I am pretty sure my theory on how genius's are made is correct

Topic's posts
Posts in total: 71
--> @crossed
His teacher drew an equation first day at school after incident he understood it instantly.His teacher talks about how he was drawing all these complex math problems that have to do with shapes and very not understandable things and know one understood him.He is good at math.I was trying to give you a ruff idea.
Does he or does he not multiply large numbers very quickly? Yes or no.
the guy would talk a bunch of numbers and people would not understand him.His teacher understand after she asked a question and he instantly knew it.He could.He is a genius i used the child kids on Ellen as an example.
--> @drafterman
The video is him talking about math and a bunch of people talking about how he was beaten to death and woke up a genius.I mispoke.It was a month since i watch the video at the time of the comment.His  first day back to school after being  beaten to death. he understood his teachers  math problem instantly.He probably can though.He saw math in everything
--> @crossed
Okay so that's a no, then. You're just making stuff up. Got it.
--> @drafterman
i was trying to make you understand.You may kill me on technicality.But my theory stands.It blossoms. The guy is a genius and is a genius at math.
--> @drafterman
This is so stupid.There are tons of cases of this example.

here is a top ten list of people who became genius from brain damage.

--> @crossed
Nothing you've said is genius level. I don't even think you know what the word means. He sees shapes and appears to have a better understanding of mathematical concepts then he used to have.

You are placing him on the level of Einstein and Stephen Hawking.

What makes them geniuses is that they actually advanced the boundaries of human knowledge. They saw things other people didn't then proved those things to be true.

Has this guy done anything on that level? All you've shown me is a guy that sees shapes and can draw geometric figures.

Link me to a single research paper that he's published.
--> @drafterman
yes i did

watch number 9 on this list.same guy condensed in 2 minutes how you like it

--> @drafterman, @Discipulus_Didicit, @crossed
Does he or does he not multiply large numbers very quickly? Yes or no.
1} Einstein was not that good with math, ergo he got Riemann to help him with the complex trigonometric math.

2} Einsteins wife was probably better at math than him.

....."My education has been of my biggest impediments to my learning"...A. Einstein
....."Dare to be navie"  Bucky Fuller
......"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."...R Feynman

3} There now exist evidence that magic mushrooms can grow new brain cells in adults.

....Terrenance McKenna believe that apes eating magic mushrooms is how apes with more access to metaphysica-1, mind/intellect/concepts came to occur.

Networking of brain is more significant than electrical power. 

Leonard Da-Vinci had excellent visual-t-brain ability and to  step outside the box of conventional thinking.

Archimedes  was pain-stakingly persistent in his geometry and principles studies.

Idiot savants are great with memory or this or that, but many cannot function in normal socicety ex cant drive a vehicle.














--> @ebuc
1} Einstein was not that good with math, ergo he got Riemann to help him with the complex trigonometric math.

2} Einsteins wife was probably better at math than him.

....."My education has been of my biggest impediments to my learning"...A. Einstein
....."Dare to be navie"  Bucky Fuller
......"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."...R Feynman
Einstein excelled in math.


3} There now exist evidence that magic mushrooms can grow new brain cells in adults.

....Terrenance McKenna believe that apes eating magic mushrooms is how apes with more access to metaphysica-1, mind/intellect/concepts came to occur.
This is gibberish.

--> @drafterman
Einstein excelled in math.
Everything I stated in that post regarding math is true. Plenty of evidence for those who choose to know the truth. Nowhere did I say Einstein did not have mathmatical abilities.

This is gibberish.
I made two differrent statements;

1} regarded scientific evidence, ergo truth and fact,

......that you do not accept the #1 is you lack of knowledge. Drop the ego and search for truth.

2} the other involved speculations by McKenna

That you address #2 not as not seperate consideration from #1 more evidence your ego-protection mode kicking in. Sad :--(
--> @ebuc
Everything I stated in that post regarding math is true.
Sigh. Okay then.

1} Einstein was not that good with math,
Einstein was very good with math. Arguably, he was better at math than science.

ergo he got Riemann to help him with the complex trigonometric math.
That would be an interesting feat since Riemann died over a decade before Einstein was born.

2} Einsteins wife was probably better at math than him.
Maybe, since she also a mathematician, but there is no evidence to support this. Her contributions to Einstein's own work is disputed and she doesn't appear to have any of her own work that stands out.

I made two differrent statements;

1} regarded scientific evidence, ergo truth and fact,

......that you do not accept the #1 is you lack of knowledge. Drop the ego and search for truth.

2} the other involved speculations by McKenna

That you address #2 not as not seperate consideration from #1 more evidence your ego-protection mode kicking in. Sad :--(
I specifically an referring to statements like this:

"metaphysica-1, mind/intellect/concepts"

This is gibberish. I discern no meaning or sense from it.
--> @drafterman
"metaphysica-1, mind/intellect/concepts"

This is gibberish. I discern no meaning or sense from it.
DON’T YOU GET IT?

METAPHYSICA-1 IS THE HOTTEST NEW MIRACLE SUBSTANCE ON THE MARKET THAT CAN BOOST YOUR MIND/INTELLECT POWER

ONLY $9.99!!!

ORDER NOW AND RECEIVE A SECOND BOTTLE, FREE!!!


--> @drafterman
This is gibberish.

It is literally a 50/50 shot as to whether he means hallucinogenic shrooms or actual literal magic. Honestly can't tell with this guy.
--> @drafterman
Einstein was very good with math. Arguably, he was better at math than science.
Not relative to the math he needed done to help with his gravity concerns and again, I said probably not as good as his wife.

That would be an interesting feat since Riemann died over a decade before Einstein was born.
That is the info I recall reading many years ago. I may have the name wrong.  took all of the info at face value when I read it. There were maths needed to complete his thoughts of gavity and curvature of spacetime that he did not have ability do. That is what I read then.  If I find time will try to find specific info for.

Maybe, since she also a mathematician, but there is no evidence to support this. Her contributions to Einstein's own work is disputed and she doesn't appear to have any of her own work that stands out.
I dont know for sure one way or other. Again I would have to find time to research that specific.  What I recall was it was someone --if not Riemann--, that he had to get to assist or do the more complex trigonometic maths.

I specifically an referring to statements like this: "metaphysica-1, mind/intellect/concepts" This is gibberish. I discern no meaning or sense from it.

1} so  you are not disputing the facts of magic mushrooms inducing the creation of new brain cells in adults, as I stated,

2} you need to reference a dictionary for all four words and instead of taking a snob stance.

....2a} metaphysical is in dictionary and meta = beyond........that you cannot grasp beyond the physical is your refusal to play fair --i.e. playing  snobbish mind game sad :--(

....2b}  using any enumberation  method is common in dictionaries and a method for makng clear distinction between multiple definitions, ergo that you pretend any enumeration that you do not approve of, is more evidence of unfair, snobbish mind game on your part,

3} use a few dictionarys and learn what mind is and know that,  you will find defintions that place mind outside of aka beyond the physical,

4} intellect is obviously associated with mind, and again, your refusal to accept these truths is just snobbish protection of your ego,

5} concepts are in dictionary, and that you cannot associate concepts with intellect, mind, and metaphysical, is more ego based snob speaking to protect acknowleding that, you do to know exactly what I mean, and that my phrasing is valid, contrary to your egos defense of self as a unspoken 'I know better than you' type attitude.

Like so many Ive met on line, it is far easier to protect the ego ---least amount of intellectual effort---  and label others with simple terms of 'giibberish', 'nonsense', or other so as to avoid the fair play of offerring any rational, logical common sense that adds to or invalidates my comments as presented.

We will not be hearing in rational, logical common sense from you, because, just as you can not acknowledge the facts regarding magic mushrooms, you also cannot and will not offer any other rational logical common sense, because you have none to offer in regards to my above. Sad :--( and lazy mind, controlled by an over protective ego.
--> @ebuc
Einstein was very good with math. Arguably, he was better at math than science.
Not relative to the math he needed done to help with his gravity concerns and again,

You said Einstein was not good at math. That is false.

I said probably not as good as his wife.
Which is either false or baseless. Your pick.


That would be an interesting feat since Riemann died over a decade before Einstein was born.
That is the info I recall reading many years ago. I may have the name wrong.  took all of the info at face value when I read it. There were maths needed to complete his thoughts of gavity and curvature of spacetime that he did not have ability do. That is what I read then.  If I find time will try to find specific info for.
Okay, so then it's false.


Maybe, since she also a mathematician, but there is no evidence to support this. Her contributions to Einstein's own work is disputed and she doesn't appear to have any of her own work that stands out.
I dont know for sure one way or other. Again I would have to find time to research that specific.  What I recall was it was someone --if not Riemann--, that he had to get to assist or do the more complex trigonometic maths.
So either false or baseless.


I specifically an referring to statements like this: "metaphysica-1, mind/intellect/concepts" This is gibberish. I discern no meaning or sense from it.

1} so  you are not disputing the facts of magic mushrooms inducing the creation of new brain cells in adults, as I stated,
I neither accept nor reject the assertion.


2} you need to reference a dictionary for all four words and instead of taking a snob stance.

....2a} metaphysical is in dictionary and meta = beyond........that you cannot grasp beyond the physical is your refusal to play fair --i.e. playing  snobbish mind game sad :--(

....2b}  using any enumberation  method is common in dictionaries and a method for makng clear distinction between multiple definitions, ergo that you pretend any enumeration that you do not approve of, is more evidence of unfair, snobbish mind game on your part,
Enumeration of definitions of an entry is common, yes. Embedding references to specific enumerations in normal text isn't common. Especially when you don't specific which dictionary you are referring to; different dictionaries order their entries differently.


3} use a few dictionarys and learn what mind is and know that,  you will find defintions that place mind outside of aka beyond the physical,

4} intellect is obviously associated with mind, and again, your refusal to accept these truths is just snobbish protection of your ego,

5} concepts are in dictionary, and that you cannot associate concepts with intellect, mind, and metaphysical, is more ego based snob speaking to protect acknowleding that, you do to know exactly what I mean, and that my phrasing is valid, contrary to your egos defense of self as a unspoken 'I know better than you' type attitude.
I know what the individual words mean. What I don't understand is what you mean when you jam them together with slashes and jam them into a sentence willy nilly. It is meaningless and nonsensical.


--> @drafterman
You said Einstein was not good at math. That is false.
FInd, my error of wording, so allow me clarification ....' not good enough to fufill/completed and/or convey his thoughts in a mathematical way.'......

Which is either false or baseless. Your pick.
Again, if find time to research I can better assertain my "probably" comment. I stated that because of stuff I read years ago, of those who felt her influence on his thoughts have not been given anough credit/credence.

Okay, so then it's false.
I do not yet concede that your suggestion above of "false", is correct,  since what I read may have actually been stating that what was needed by Einstien was maths that Riemann had already created and Einstien needed help in seeing if any those geometric maths  applied to his thoughts and theory his was attempting to develop.


So either false or baseless.
Again, I dont concede either of your suggestions without further research.

I neither accept nor reject the assertion.
But you do accept your "gibberish" comments were not in reference to what I stated regarding magic shrooms inducing new brain cells. Its old news now as of some 8 years or so.

Enumeration of definitions of an entry is common, yes.
Metaphysical-1 by me is what that is.

Embedding references to specific enumerations in normal text isn't common.
Huh?  Your playing mind games to protect your ego, "Metaphysical-1, " is referenced/associated/related to mind/intellect/concepts irrespective of whether I use any enumeration at all. Adding the #1 is for my purposes to make the distinction for people like you or others to see, I make at least four primary definitions.

Your spinning my comments as not common in no way detracts from my conveying a definitive meaning or that your playing a mind game by infering you have no idea what my context Metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts.  Please refuse your ego protection mind games. Makes you look like a snobbish fool. Your choice.

Especially when you don't specific which dictionary you are referring to; different dictionaries order their entries differently.
When I orginally began this enumeration and defintion process, ---early 90's--  I'm not sure there were any internet dictionaries or very rare if there were, ergo  was using dictionarys in my home at that time.

Are you really going to keep playing your inferred, ..'I have no idea what your saying'... mind game DM?  You do to know what my phrase/context means and you ego protection mind games is just snobbery. Plain and simple Spock.  Oh yeah, your no longer using the Spock profile.

Did Spock ever say he was sorry, mistaken or a snob?

I know what the individual words mean.
Metaphysical has multiple definitions and they vary in multiple dictionaries.

What I don't understand is what you mean when you jam them together with slashes and jam them into a sentence willy nilly.
So your great Spock intellect cannot grasp/handle/integrate a slash mark  ---as I and many other humans have used--- to know that mind/intellect/concepts are three words that, if not synonyms, are closely associated/related?

Your still in ego protection mode Spock.  Does Spock have and ego? Does Spocks ego ever get in the way of rather simple textual conversation?

It is meaningless and nonsensical.
What is meaningless your defensive ego protection snob mode.  You do to know what I  mean, and like so many others would rather play snobbish mind games than have significantly relevant disscussion.  Mind games can be fun, until ego gets in the way.

PLease share when you have any rational logical common sense of relevant significance, that, actually adds to or invalidates any of my comments as presented. You have made only partial attempts to do so.


--> @ebuc
I've gone round and round with you before. Adding numbers and joining words by slashes makes your statements nonsensical. Don't bother replying to me if you don't intend to speak clearly or explicitly define what you mean by this unique notation. Or you could just write like a normal person.
--> @drafterman
I've gone round and round with you before. Adding numbers and joining words by slashes makes your statements nonsensical. Don't bother replying to me if you don't intend to speak clearly or explicitly define what you mean by this unique notation. Or you could just write like a normal person.
Your ego protection working overtime. You have no desire to have rational, logical common sense disscussion with me  because;

1} you have none to offer in regards to you above statements,

2} your lack Spocks intellectual integrity,

3} you do have Spocks snobbish, ego protecting, modus operandi,

3} you do not have morals of fair play, in regards to ebuc,

4} ..' you do to know what I mean '... contrary to defensive wall of ego based mind-game-of-denials. Sad :--(,

5} ?

--> @crossed
Your theory doesn't account for the millions of instances in which people don't experience increased intellectual capacity as a result of brain injury or psychological malady. The Brain Trauma Foundation reports that there are approximately 2.5 million people who experience brain trauma every year. Most of them will never acquire "accidental genius." As drafterman already explained, the vast majority of people with severe brain trauma will be reduced to human vegetables. In fact, Doctor Treffert wrote for the Wisconsin Medical Society and noted that in some cases of brain trauma that led to savant-like characteristics:

"...there has been no trade-off at all with the emergence of newfound skills."

Some lab tests have confirmed that autistic people's neural activity differs from that of the general public (3). This might lend some credence to your theory, but I doubt it is as simple as you make it seem. For one thing, not all autistic people are savants, and not all savants are autistic. In fact, 50% of savants are not autistic according to the Wisconsin Medical Society (2). Dr. Treffert, in a separate post, denotes 2 prominent theories that tend to explain the acquired savant syndrome. The first one is damage to the left hemisphere of the brain, and the other possibility is that all savant-like characteristics are born out of trauma. In the latter scenario, people with prodigious abilities and yet debilitating psychological issues would experience pre-natal trauma which allows savantism to surface (4). Again, this would not account for the millions of people who experience brain trauma who do not receive skills and talents.

Sources
--> @blamonkey
The Brain Trauma Foundation

That's a pretty specific thing to build a whole foundation around lol.