[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 62 KB, 300x300, trisomy21b.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4735562 No.4735562 [Reply] [Original]

Those with down syndrome typically have an IQ around 50. The average human has an IQ around 100. If I have an IQ of 150, is the average person retarded relative to me?

>> No.4735564

No but you're retarded for thinking that

>> No.4735565 [DELETED] 

Do not post that picture.
And please watch this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYowYqNOjUQ

>> No.4735568

>>4735564
Do you have any explanation to justify your statement?

>>4735565
>Not sure if serious.

>> No.4735570

>>4735562
Difference in intelligence with IQ isn't linear... The gap between average and smart is much greater than the gap between retarded and average.

>> No.4735572 [DELETED] 

>>4735568
Of course I am serious.
Watch the video, she and her family are quite upset by the 'potato meme'

>> No.4735574

>>4735572
Oh no! People are upset! Quick Harriet, call God!

>> No.4735575

>>4735570
I am well aware of that, but this doesn't address the question.

>>4735572
Dude, I've seen the video before. This is like the third image in google when type down syndrome. I really don't care.

>> No.4735576

>>4735575
>I am well aware of that, but this doesn't address the question.

Then I'm sorry to inform you, but you're stupid.

>> No.4735579 [DELETED] 

>>4735574
Have you no compassion!?
Might I remind you that people have been imprisoned for trolling.

>> No.4735580

>>4735572
Good. I hope she cries herself to sleep every night.

>> No.4735581

>>4735576
Your statement only validates my inquiry. If the gap between average and down syndrome is smaller than between smart and average, then an average person is even more retarded relative to someone with an IQ of 150.

>> No.4735582 [DELETED] 

>>4735580
Why?
Why would you hope that?
You do not even know her.

>> No.4735583

>>4735582
Because it is funny.

>> No.4735585

>>4735579
My word, have they? Now I'm scared! You're still making me hard.

>> No.4735587 [DELETED] 

>>4735583
No it is not.
How would you like it if you were born with down syndrome!?

>> No.4735588

>>4735579
That's absolutely ridiculous. If she wants to be seen as the same as everyone else, then she should be just as able to be made fun of. Why is it okay to criticize the US president or some celebrity, but not okay to poke fun at a retarded person. No one throws a fit when someone makes fun of HItler. If people want to be seen as equals they should be able to take the ridicule that others get as well.

Sage for offtopic

>> No.4735589 [DELETED] 

>>4735585
Hard?

>> No.4735590

>>4735581
Exactly you fucking dolt. I was confirming what you suggested - addressing the question, one might say.

>> No.4735591

If you have 200 IQ then the average person is retarded compared to you.

>> No.4735594

>>4735587
I don't know, I'd have to be born with down syndrome first and then somehow relay the experience to the person I am in this reality.

>> No.4735595

"Mental retardation (MR) has historically been defined as an Intelligence Quotient score under 70"

It's a measurement , not a term used in comparasion.

>> No.4735596

>>4735589
Come on sugar...

>> No.4735597 [DELETED] 

>>4735588
It is not ok to make fun of someone for something that is not their choice.
You should not make fun of somebody who is injured, or has some sort of illness or condition that is not their choice.
You can make fun of people who make bad decisions or do immoral things, but I would advise moderation, and you should try to not upset people as much as you can.

>> No.4735598

>>4735595
So now you are claiming that measurements can't be compared and can't be found equivalent? Are you retarded?

>> No.4735599 [DELETED] 

>>4735594
Well you are lucky, but you are not appreciative that you were born in good health
Perhaps you should be.

>> No.4735600

the IQ distribution says nothing about how a particular IQ relates to another in terms of comparative ability (except the trivial fact of someone being more/less able than another)

it shows only how IQ is distributed in the population as a whole.

/thread

>> No.4735601

>>4735599
I am appreciative that I was born as I am, and I also find the situation humorous. What now?

>> No.4735602

>>4735595
Actually it is being used in comparison, the mean is defined as 100, retarded is below 70. If you were to cut the dummies and take a relative IQ on the intelligent folk such that someone who scores 150 on the traditional test now scores 100, those who scored 100 on the traditional test would score below 70, and thus be relatively retarded.

>> No.4735604

>>4735597
I disagree, I'll make fun of people whenever I want. They can do the same to me. I'm not a sensitive piece of shit that gets offended at every turn. People will be cruel, people will be nasty, the best defense is to just deal with it. Political correctness is such nonsense, the way to deal with bullies is not to go crying to big brother to tell them to stop

>> No.4735605

>>4735598
I wasn't the same person you originally argued with, but could you expand on what you mean with that question?

>> No.4735606 [DELETED] 

>>4735596
Well when people say they are 'hard' they usually do not mean the physical quality of hardness http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardness
It is usually a metaphor to mean that one is strong, or good at fighting, or tough in general.
But I do not see what that has to do with any of this, and I have no intention of fighting you, or anybody else for that matter.

>> No.4735607 [DELETED] 

>>4735601
Then you have bad morals.
End of discussion.
You should know better.

>> No.4735608

>>4735606
No, it means that he has an erection.

>> No.4735609

>>4735605
This anon here already said it for me.

>>4735602

>> No.4735610

>>4735607
>morals
>morals
>morals
>morals
>morals
>morals
>morals
>morals
>morals
>morals
>morals
>morals
>morals
>morals
>morals
>morals
>morals
>morals
>morals
>morals
>END OF RINE

>> No.4735611 [DELETED] 

>>4735608
Oh.
OK.

>> No.4735612

>>4735606
Harriet... My dick. My dick is hard.

>> No.4735613

>>4735607
The good/bad quality of a given moral is not intrinsically defined.

>> No.4735619

>>4735602
Except this doesn't work. Look's like that IQ score you got on the internet isn't doing you much good in terms of smarts.

Then again, just making this topic suggests this.

>> No.4735620

>>4735602
OP here. If there are no overwhelming disagreements with this, then I'd like to ask my next question. Would it be reasonable for those of higher IQ to seek out a society absent of the relative retards?

Or in other words, let us say that a given country was was run by those with down syndrome. Would you want to live in this country given your intelligence level?

>> No.4735621

>>4735619
That wasn't me. Also, there is no reason to be threatened, this is simply a question. And you have yet to explain why "this doesn't work".

>> No.4735626

>>4735620
There exists such a society. It's called MENSA. Maybe you should join.

>> No.4735629

>>4735619
>Except this doesn't work. Look's like that IQ score you got on the internet isn't doing you much good in terms of smarts.
I've never done an IQ test, on the internet or otherwise. I do suspect I'm smarter than you though, since you don't even argue your points, you just make personal assaults.

>Then again, just making this topic suggests this.
I didn't start this topic. I just came here to tell Harriet I had a hard penis, and got distracted.

>> No.4735631

>>4735626
I am a part of MENSA, but when I speak of a society, I am referring to an autonomous body of people acting independently of any other country or body. MENSA does not function this way.

>> No.4735633

>>4735621
>Mental retardation (MR) is a generalized disorder appearing before adulthood, characterized by significantly impaired cognitive functioning and deficits in two or more adaptive behaviors.

Someone "normal" in comparision to a "genius" therefore is not "mentally retarded", you have to have deficits in adaptive behaviors. Just because the genius can do something way better than you, doesn't make you a retard.

>> No.4735634

>>4735562
If you have to ask this, then you're retarded relative to someone with down syndrome.

>> No.4735636

>>4735633
But definition is arbitrary. The classification for retardation is dependent on our classification of normal. There is no way to define "impairment" without having something defined as unimpaired.

>> No.4735641

How is this thread still going? The answer is no.

>> No.4735647

>>4735636
The definition is not arbitrary.
Maybe it will change in the future, but it is currently defined.

Sure, you could just look up the word "retard" in the dictionary ,and use that term to describe normal people in comparison to geniuses, but that's not "Mental Retardation" as is implied by the way OP worded his question.

>> No.4735661

>>4735647
All definitions are arbitrary. Simply because some thing is defined does not eliminate the arbitration in the process of defining it. They are decided by a consensus and subject to change when the perspective of the consensus does.

As of this time, average is considered average, because the majority of people on Earth fluctuate within one standard deviation of 100. If everyone had an IQ around 50, this would be considered both average and normal.

The point is that if the gap between 50 to 100 and 100 to 150 can be considered equivalent, then relatively speaking, someone with an IQ of 100 would be of the same cognitive deficiency as someone with an IQ of 50 relative to themselves. However, as stated before, the statistical gap between 100 and 150 is even larger.

So the only reasonable way one could dismiss the claim that someone of average IQ is retarded relative to someone of 150 is if they could prove that the gap between 100 and 150 is less than the gap between 50 and 100, and therefore nonequivalent.

>> No.4735664

>>4735661
seeing as we have no information on what this gap means except in terms of distribution (rather than some absolute measure of cognitive ability) we cannot know this either way

>> No.4735669

Not really. IQ measured the distance between you and retardation. So the higher your "intelligence" quotient is, the further from mental retardation you are. It doesn't mean those with average mental capacity are affected by mental retardation.

>> No.4735670

>>4735661
>All definitions are arbitrary

>> No.4735674

>>4735664
But we do have information on what the gap means. Those with mental retardation perform worse on cognitive tasks and exhibit less adaptive behavior relative to those with average IQs.

Those with higher IQs perform better on cognitive tasks and exhibit more adaptive behavior relative to those with average IQs.

>> No.4735676

>>4735670
What definitions are not arbitrary? Are there any definitions that were not created by man?

>> No.4735680

>>4735669
Mental retardation is just an impairment of the aforementioned skills and behaviors. What is considered impairment is dependent on what we presently consider normal or standard.

>> No.4735684

>>4735674
we have only that, we do not know if a gap from 100 to 150 is more of an improvement than the gap between 99 and 100

>> No.4735685

>>4735684
>100 to 150 is more of an improvement than the gap between 99 and 100

Yes we do.

>> No.4735688

>>4735676
What does arbitrary mean?

>> No.4735690

I like how the tripfag deleted all his posts after it became apparent that he was being an insufferable cunt.

>> No.4735691

>>4735685
nope. without further analysis of the tests, all we know is there are more people between 100 and 150 than 99 and 100

>> No.4735695

>>4735685
Normal distribution alone doesn't really tell us about the qualitative data within that distribution, only how it is distributed in a population.

>> No.4735696

>>4735688
>not knowing what arbitrary means

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arbitrary

>1 : depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law <the manner of punishment is arbitrary>

>3a : based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something

>> No.4735697

>>4735641
Well obviously its no if you just take mental retardation by the current definition, but what the OP is getting at is the idea that we could just as easily (and just as arbitrarily) redefine unimpaired to be those with <span class="math"> \geq 150 [/spoiler] and apply a similar rule to the current arbitrary one defining retardation (say, <span class="math"> \leq normal - 30 = 120 [/spoiler] or the linearised equivalent if you prefer.) Then we would find that average was retarded.

Perhaps more prudently, if you simply split the population into two groups as follows you could find that retarded in one was above average in the other

For a population P the set MR of mentally retarded individuals is <span class="math"> \left\{x \in P : IQ(x) \leq 70 \right\} [/spoiler] where <span class="math"> IQ:P\to \mathbb{R} [/spoiler] is the IQ of an individual x relative to population P

Let <span class="math"> P_{0} [/spoiler] be the current population, <span class="math"> IQ_{0}:P\to \mathbb{R} [/spoiler] be the IQ of an individual x relative to population <span class="math"> P_{0} [/spoiler]

Now, we can find a new population <span class="math"> P_{1} [/spoiler] with relative IQ function <span class="math"> IQ_{1}:P\to \mathbb{R}[/spoiler] such that <span class="math"> IQ_{1} [/spoiler] satisfies the same distribution as <span class="math"> IQ_{0} [/spoiler] but <span class="math"> IQ_{0}(x) = 150 ~\Leftrightarrow ~ IQ_{1}(x) = 100 [/spoiler]

Now this new population <span class="math"> P_{1} [/spoiler] has as its set of mentally retarded individuals <span class="math"> \left\{x \in P_{1} : IQ_{1}(x) \leq 70 \right\}[/spoiler]

>> No.4735698

last time i came to /sci/, /g/ was making fun of Harriet.
today i came back and see this thread.
lol
is every thread around here the same?

>> No.4735699

>>4735680
Yeah, so? Those with higher intelligence are in a way abnormally mentally skilled.

>> No.4735701

>>4735696
>confirming that definitions are arbitrary

thanks anon

>> No.4735703

>>4735698
It's my first time encountering him today. So you mean to say this guy goes around shitposting elsewhere too?

>> No.4735704

>>4735691
>>4735695
But I am not basing this simply on normal distribution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ#Social_outcomes

This information is readily available.

>> No.4735708

>>4735697
What medication are you on?

>> No.4735709

>>4735704
but OP was

>> No.4735711

>>4735709
I am OP.

>>4735701
No problem.

>> No.4735713

>>4735711
>I am OP

Actually I am

>> No.4735714

>>4735703
>>4735703
its her
no. she was posting on sci
somebody posted the link on /g/ because she was being retarded about computers
/g/ came in and had fun for a while
(s)he acts retarded for so long it doesnt matter if its a troll or not

>> No.4735715

is a broken leg an arbitrary definition?

>> No.4735717

>>4735697
Also this exactly. And may I compliment your beautiful notation.

>> No.4735718

>>4735696
>using arbitrary definitions to argue about the arbitrariness of definitions

I see what you did thar

>> No.4735719

>>4735697
And, moreover, the set of people in <span class="math"> P_{0} [/spoiler] who are mentally retarded relative to <span class="math"> P_{1} = \left\{x \in P_{0} : IQ_{1}(x) \leq 70 \right\} \supset \left\{x \in P_{0} : IQ_{0} \leq y} [/spoiler] for some <span class="math"> y > 70 [/spoiler]

To figure out what y actually is you'd need to know some specifics, but its not unreasonable to think it would be larger than 100.

>> No.4735723

>>4735715
yes. see greenstick "fracture", stress "fracture" etc

>> No.4735725 [DELETED] 

>>4735719
P_{1} = \left\{x \in P_{0} : IQ_{1}(x) \leq 70 \right\} \supset \left\{x \in P_{0} : IQ_{0} \leq y\right\}

Sorry.

>> No.4735728

>>4735719
<span class="math"> P_{1} = \left\{x \in P_{0} : IQ_{1}(x) \leq 70 \right\} \supset \left\{x \in P_{0} : IQ_{0} \leq y\right\} [/spoiler]

>> No.4735730

>>4735723
and what am i seeing? they all have precise definitions.

>> No.4735733

>>4735714
Do you happen to still have a link to that thread? I'm pretty sure /sci/ is archived.

>> No.4735734 [DELETED] 

>>4735715
Your confusing the quality of reality with the phenomenological.

>> No.4735736

>>4735730
>implying arbitrariness and precision are dichotomous

>> No.4735738

>>4735730
You're* confusing the quality of reality with the phenomenological.

>> No.4735740

>>4735736
I certainly don't think the fractures are "based on or determined by individual preference or convenience ".


There's a logical reason behind the definition of fracture.

Perhaps you'd like to help me understand why the fractures should be considered arbitrary?

>> No.4735741

>>4735740
See.
>>4735738

>> No.4735743

Feel free to expand on that
>>4735741

>> No.4735746

>>4735697
So yeah, you're pretty much right I'd say OP.

>> No.4735747

intelligence a mix of :
-1 assload of knowledge
-2 shit-ton of deep reasoning skill
-almost nothing of speed reasoning skill (what IQ mainly test)
-1 fuck-ton of imagination
-and the rest is learning capabilities ( this one correlate to IQ too)

No, having the twice the IQ of someone doesn't mean shit.

>> No.4735751

>>4735740
bones' osteoblasts constantly remodel the bone. if stresses on the bone are greater than the osteoblasts can remodel then structural deficiencies develop in the bone. as such stresses are placed on bones some structural deficiency is always present.

the point where this structural deficiency is defined as a stress fracture and not routine bone remodelling is arbitrary. based upon such things as medical convention or individual preference (an Olympic marathon runner's preference will be different to a sedentary office worker)

>> No.4735755

>>4735743
There is nothing to expand upon. If you understand what phenomenological means and the distinction between our interaction and understanding of phenomena and the reality independent of interaction, you would understand why your claim is fallacious. What the fracture is, in of itself exists without arbitration. However, we can only come to understand the fracture through our experience of it, and our arbitration.

So the definition, the way we understand, and explain and experience the fracture is always of the arbitrary and subjective quality. So yes, it is the individual who experience the phenomena and from consensus determined that this phenomena is in fact a "fracture".

>> No.4735759

>>4735755
I meant by "broken leg" a more clearly definable form of broken leg.

I am trying to refute the claim that "All definitions are arbitrary"

Just because there is a type of broken leg which is defined arbitrarily, does not make all definitions arbitrary.

>> No.4735761

>>4735759
just because there are bones which will always be defined as broken, it doesn't follow that any one of those particular definitions is not in itself arbitrary

>> No.4735762

>>4735759
Am I being trolled, or are you really being serious?

>Just because there is a type of broken leg which is defined arbitrarily, does not make all definitions arbitrary.

No one ever said that there is a type of broken leg that is defined arbitrarily and this makes all definitions arbitrary.

Nor did I say there was a type of broken leg which is defined arbitrarily. I claimed that all phenomena was interpreted subjectively, and therefore understood and conveyed through our arbitration.

>> No.4735767

>>4735746
Well, I am glad that someone agrees. I would love to discuss the implications of this, but I feel that this would be a bad idea on 4chan.

>> No.4735770

>>4735762
I guess this post >>4735715
should of pointed to >>4735661
so you wouldn't of gotten confused in what I am arguing.

>> No.4735776

>>4735770
I am the person who posted that post. Clarifying which post you were referring to does not make your statements any less retarded nor any more valid.

>> No.4735779
File: 1.19 MB, 182x119, didntread.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4735779

>>4735776
>I am the person who posted that post
>I am the person who posted that post
>I am the person who posted that post
>I am the person who posted that post
>I am the person who posted that post
>I am the person who posted that post
>I am the person who posted that post
>I am the person who posted that post
>I am the person who posted that post
>I am the person who posted that post
>I am the person who posted that post
>I am the person who posted that post
>I am the person who posted that post
>I am the person who posted that post
>I am the person who posted that post
>I am the person who posted that post
>I am the person who posted that post
>I am the person who posted that post
>I am the person who posted that post
>I am the person who posted that post
>I am the person who posted that post
>I am the person who posted that post

>> No.4735785

>>4735776
I disagree.
Were we even arguing the same thing?

I was showing that "All definitions are arbitrary" (based on the definition offered "based on or determined by individual preference or convenience ") is wrong because there is a broken leg which is defined with a logical and objective measurement.

>> No.4735790

>>4735785
but someone chose to use the "objective and logical" definition (if such a thing actually exists) above the, say, functional, or medically conventional one.

>> No.4735793
File: 7 KB, 171x251, 1284817029608s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4735793

Actually, most people have IQ's over 100 nowadays, and the mentally retarded hover anywhere around 60-80.

100 is just the number given as "current average," of course, human iq has changed multiple times, and what was a 130 fifty years ago could be a 100 today.

as you're iq raises further, the changes you see in the distance decrease.
ten points at 50 iq is worth much much more than 10 points at 160 iq, and a noticeable difference in intelligence is only clear on the former.

online tests are notoriously bad, they are random suppliers of "above average" IQ scores to boost their pageviews and to get people to buy things

the only accurate IQ tests are those done by a reputable source in a controlled environment,

>> No.4735795

What is the difference between
"objective and logical" definition and the "functional, or medically conventional one"
?

Is it... nothing?

>> No.4735797

>>4735785
You didn't show any of this. Nor will you be able to.

>> No.4735798

>>4735795
it's elitism and attempting to appear smart

>> No.4735803

>>4735798
So it means the same thing, just the wrong term is used, making it seem elitist?

>> No.4735805

>>4735797
How about 1 + 1 ? Is the answer based on or determined by individual preference or convenience ?

>> No.4735807

>>4735803

It's like me saying

"I'm certainly famished, I do detest being insufferably undernourished"

instead of

"i'm hungry."


It gets the point across, but it isn't done to express your viewpoint more efficiently, it's done to sound smart.

>> No.4735809

>>4735795
if you go to two different countries, they will have different medical definitions that are not equivalent over almost everything, from hyperthyroidism to when HIV becomes AIDS.

i am sure the percent of cross section of bone fractured to qualify as a fracture will be the same

>> No.4735810

>>4735807
Then I have no idea what >>4735790 was trying to say.

>> No.4735812

>>4735805
Preference and convenience. It exists as it does as a result of the axiom from which it exists.

>> No.4735813

>>4735798
>>4735803
>>4735807
samefag missing the point

>> No.4735814

>>4735805
but that isn't a definition. that's a theorem

>> No.4735816

>>4735809
This is what I'm talking about dipshit.

>> No.4735817
File: 61 KB, 900x675, 1328948748676.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4735817

>>4735813

you seem upset
what seems to be the problem?

>> No.4735819

>>4735817
>i'm finally seeing i derped

>> No.4735838

Does a triangle have a definition?

I kinda think I have been trolled by equivocation or something but I might be just sutpid

>> No.4735841

Not really. Your argument is based on the claim that the gaps between 50-100 and 100-150 are equivalent, when it's clearly not the case. Retarded people are defined as being impaired in a multitude of ways, in comparison to "normal" people. "Normal" people, however, are not impaired in a multitude of ways in comparison to a genius.

It's not equivalent. Also consider that we're constantly revising the normal distribution of IQ because it keeps going up. I doubt that the amount of geniuses relative to the population keeps increasing, which indicates that the difference is negligible in terms of functioning in society.

>> No.4735846

no, it should be seen as function vs. capacity imo abstract opinion.

>> No.4735847

>>4735838
you're just sutpid

>> No.4735848

You obviously don't if you can't into math like that, OP.

>> No.4735853

>>4735847
So a triangle does not have a definition?
How do we know what a triangle is?

>> No.4735871

>>4735853
yes, a triangle has a non-arbitrary definition.

>> No.4735874

>>4735853
>>4735848
I'm done with you retards. Read the thread, you have been repeating the same tautology incessantly for half the thread. Your question has been answered. If you can't understand the thread, then there is nothing more I can do for you.

>> No.4735877

>>4735871
This is all I was trying to show.

I wish I could understand what >>4735874 was trying to say.

>> No.4735882

>>4735871
But it doesn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

>> No.4735883

In a way yes, but it's a meaningless question. They act like normal people. From your perspective, such behavior is quite lacking.

There is a large group of instincts related to reason and learning that they do not have and you do. There are all kinds of other instincts like these that lineages have or don't have.

If we can figure out what these are and how a person develops them in the first place we can argue for average people to develop them as well.

>> No.4735885

>>4735877
triangles are noumena, so we can define them without arbitrariness

>> No.4735891

>>4735882
not relevant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon

>> No.4735903

>>4735891
>Implying Kant has had any relevance in the last 100 years
>Implying anything can be known without the senses

lol

>> No.4735951

>>4735882
How is an axiom arbitrary?
An axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy.

An axiom is clearly not arbitrary (random)

>> No.4735966

>>4735903

so you think the number three cannot be deduced by pure reason?

>> No.4735967

>>4735562
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_measurement#Interval_scale

>> No.4735972

>>4735903
>mathematics
>dependent on the senses

>> No.4735977

>>4735972
>implying math exists without man

>> No.4735986

>>4735977
>how many legs did dinosaurs have before man was around to count them?

>> No.4735993

>>4735986
>implying those definitions existed without man
>still not getting it

>> No.4735994

>>4735977
A fine implication.

>> No.4735996

>>4735994
>Usually one takes as logical axioms at least some minimal set of tautologies that is sufficient for proving all tautologies in the language; in the case of predicate logic more logical axioms than that are required, in order to prove logical truths that are not tautologies in the strict sense.

>/sci/ confirmed for not knowing how math works

>> No.4735997

>>4735993
>implying we needed a definition for dinosaurs to balance with stability upon four feet
>never will get it

>> No.4736002

>>4735996
Indeed it has been, it would seem. Do you think there were was no shape before humans? No pattern in the universe? If not then sure, there was no maths before us, but if there was then since pattern is by definition maths, maths pre-dates us.

>> No.4736007

>>4735997
I didn't imply that, but we did need those definitions to understand and convey it. Math is simply another language used to express, describe, and understand reality. It is not reality itself but a product of us.

>> No.4736011

>>4736007
>understand and convey

i was arguing about existence. if you want to move goal posts, well well well

>> No.4736014

>>4736007
>Math is simply another language used to express, describe, and understand reality. It is not reality itself but a product of us.

So you're just redefining it to suit your ignorant argument? Hardly fair.

>> No.4736016

>>4736011
Point to where anyone in this thread was ever discussing existence besides your post.

>> No.4736017

>>4735996
>no logic before intelligence. just a formless random void

religiousness detected

>> No.4736018

>>4736017
How can we know what precedes our understanding?

>> No.4736019

>>4736016
Stop being an idiot. You claimed that maths didn't exist before humans, the rest of us claim you're stupid.

>> No.4736020

>>4736016
the thread that began here
>>4735972

>> No.4736021

>>4736018
how can we know anything?

>> No.4736028

>>4736021
I agree.

>> No.4736034

>>4736028
then why argue about anything?

>> No.4736036

>>4736034
Why not?

>> No.4736045

>>4736019
No I claimed that math can't exist without humans.

>> No.4736051

>>4736045
>go away now

>> No.4736061

>>4736045
>i wasn't talking about existence
>actually i am talking about existence

>> No.4736065

>>4736061
Existence != the nature of mathematics

>> No.4736119

>>4735972
Let me try and explain this to you down syndrome faggots
There are rules and irregularities in the universe. Humans understood them and created a tool called Mathemathics. Mathemathics is a human creation based on rules, patterns, shapes of the universe. So no, math didn't exist before humans: numbers didn't exist, sequences, shapes, angles etc.
But the things that math explains/represents was there since the dawn of time.

>> No.4736121
File: 69 KB, 275x275, squidwardlaugh.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4736121

>people believing that math is some objective magical thing that simulates reality and is mutually disjoint with the mind

>> No.4736147

>ITT tryhards trying to sound smart.
Fuck off.