CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
10. Some Cro-Magnon ( the average Cro Magnon was arguably more intelligent than the average person today, as they would have had to figure out how to survive in near impossible conditions during the ice age.)
I understand that lists such as this are tremendously arbitrary and impossible to do true justice to all candidates--perhaps it would have been better to create a thread "Top Intellectual Giants in the History of the World" with members contributing anyone that comes to mind from top level to lower tiers as they please (without rankings).
Now, having said that, I am quite surprised at your ranking Jacque Fresco and Nicola Tesla so highly. You believe these two to have contributed more impressive intellectual feats then for instance Euler?
Leonhard Euler was very intelligent, but he wasn't the type of person who was a century ahead of the rest of humanity. He made great contributions to mathematics, but he lacked the general understanding of things (the episteme, wisdom, social consciousness etc.) that Fresco and Tesla possessed. Tesla was arguably the greatest inventor in history. He invented wireless transmission, vacuum tubes, remote control technology, AC, and many more. Jacque Fresco was the most logical known human being in history when it came to analysing society and addressing social issues as well as seeing through the subjective illusions of human consciousness. Fresco was a polymath similar to Leonardo Da Vinci and Tesla basically invented modern electronics. The world would be very different if Tesla was able to build his towers and if Jacque's ideas became mainstream.
Jacque Fresco was the most logical known human being in history when it came to analysing society and addressing social issues as well as seeing through the subjective illusions of human consciousness.
I agree that Fresco had many good ideas and was a "Renaissance Man", yet I disagree about the complexity of the issues at hand in comparison to Scientific endeavors (including Tech. advancement). Do you not think an intelligent person who is disillusioned with societies bullsh't & applies their mind to the problem will not come to many similar critiques in various areas? Conversely, it is inconceivable that a person of "standard high intelligence" could produce the results a mind such as Euler's did--which has revealed many extremely deep truths about the Universe (in fact, it is in many ways amazing that Human Intelligence is even capable performing such tasks considering we evolved for very basic functions in comparison).
Tesla I agree is an "Intellectual Giant" in history, though we appear to have some disagreement as to what extent. In my view, if we mapped Tesla onto histories Intellectual Giants on a scale of 1-10, he would land just above the halfway mark. I understand that his work is extremely impressive as well as highly practical, though I do not see how it is more intellectually rigorous then that of (for instance) Ludwig Boltzmann, Euler, Leibniz, ect.(?) Fresco, in my view, is a "Great Thinker", Renaissance Man, Philosopher, Futurist, ect.
I disagree about the complexity of the issues at hand in comparison to Scientific endeavors
Complexity does not necessarily equate to correctness or practical use. That is not to say the complex thinkers you mention didn't contribute greatly to science, but it is possible for someone to be an intelligent fool or a wise simpleton. I see Jacque and Tesla as the people who have contributed in the most practical ways to solving the problems of society. They are not the most intelligent in terms of raw intelligence and complexity, but when you consider wisdom as well as being able to apply your intelligence in the most coherent and productive manor as equally important to intellectualism as the raw intellectual power of an individual then I think it is fair to put them at the top.
Do you not think an intelligent person who is disillusioned with societies bullsh't & applies their mind to the problem will not come to many similar critiques in various areas? Conversely, it is inconceivable that a person of "standard high intelligence" could produce the results a mind such as Euler's did
That is a perfectly valid statement/question. But in all the history of humanity no human being that I know of has made the observations that Jacque has made despite the obviousness of it all in hindsight. This is not because Jacque has greater computing power or a more complex brain than people like Euler, but because of how he thought about the world. Euler was a christian and although he was capable of producing complex and logical thought processes within certain fields his general way of thinking about the world was not logical. Jacque Fresco had a very logical way of looking at everything, he didn't have "beliefs" in the way that most humans do. The reason I rank him so high is because I view this kind of general wisdom and logical approach to the general reality of things as being just as important as the complexity of ones intellect.
if we mapped Tesla onto histories Intellectual Giants on a scale of 1-10, he would land just above the halfway mark.
I wouldn't say that, Nicola Tesla memorized entire books, knew about a dozen languages, and contributed a massive abundance of inventions many of which where totally ahead of his time.
I understand that his work is extremely impressive as well as highly practical, I do not see how it is more intellectually rigorous then that of (for instance) Ludwig Boltzmann, Euler, Leibniz, ect
It is not necessarily more rigorous, but it is definitely just as significant, and it was pretty damn rigorous.
I see Jacque and Tesla as the people who have contributed in the most practical ways to solving the problems of society. They are not the most intelligent in terms of raw intelligence and complexity, but when you consider wisdom as well as being able to apply your intelligence in the most coherent and productive manor as equally important to intellectualism as the raw intellectual power of an individual
This explanation makes much more sense to me. That is, in some sense, we were comparing apples to oranges as I have been approaching the problem in a different sense then you have. Actually, the point you made is perhaps my largest criticism of elite scientists--they are so on point in matters that require extremely high levels of intelligence while disregarding other areas (such as societal/political issues, as well as other topics) that should be relatively trivial by comparison to such extent that they are uneducated & effectively useless on that end. I often find that quite baffling, actually. Simply listen to a Nobel Prize level Physicist such as Stephen Weinberg and you often find that they effectively have little to no real wisdom in most other matters (particularly societal issues). It is actually worse than that, as they tend to display signs that they are unable to comprehend it--not just that they haven't put their mind to it. Do you have any thoughts on this as it is often difficult for me to fully make sense of?
Out of curiosity (as this is a topic I find very interesting), what are your thoughts on people that performed feats of mind that were incredible for their time period, though now the "bar has been raised" significantly since then? That is, do you view it similar to former athletic figures accomplishments compared to modern athletes (e.g. google "Olympic Athletes 100 years ago" and it is fascinating to see how far below the most elite athletes were then compared to even relatively average College athletes today--let alone Professionals, ect.)? Or, do you see it in some other way?
listen to a Nobel Prize level Physicist such as Stephen Weinberg and you often find that they effectively have little to no real wisdom in most other matters (particularly societal issues
Or it could be that they are sick of being told they are wrong by idiots who think writing in the style of an arrogant ponce and name-dropping the results of their Google search qualifies them as being intelligent.
No--Elite Scientists throughout History have overwhelmingly been disengaged from politics and the social atmosphere of their time as they generally deem the other people & their concerns to be far too trivial, as well as beyond the pale, to get personally involved with.
No--Elite Scientists throughout History have overwhelmingly been disengaged from politics
This simply is not true. Many elite scientists have had (and continue to have) strong political beliefs. Among them are some of the most elite names in science: Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla, Richard Lewontin, Richard Dawkins etc...
Einstein was actually unusual in this respect, as he did become quite involved in politics & society. You simply listed less then a handful as though that were a proper microcosm of the matter. Also, Dawkins is not a good example of a person who has a firm grip on topics outside of Science by any means--actually, it buttresses my argument.
I am not pointing out anything new. In fact, Johnathon Swift commented (accurately) on this several hundred years ago in his famous novel "Gulliver's Travels"
He clearly wasn't unusual since I gave you three other names of elite scientists which you've just ignored because they don't fit your narrative. When you are proven to be wrong and you continue to try to win an argument through brute force, then that is the precise opposite of intelligence. I have no idea why you do not understand that simple fact, but all the evidence suggests that you do not.
Look up John Maynard Smith, Stephen J. Gould, Jean-Pierre Vigier, Richard Levins, J.D. Bernal, J.B.S. Haldane, Joseph Needham, Lancelot Hogben, in addition to the names I have already given you.
You cannot be reasoned with, and for that reason you are not intelligent.
they tend to display signs that they are unable to comprehend it--not just that they haven't put their mind to it. Do you have any thoughts on this as it is often difficult for me to fully make sense of?
As we already discussed being a complex thinker or a deep thinker doesn't necessarily entail being a logical or coherent thinker. Furthermore, many people function very well as human calculators and human encyclopedias but they do not understand things at a fundamental level. It is one thing to walk into a classroom and memorize information about a field, learn how to apply the scientific method to achieve certain results within that field, or train your mind to run certain "software programs". It is a different thing entirely to have a scientific worldview, to critically examine everything around you and to overcome the cultural conditioning and subjectively centered human paradigm.
what are your thoughts on people that performed feats of mind that were incredible for their time period, though now the "bar has been raised" significantly since then?
Well, it goes without saying that it takes more brains to invent calculus in 2 years than it does to learn it at college. Those who have to start from scratch like Isaac Newton may have been ignorant in terms of knowledge compared to someone who has accessed and absorbed a modern arsenal of scientific information but very few people (even among the highly informed) display Newtonian levels of innovativeness. In some ways it was harder for people like him, because they had to figure everything out from scratch, but it was also easier in a way because in order to be an "innovator" and produce something "ground breaking" in physics in today's world you have to build upon a standard model that is already complex and "fleshed out" in many regards. It is for these reasons that a physicist today can potentially go much further than the great minds of the past in all regards, but for the most part they fail to contribute something new to physics and are not necessarily more intelligent despite having a larger repertoire of information.
