have no answers to the questions asked of them. So they raise the stakes by throwing in our face that we mortal humans are so stupid, know so little and will never know everything. And we are expected to believe that this is the reason why the authority can’t answer your questions. And every follower in the audience nods and says: “Yeah, we are but mortals. We cannot be so arrogant as to expect to understand such mysteries!” That’s what everybody has been trained to memorize and parrot from kindergarten to university. Of course, this tactic enables the authority to persuade you into his Religion as a faithful follower. And what’s worse is that you didn’t even have a clue of what just transpired before your very eyes.

Let’s face it, at the end of day we may not fully understand certain aspects of the Universe. But to insinuate that we do not have the capacity or intelligence to understand them if God or someone else explained them to us, is beyond lunacy! Any aspect of the Universe can be understood by humans via the conception and utilization of relations between specific objects. We don’t even need a God to rub his infinite wisdom unto us. We have the intelligence to conceptualize and critically reason the internal workings of the Universe or anything else we set our minds to, all on our very own.


Many authorities in our society, like Priests, Philosophers, Mathematicians and other celebrities, will religiously claim that certain words or ideas cannot be understood by us mortal humans; e.g. God, soul, spirit, immaterial, Heaven, Hell, transcendence, absolute, creation, space, wavicle, time, energy, force, field, dark matter, singularity, spacetime, warped space, before the Big Bang, after the Big Crunch, Quantum Mechanics, Relativity, String Theory, M-Theory, etc. But they won’t hesitate to turn the other cheek and instantly contradict themselves by decreeing their claims as “proven facts of reality which you have to accept!”

Such claims amount to none other than the "We can never hope to know God's mysterious ways....but we know He created the Universe" argument repackaged. This is a popular tactic used by those who have their own agenda to push on the unsuspecting public. If we can never understand these words or ideas, then how the heck do their proponents understand them well enough to be authorities on these issues? Do they have direct access to God’s wisdom and we don’t? This is what they need to answer.

Clearly, something is rotten in Denmark – we are being lied to. The proponent of this tactic has an ulterior motive. He wants you to swallow his argument so he can push his wonderful Religion on you and gain your support, because after all....only he has all the answers.

These proponents have the insatiable fetish to spread the nonsense that there is something humans can't ever understand. But just bring forward the smartest aliens in the Universe or God Almighty Himself. Whatever either explains to us, we WILL understand! Humans have the highest level of intelligence available in the Universe. Mother Nature cannot possibly make us more intelligent than what we already are. Sure, She can give us a better and more powerful sensory system....but this has no relevance on intelligence. We can understand ANYTHING that is explained to us in a rational manner with what we already have. It is only man-made idiocy and irrational garbage claims which we can't understand; and for obvious reasons.

Fortunately, Mother Nature's Universe functions rationally and can be understood. Just like God in His cosmic workshop, the Universe only moves objects around, not concepts! It is the proponents of the “limited intelligence” argument who are irrational, as evidenced by their inability to rationally justify their sweeping statements and resolve their contradictions. These charlatans palmed the “intelligence” card and used their sleight-of-hand to generate mystical assumptions in order to confuse and misdirect us. Their intention is to prevent the instant death of their Theories.

There is no question that we, and all beings like us, have the best “intelligence” Mother Nature can ever give to any being in the Universe....even to God! It is impossible for God’s intelligence to be greater than ours. And there is no limit to our intelligence because we have the capability to understand any concept which is related, defined and explained to us. In the case of aliens we would merely have to go through a learning curve to understand their technology or other concepts just like we go through a learning curve to understand Math, engineering or computer software. All concepts are conceived and associated by man so he is responsible to define what each concept means. If he can’t define or explain it, then he cannot understand it himself! He amounts to nothing but a charlatan or a Priest with an ulterior agenda.

Consider the scenario where a Nobel-decorated Authority invents a new word, say “klamokaptica”. It is very easy to make this word as powerful as God by merely associating tons of mysticism around it. Furthermore, it is even easier to brainwash the whole population of the planet to parrot this word day in and day out for the rest of their lives. How, you ask? By simply using an authority to push this word unto the masses with arguments which appeal to people’s emotions, the unknown, to popularity, to Science, to fantasy, among others. When you ask all these people WHAT “klamokaptica” means....their authorities already trained them to parrot:

“Ummm, duh...our intellect is extremely limited, so we can never understand what “klamokaptica” actually means. It cannot be defined since it is outside the human realm of experience. It’s like asking what is north of the North Pole. But nonetheless, this word is 100% real and reality depends on it. Maybe in the future Science will be more advanced and able to make observations on what this word represents. But for now, you’re just gonna have to ACCEPT this word because it is backed by PhDs, Nobel Prize winners and other people of importance!”

Oh people in this day and age still swallow this BS? How can the human race continue to be this gullible from one generation to the next?

It doesn’t work that way for the rest of us humans who aren’t pushovers for statements from authority. The rest of us have a brain and are critical thinkers. We understand the difference between OBJECTS and CONCEPTS. Please visit the following articles to understand the difference between objects and concepts:

As critical thinkers, we can reason and understand ANYTHING on our own. We simply ask this charlatan to unambiguously define the word “klamokaptica”. We remind him that we are critical thinkers and we explain to him in no uncertain terms that all concepts are defined. Whereas we can either “point to” or illustrate objects and name them. The realm of human intellect is predicated on objects and their relations (i.e. concepts) because the Universe is only comprised of objects. There is no other category besides “object” or “concept”. Obviously, limited knowledge, celebrity status, authority, arm-twisting, etc. plays NO role here. So the charlatan has no other choice but to DEFINE “klamokaptica” in no ambiguous terms for the audience. If he can’t, then he was lying and treating us like fools all along!


Just what is ‘it’ that an IQ test objectively quantifies? What exactly is this incorporeal, timeless and ethereal entity that an IQ test attempts to quantify (i.e. count)? Does the tester actually count something inside our brain and compare our quantity of 120 with our neighbor’s quantity of 150? Does an IQ test count particles of intelligence?

Q: If it doesn’t count any object which exists, then how can an IQ test possibly QUANTIFY the concept of intelligence?

A: An IQ test does not only MEASURES. That’s the distinction!

What is this distinction, you ask?

For those who don’t understand the difference: we quantify by COUNTING; for example, the number of atoms in a person’s brain. We MEASURE by relating the test score tally to a pre-defined standardized table of scores which was agreed upon by a show of hands from an authoritative committee of humans. I mean, we certainly don’t roll a tape measure against the concept of your “intelligence” and tell you that yours is shorter than your neighbor’s? So then, how do we objectively measure intelligence?

How about this: since intelligence is the ability to conceive of concepts and apply them, why don’t we just score on how many concepts an individual can understand and apply towards solving problems in a given time?

Indeed, this is exactly what an IQ Test attempts to do.

Q: So then, what’s the problem? I mean, we do have an objective way of quantifying (via scores) the IQ of individuals which corresponds directly to the definition of “intelligence”, right?

A: Wrong! IQ tests to do not quantify intelligence. They merely relate (i.e. measure) scores against a pre-defined standard. Only quantifying (i.e. counting) entities, like marbles, is objective. Measuring (i.e. relating to a standard) is always subjective.

Even still, there is NO meaningful way to measure (i.e. relate) and rank the intelligence of an individual. IQ tests always have built-in biases, statistical extrapolations, subjective standards, time limitations and outright sweeping assumptions about which concepts a so-called “intelligent” individual SHOULD have experience with. It is impossible to make IQ tests and their scores meaningful because it is impossible to apply pre-defined standards to any specific individual.

What makes IQ tests next to worthless is the fact that people naturally come from various walks of life. Some may have experience in concepts such as math, sequences, patterns, etc. Others may not. Does that make them less intelligent? Can’t those who scored lower understand such concepts under the same conditions of experience as those individuals who scored higher? Obviously, there is no rational argument as to why they can’t; other than that they don’t wish to do so. So that doesn’t mean that these folks are less intelligent. It just means that these folks were not exposed to such concepts or don’t have extensive experience and practice applying them. It certainly doesn’t mean that they can’t learn and score just as high as others on an IQ test. If a person who isn’t privileged enough to have an education; wouldn’t they have the capability to increase his IQ score? There is no rational justification of why they couldn’t.

Since IQ tests are based on a subjective set of decreed parameters voted upon by a show of hands, then what do you figure is the meaning of a score of 120 versus one of 190? Does this conclusively certify that the individual who scored 190 is leaps and bounds more intelligent or more capable than the individual who scored 120? In fact, experience has shown us that in many instances the opposite is the case. So how does the IQ Test Committee resolve these dilemmas in their doctrine? They don’t...and neither do they care. When you take an IQ test you are bound to conformity with whatever subjectivity is entailed within that discipline. This is written in the fine print.

The bottom line is that you cannot “out-study” another individual and be more prepared for the IQ test if intelligence was QUANTFIED rather than MEASURED. Just because a peasant hasn’t studied Calculus and Algebra before, doesn’t mean that he isn’t capable to study and get at least a 95% on the exam.

Q: So, what does this tell us about IQ tests and the alleged “measure” of intelligence?

A: Intelligence is a concept. Consequently, it is impossible to quantify. Furthermore, there is no objective way to measure it because it is inevitably predicated upon a pre-voted standard which extrapolates subjective conclusions.


Consider a real-world example: Albert Einstein. This man is typically considered the epitome of incredible genius!


Albert Einstein, a 20th-century symbol of scientific genius”


His great intelligence and originality have made the word "Einstein" synonymous with genius

“his political views emerged publicly in the middle of the 20th century due to his fame and reputation for genius.”


Einstein's brain was removed within seven and a half hours of his death. The brain has attracted attention because of Einstein's reputation for being one of the foremostgeniusesof the 20th century”


“Einstein(someone who has exceptional intellectual ability and originality) e.g. "he's smart but he's no Einstein"

Why is Einstein considered to be even above and beyond the word “intelligent”; i.e. a genius? Just what did this person accomplish that can be qualified as genius? Here are just a few of his best accomplishments:

1) Special Relativity, which is based on 0D photons that are impossible to exist?

2) The dilation of time, which alleges that time is an object that can stretch like an elastic?

3) General Relativity, which is based on space being an aether that can warp and bend like a mattress? According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time." – Albert Einstein

Let’s review Einstein’s alleged status of “genius” once again: Does it take a genius to tell us the nonsense that Einstein’s Theory of Relativity proposed? Who among us is foolish enough to swallow these impossible claims?

1) Does light really consist of zero-dimensional (0D) photon balls that can’t even exist? Relativity clearly fails on this simple test of existence. Einstein even admitted before his death that he didn’t know what light was....was it 0D particles or something else?

2) How can time possibly stretch when time is a CONCEPT? Can we stretch the concept of “intelligence” when, we can’t even quantify it? Time is the relative measure of motion between a minimum of 2 objects and a counting device with memory. If the Universe was comprised of only a single lonely object, there would be no time. In fact, there would be no mass or energy, so E=mc^2 would fail as well. Time does not exist because time is conceptual; i.e. a human-established relation between 3 objects (Sun, Earth, and a counting device with memory).

3) How does one bend space when space is nothing? Space has no boundaries or edges to grab onto and bend; for if it did, then what is outside its edge? More space? If space was an entity on which the Earth rolls on (i.e. Relativity’s gravity well), then we would have been squashed by it a long time ago since we live on the surface of the Earth! Clearly, to allege that space is an entity that warps so the Earth can roll on it, like a ball rolls on a warped mattress is self-refuting.

Obviously Einstein’s intellectual parrots and disciples failed to see the painful lesson a lonely Einstein learned before he died. Of course, the common folk out there aren’t aware of these Scientific details and continue to treat the name Einstein as a synonym of “genius” or “super-intelligence”.

In 1919, in reference to Eddington’s alleged confirmation of his theory, Einstein remarked that his theory was correct. However, he wasn’t as cocky by the time he died. The punchline is that Einstein died as an atheist of his own Religion of Relativity; writing to his friend Besso in 1954 that:

“All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, ‘What are light quanta?’ Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken. … I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, and of the rest of modern physics.” -- Albert Einstein (p. 467) [1]

Anyone who reads the many letters Einstein wrote about his struggle to understand light, space, time and gravity, will conclude that Einstein lost his faith in his own Theory of Relativity, and indeed, in all of Mathematical Physics. He was at least aware that he and all the mathematicians were wrong. Perhaps that only qualifies him as the most “intelligent” Mathematician ever; but that's not a whole lot, is it?

So, was Albert Einstein a GENIUS?

If you read and understood this article you should have no problem providing your own unbiased and critically-reasoned argument. If you like, you can share your answer in the comments section along with your reasoning to support your argument.


There are NO limits to human intelligence or understanding. Our intelligence is directly based on relating objects to facilitate understanding. As such, we have the capability to relate any objects in the Universe in order to fully understand its internal workings.

IQ scores are no different than beauty pageants; they reward human subjectivity rather than anything objective.

There is no mythical Super-Intelligence in the Universe. God and aliens relate the same objects as we do to facilitate understanding. Consequently, they are no smarter than us petty humans.

Contrary to popular folklore, there are NO geniuses among us; there have never been, and there will never be. We are all human....we are all made of the same grain....all our brains function the same, despite the fact that there are many who will venomously oppose these statements, if not this whole article. After all....they have a Religion to protect!

So the next time you hear someone say: “Intelligence is limited”, tell them to take control of their person and learn something instead of bellyaching incessantly.


Submit a Comment

  • profile image

    Oztinao 3 years ago

    yeah I've had a lot of insults from Insane Mundane and I find his comments both insane and mundane......

    Constructive, reals discussions can only take place with logic, ethics and good manners!

  • profile image

    nicholashesed 4 years ago

    I love the spirit of this article. People prey on others by humiliating them with non-sense. God does not intend ignorance or arrogance. Both are pointless.

    The only problem which crossed my mind with your definition is in the mediator, i.e. the brain/atoms of the brain. But the mediator is separated from the definition as a 'referent' I think. We have a limited number of brain atoms, and some have brain damage so this might impede but perhaps not limit???

    I know I am knocking at your door a lot fatfist. Please be patient with me. Your articles are one of the best things to come my way in a while. I've been used and abused intellectually a lot in my life by others. I just want to be free.

  • fatfist profile image

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Predictions are what Astrologers do. Mathematics is a Voodoo Religion that evolved from traditional religion. Most mathematicians are ex-theists because they hate God, so they decided to BELIEVE the almighty doesn't exist. This is their only argument against the God hypothesis. Funny!

    So you see, the whole purview of Mathematics is predicated on religion, astrology, palm reading, guessing, believing, etc. One who doesn't believe in their nonsense is labelled a "crank"....but when you call their religion "idiotic", they get extremely offended and cry like babies.

    A prediction is a description of a future event without error. Obviously there hasn't been a single mathematician who has predicted anything. They all make "guesses".

    I mean, these clowns can't even predict something basic such as the 6 lotto balls coming out of the lotto machine.....nevermind anything out there in the universe. Ha!

  • ScienceOfLife profile image

    ScienceOfLife 5 years ago

    Amazing how empiricists and atheists give lip service to falsifiability only when it suits them, then it becomes irrelevant when they want to hide their irrational claims of zero-d particles, 1d strings, black holes and big bangs.

    Because of course, some of these are 100% accurate and successful "predictions"! The others have MOUNTAINS of evidence to "back them up"...

    Some tell me that you can't falsify Evolutionary Theory, as it's proven, some that you can falsify it, but no one ever will! Derp derp!

  • ScienceOfLife profile image

    ScienceOfLife 5 years ago

    I had someone tell me the other day that Evolutionary Theory was only "successful" because of the predictions it made! What a joke. People are OBSESSED with predictions, it's really weird.

    I kept asking this clown if the actual explanations, while looking at the fossil records of ape and reptile species, would be invalidated by a false prediction of some kind. Oh did he dance and squeal for a while, and yet never retracted his stupid claims (i.e. that theories ARE successful predictions or pragmatic "models", and explanations were just "nice to haves").

    Madness. Wtf do predictions have to do with understanding a past event? I read afterwards that apparently Darwin was influenced by his notorious "Bulldog", Thomas Henry Huxley, an empiricist moron who wanted to bash heads – politics and persuasion. Originally Darwin simply wanted to explain his ideas, that's all. Huxley convinced him to add predictions and "proofs".

    I'm starting to think that the empiricist movement was the primary downfall of all rationality. It's utter madness.

  • Insane Mundane profile image

    Insane Mundane 5 years ago from Earth

    @Otium: I said "blind insults (at least I'm familiar with the territory)," as me and Fatfist go way back and we are both familiar with our kind words; LOL!

  • Otium profile image

    Otium 5 years ago from South of North/ East of West

    @ IM

    "However, you come on here throwing blind insults..."

    Hey now. Don't be a martyr. You didn't exactly enter the conversation gracefully. Your words in your OP:

    "You're a joke!"

    "If everybody thought like you, we would still be in the Stone Age! Go ahead, delete my comment as wanna-be gurus like you,..."

    "You try to keep everything on a monkey level because your poor, strained brain can't grasp anything outside of a visible object; blah!"

    Again...It may behoove you to think before you post.

  • Insane Mundane profile image

    Insane Mundane 5 years ago from Earth

    I enjoyed this exchange of thoughts, the subject matter, etc., but I can't help but ask the clown (ScienceOfLife) that called me an "idiot savant," to back it up. I mean, who are you outside of a sockpuppet?

    I'm actually rather diverse and have a broad range of knowledge and talents, albeit it doesn't mean that I think that I know everything and I'm always willing to learn (although the new-age era of misinformation is quite discouraging). However, you come on here throwing blind insults (at least I'm familiar with the territory) while slinging monkey poo... Get a life!

  • ScienceOfLife profile image

    ScienceOfLife 5 years ago

    Or they decree that an EXPERT told them, or the scriptures, or an alien intelligence (math, god, LSD, energy).

  • fatfist profile image

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Well, everyone has the right to be heard. At least Insane agreed to a civil discussion. And I hope he behaves when he comes back in the future. It doesn't matter if he disagrees, but he is welcome to offer his thoughts, as is everyone else.

    It is the people who don't want to have an honest discussion who ruin it for everyone. You've seen them before....they come here to complain about everything, but offer nothing in return. They decree that everything is wrong. Why? Because they said so!

    A lot of the hubs are turning into circus shows, but I won't let this happen here. I expect those who complain to offer something alternative or just simply refute what is here with an example of where it fails. I am not being unreasonable.

  • ScienceOfLife profile image

    ScienceOfLife 5 years ago

    Now now, Fatfist. Come on. Admit it. This is HILARIOUS! Insane Mundane is the FUNNIEST professional clown we have ever read on the internet; even more hilarious than the Freedomain listeners, William Lane Craig Apologists, or Atheist/Agnostic loonie cults!

    Just stop being such a DOWNER with your... coherent arguments... and rational explanations, ok?

    In fact, Fatfist, I think you OWE this guy a SPECIAL award (or at least a VERY special badge,and humble APOLOGY) for Insane Mundane's work in pushing the boundaries of Hilarious Nonsense. I PERSONALLY hereby nominate Insane Mundane for the elite internet award of:

    Greatest Idiot Savant to Ever To Grace Hubpages, 2012.

    It really is quite a prestigious affair because I (S.O.L the Wise) personally mandate where these kinds of awards go and why. And magical aliens speak to me ALL THE TIME! So listen up, ignore everything Fatfist has to say and tune in to my glossolalia channel.

    That's right. The Great Scientology Aliens speak to me DIRECT. So just cut out the middleman! Insane Mundane is our Saviour, here to bring back comedy and hilarity to a boring, rational earth. The kind of rational, no-nonsense, logically sound kind of earth that BLASPHEMERS like Fatfist want us to live in! Pffff...

    Well I say NO! Enough's enough. It's time to get drunk and forget about making sense. Let us all raise a glass and make a toast to...

    Insane Mundane!

  • Insane Mundane profile image

    Insane Mundane 5 years ago from Earth

    Opinions differ on whether viruses are a form of life, or organic structures that interact with living organisms. They have been described as "organisms at the edge of life," since they resemble organisms in that they possess genes and evolve by natural selection, and reproduce by creating multiple copies of themselves through self-assembly. Although they have genes, they do not have a cellular structure, which is often seen as the basic unit of life. Viruses do not have their own metabolism, and require a host cell to make new products. They therefore cannot naturally reproduce outside a host cell – although bacterial species such as rickettsia and chlamydia are considered living organisms despite the same limitation. So with that being said, I suppose it depends on your definition of life.

    No, I have problems with the Primordial Soup theory, so therefore that inorganic/organic stuff still troubles me until I see proof in a Lab, which there has yet to be any. Maybe one day, though, humans can create life from such conditions.

    You said: "What we visualize (conceive) is nothing more that the establishment of direct associations to entities in our environment." Yeah, I had all kinds of crazy dreams when I was a little kid, but if I go to describe them, it will just sound crazy. Same for a blind man, what do you think they dream or think about via consciousness, whether it is through thoughts or by way of dreams and wild imaginations...

    To me, consciousness and the mind, still seems to be a separate universe in itself...

    I suppose we can agree to disagree, but either way, thanks for sharing your thoughts...

  • Otium profile image

    Otium 5 years ago from South of North/ East of West

    Insane, think before you post, 'dear.' As it happened you posted your rejection of transhumanist 'souls' while I was writing my response.

    Girl, you ARE crampy, today...

  • Insane Mundane profile image

    Insane Mundane 5 years ago from Earth

    @Otium: I plainly said I wasn't a proponent of such... Read before commenting, dear...

  • monkeyminds profile image

    monkeyminds 5 years ago from My Tree House

    Ray Kurweil's started this nonsense, I think, and the transhumanists are working like crazy to figure out how to do it. Sort of like the phizisissies are trying to bump non-existent particles together in the LHC. It'd be funny if it wasn't such an expensive and time consuming waste of time and resources!

  • Otium profile image

    Otium 5 years ago from South of North/ East of West

    "People really are claiming that mankind will eventually be able to transfer human consciousness into a computer program,"

    Gosh, and all this time I thought computers were objects. Now I see, thanks to Transhumanist Alchemy, "computer programs" no longer need computers!

    Hmmm. Sounds suspiciously like the age-old Religious quest of the disembodied 'soul' to me. And IM says he's not religious. LOL!

  • Insane Mundane profile image

    Insane Mundane 5 years ago from Earth

    Well, I'm glad that we finally agree on something, as I was definitely not a proponent of that hooey. However, the very notion that you call "consciousness" an "activity" blows more than the blow job you mentioned that wasn't abled to be transferred from your hot neighborhood blonde babe. If everything else can be fabricated, visualized, and seen as either an object with a location or perceived as merely a concept dreamed up by an organic brain, the entire backbone of such observations STILL come from your very own consciousness that you deny as a separate property of the universe.

    Maybe this relates to the Anthropic Principle in a way, not sure, but I have a hard time believing that we spawned from talking rocks and/or inorganic material. We are surrounded by lifeless "objects," none of which have thoughts, and to think that there isn't something unique about being able to observe a grand universe while being such tiny ants on this lovely blue planet, would seem amazingly pointless, to say the least.

    I've always thought of myself as more of a caveman type, but maybe I'm a hopeless romantic after all... LOL!

  • fatfist profile image

    fatfist 5 years ago

    “to transfer human consciousness into a computer program”

    Such claims sound nice and hopeful at first....but under closer scrutiny we are able to reason that “consciousness” is what a living entity does. It is an activity that is mediated by the body’s control center we call the brain.

    Perhaps you can transfer a human to Pluto or even transfer his brain to Andromeda. But you cannot transfer an ACTIVITY (i.e. consciousness) anywhere. My neighbor’s blonde wife hasn’t been able to transfer a blow job to me all these years. I mean, that should be simple, right? You cannot transfer a “thought” or an action or any concept. You can only transfer entities. My neighbor’s wife can only transfer her tush over to my place. Thought is mediated by the atoms in one’s brain. Concepts, like consciousness, are not standalone entities that float in the universe and are amenable to “transfer” or any other action. This article explains why.

    So obviously, this computer claim is unequivocally impossible.

  • Insane Mundane profile image

    Insane Mundane 5 years ago from Earth

    Okay, if you really must be so nice, I actually brought up a good point. I don't know exactly where you and your peers are on the scientific journals or level of technological advancements, but it is not a far-fetched notion about consciousness. People really are claiming that mankind will eventually be able to transfer human consciousness into a computer program, as I'm simply saying that until the day comes when you can put an x & y coordinate on such things, that the object/concept thingy that you preach, will not be justified. But until then, it is just like any other theory, religion, and so on.

    Without all the name calling, feel free to answer this Q & A page, that I provided the other day, here:

    I have loads of other questions, etc., but I don't want to spam your Hub.

    I'm willing to discuss this, although my time for today is running thin, but I'll be glad to come back tomorrow and check out your ideas about this subject, along with your other peers.

  • fatfist profile image

    fatfist 5 years ago

    "insane, mundane folks that commonly surround me, "

    Yes, Mr got it. This is EXACTLY what all the patients in the Insane Asylum say: "everyone is crazy except me!"

    Please go to your Scientology forums to have these discussions. Oh wait.....there are none. This pernicious Religion is always in hiding.

  • fatfist profile image

    fatfist 5 years ago

    The first sign of a Religionist is when he is forced to deny his own Religion in order to confuse, deceive and persuade the audience away from his exposed intents.

    Insane.....we have been though your damn bellyaching tons of times before. I have asked you to justify your claims that these Thetans of intelligence or consciousness are floating in outer space. You only come here raving barking mad with unjustifiable claims.

    This is what is called trolling. I mean, I do let people voice their opinions....I even let theists post their religious poems and prayers. But to consistently come here and spam the same claims over and over again is considered SPAM.

    Now this is your last chance....and yes, I do delete spam and trolls, as everyone SHOULD. If you don't post your justifying argument and participate in an intellectual discussion and answer Q's posed to you.....then you are outta here, got it?

  • Insane Mundane profile image

    Insane Mundane 5 years ago from Earth

    Actually, there have been a few people so far that figured out why my profile and screen name is the way it is, which is a reflection of the insane, mundane folks that commonly surround me, albeit if you are one yourself, you would take the name as literally for me, which you are wrong, as usual...

  • Otium profile image

    Otium 5 years ago from South of North/ East of West

    Um...Are you riding the cotton pony, Insane?

    Here: "If everybody thought like you, we would still be in the Stone Age!"

    Your self-description: "Just another random, omniverous, semi-intelligent bi-ped..."

    Look. I'm sorry you have cramps, but by your own verbiage it seems you'd be marvelously happy in the Stone Age, Insane.

  • Insane Mundane profile image

    Insane Mundane 5 years ago from Earth

    No, actually I don't, but if you're that desperate, I have built erotic image galleries featuring today's hottest models, if you're interested... They make decent money, thanks to people like you; cheers!

  • monkeyminds profile image

    monkeyminds 5 years ago from My Tree House

    Hey have a picture of your mother handy?

  • Insane Mundane profile image

    Insane Mundane 5 years ago from Earth

    This is the first time I have commented on your hubs in months & months, as I see you are still as jovial as ever; ha!

    By the way, just because somebody believes in life on other planets, doesn't mean they are some crazed Scientologist, which I am not.

    In fact, I'm not apart of any religion, but thanks for fantasizing about my mother... LOL!

  • fatfist profile image

    fatfist 5 years ago

    @monkey and other readers.....just be warned that Insane Mundane is a Scientologist. He believes that spirits from a far away galaxy a long long time ago seeded our life here and now we live through them.

    He has been going Insane and spamming most of my hubs for a few years, as one would expect for a deluded individual.

    HP has also banned him several times....but he can't get enough of this place so he comes back to complain that somehow I am responsible for his mother's predicament.

  • fatfist profile image

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Who raped your mother on the wrong side of the bed this morning, Insane Mundane?

  • Insane Mundane profile image

    Insane Mundane 5 years ago from Earth

    Oh, I understand it very well, just like all of the other articles from this religion.

    If you really think that the entire fabric of the universe and our existence, boils down to simple objects & concepts, well, you just defined Kindergarten.

    Until the day comes when you can put an x & y coordinate on consciousness and/or transfer a person's consciousness to a computer program, the object/concept crap is just that.

    It is not my fault that you can't understand...

  • monkeyminds profile image

    monkeyminds 5 years ago from My Tree House

    Apparently, InsaneMundane wasn't able to understand this in Kindergarten either!

    Check out his profile...

  • Insane Mundane profile image

    Insane Mundane 5 years ago from Earth

    You're a joke! You base your whole religion and sermons on basic, Kindergarten object/concept baloney, like you have unravelled the properties of the universe or something. If everybody thought like you, we would still be in the Stone Age! Go ahead, delete my comment as wanna-be gurus like you, usually do, but please note: It is quite disgusting to see someone write about the philosophy of intelligence, when the person that wrote it, doesn't even believe in intelligent life outside of Earth; LOL! You try to keep everything on a monkey level because your poor, strained brain can't grasp anything outside of a visible object; blah!

  • monkeyminds profile image

    monkeyminds 5 years ago from My Tree House

    Awesome! I'm following your Hub, Otium.

  • Otium profile image

    Otium 5 years ago from South of North/ East of West


    Thank you for the warm welcome to HP. We'll see if I can manage to put fingers to keyboard and pen anything of interest to anyone...including myself!


    Yes, 'otium' has many meanings. Personally, I don't mind ambiguity at play and is part of the reason I chose it. I mean, how fun is it to see the multitude of perspectives at play in the same word, even to the point of contradiction! Here one desires it; there another one, or even the same one at another time, hates it and moralizes against it. But, even to consider all these meanings one must engage in...well...otium, no matter his opinion about it.

  • monkeyminds profile image

    monkeyminds 5 years ago from My Tree House

    Otium- A Latin abstract term with a variety of meanings.

    Leisure eating or academic endeavors?

  • fatfist profile image

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Ahhh....nice to see you join HP, Allen. You have a lot to offer here. I look forward to reading Otium's articles. Thanks for taking the time to read mine.

  • Otium profile image

    Otium 5 years ago from South of North/ East of West

    Oooooh, my mind is tired after running through your new hub. If only it could run faster, with more endurance, it wouldn't fall behind the Mystics in the race to grasp truth and knowledge by the hand!

    I'm kidding, of course...Just wanted to let you know I have a new Hub-handle. The visitor formerly known as 'Allen' is now 'Otium.'

  • monkeyminds profile image

    monkeyminds 5 years ago from My Tree House

    klamokaptica: The willingness and the ability to conceive of concepts and apply them to understanding anything.

  • fatfist profile image

    fatfist 5 years ago

    It's about time this mysticism was squashed. Can you believe all the lost souls out there who claim that intelligence has a limit? How can a concept have a limit? Does "running" have a limit....or is it the runner who collapses?

    When a clown posing as an intellectual doesn't understand the difference between an object and a concept, these are the kind of beliefs he injects into society.

  • monkeyminds profile image

    monkeyminds 5 years ago from My Tree House

    Thanx for another excellent Hub! It came just in time as I was having a mental block writing on the limit of human intelligence. This is what I was searching for:

    " Hence our intelligence is only limited to what we are WILLING to conceive, learn and applly..."