Posts by steelmarlin19

redbear2 said:

It’s starting. Asks:
Quote:
Look at Stephen Hawking. He’s the living proof of what raw, pure talent in physics actually looks like.
Then probability stepped in and ruined everything. It was like God rolled the dice ten times in a row and they all came up wrong.
When it came to raw intellectual horsepower, Hawking was basically rolling nothing but fives and sixes on the dice.
When it came to his health, he was basically looking at a solid number one or two on the scale. No real issues there. 😲

And what exactly does that prove?

Sorry, there's just too much aimless noise here for me to bother responding. No offense intended, but if you can't stick to the point instead of constantly turning everything into a sermon and wandering off into the fog, I don't see much point in debating you.

If I recall correctly, I already posted this. Self-explanatory. "Quotes."

It’s also possible that those big, innovative breakthroughs don't actually come from staring intensely at a problem. Sometimes, you just end up thinking about two completely unrelated things, and your subconscious finds a way to bridge the gap between them—even if you weren't trying to connect the dots consciously.

That’s exactly why I put them in quotes. They don't just spontaneously manifest out of thin air. My point is that they rarely stem from some intense, conscious grind or hyper-focusing on a single problem. Instead, they hit you like those sudden "lightbulb" moments—seemingly appearing from absolutely nowhere.

The brain is just a tool. Nothing more, nothing less.

Thinkers need:

The foundation—that raw, innate talent you're born with.
It’s all about that grind—really digging into talent optimization and sharpening those mental tools.
Mastering your own mental processes.
A generated state of consciousness is basically just an idea waiting to be chewed on by a rational mind.

Alright.

It happens under any circumstances—whether through intentional effort or just during other automated, mindless tasks. The triggers vary.

I never claimed you can't find innovative ideas by focusing on problem-solving. I’m just saying the brain often hits those solutions precisely when it *isn't* focused. It’s because the focus isn't there that you can actually bridge the gap between seemingly unrelated things. Focus implies looking in one direction, in a straight line.



Well, Tesla was right: everything we discover must already exist. You’re just misinterpreting him; try taking his words a bit more literally and rationally. To find a shipwreck at the bottom of the ocean, the ship has to actually be down there. Your belief in its existence doesn't change anything. What Tesla meant is that prior to any discovery, the possibility of that discovery always existed.

Keith Miller30 said:What I am saying is that I believe everyone—or at least most people, if we set aside those who were unfortunately born with certain neurological disorders or similar conditions—starts with a baseline potential that we all have to cultivate. Sure, for someone like Mozart, that starting point was much more advanced than yours might be, but who can say for certain that you wouldn't achieve more in that field despite a lack of natural musicality? There is no guarantee that you couldn't surpass him; there is only the assumption, and an assumption alone isn't enough for me. We are shaped from our earliest days, where every single event, every closed door, and every wrong turn contributes to our development and leads us toward our eventual path.

Well, at least that is my perspective on the matter. While this logic might not apply to raw athletic talent like football or basketball, in this particular context, I feel I am right.

Michael Gonzalez77 said:When we talk about significant spiritual figures—those individuals destined to make a massive contribution to collective growth and push human consciousness forward—they tend to operate under a sense of inner guidance. They usually "wake up" when necessity calls, often triggered by a profound mystical experience that sets them in motion. It isn't just about the external circumstances surrounding them; rather, they seem to manifest in environments that naturally align with their internal trajectory. These aren't just "geniuses" in the conventional, worldly sense. Instead, they carry a latent, spiritual perfection that eventually surfaces, much like budo.

Keith Miller30 said:True, but I think you might be looking at this a bit too superficially. You argue that life proves this point, but is that entirely accurate when we consider someone like Perelman versus a child in a developing nation who doesn't even have a loaf of bread? You see, Perelman had the luxury of dedicating his entire existence to refining his innate talents, whereas a child in a remote part of Africa doesn't have that privilege; their priority is simple survival rather than solving Poincaré's conjectures. Because people aren't starting from the exact same circumstances, can we really say certain individuals are simply "chosen"? It’s more that some, like Perelman, possessed both high intelligence and an intense, almost antisocial focus on their work from a very young age. If I may ask, were you truly able to maintain that level of singular focus, or were you constantly being pulled away by external distractions that drained your energy, your time, and your concentration? Who is to say you wouldn't have achieved greatness yourself if you had been able to commit one hundred percent?

So, we have to account for personality traits, life circumstances, and environmental influences... and that is only a small fraction of the whole story. My view is that a vast number of people possess that initial spark within them that could allow them to rise above the surface, but the tragedy is that they are often held back by the various struggles life throws their way.

redbear2 said:Exactly. If it didn't, they would have just kept it to themselves.

I don't really know what constitutes success in your eyes—what the criteria even are—so I can't quite grasp why you're using other people's comments as a benchmark, trying to turn them into proof that they're wrong by reflecting their own logic back at them. It seems like we're talking about two different things here.

I don't see how that matters. Whatever someone manages to achieve, it's their achievement. Period.

From what I can gather from this thread and the other comments, nobody is actually suggesting that personal effort is being undervalued. Quite the opposite.

You don't need to say it outright. We're talking about rationalizing one's own failures.

On the other hand, when looking specifically at Tesla, he explained his experience quite broadly himself.

Tesla wasn't exactly a saint, especially during the later stages of his life.

My argument is that a true contribution to the advancement of the human race is directly linked to the otherworldly (which isn't some distant realm, but an immanent entity, something Tesla himself confirmed).

Why bother with that side of things if it doesn't impact the human race?

Ideas aren't mere inventions or products of human imagination. They are principles that exist and are simply rediscovered. They aren't uncovered through the mental process of conceptualizing reality with thought, but rather through the process of clearing the mind—because thoughts alone wouldn't grant access to them.

I don't follow. Even if the mind is cleared, if something isn't accessible to it, it can't be known.

This isn't about attributing "effort" to someone or something; it's a natural phenomenon. Anything else is just the classic human fiction regarding what reality actually is (an illusion).

A natural phenomenon?

So the stuff you're claiming is reality isn't a fiction? How does that work? Are you the chosen one sent to tell everyone else the truth about the state of things?

Fair enough.

If you take two people with identical talent, the one who puts in the work—the one who grinds, studies, and actually tries to improve—is obviously going to outpace the lazy one who refuses to grow.

Okay.

But raw talent itself isn't something you earn through effort. You're born with it. No amount of hard work changes that fact.

Show me the proof.

Look at it this way: you can't just work your way into being Nikola Tesla. You can't become a genius inventor just by studying harder. You either have it or you don't. And nobody decides that—not the individual, not the parents. It’s decided by a higher power.

I didn't realize biology was considered a "higher power." People tend to wrap mysteries in mysticism whenever they don't understand how something works.

Even Tesla admitted his inventions weren't really "his." He claimed he received them as visions and sketches that just appeared to him. Who sent those sketches to Tesla? They didn't exactly mail themselves, did they? Just a thought. Cheers.

I've read theories suggesting that brilliant, innovative ideas often seem to arrive "out of nowhere." But really, it's just the byproduct of deep, conscious thought. What the brain needs is time and the right environment to let the subconscious bridge gaps between seemingly unrelated concepts. That's when the most creative solutions surface. Usually, it happens during mindless tasks like showering or taking a walk. When you focus too intensely on a single point, you actually block those connections. That's why the "lightbulb moment" usually hits you while you're sitting in a bathroom stall.

Benjamin Taylor6 said:

Quote:
But talent isn't something you earn through sheer grit—it’s something you're born with. No amount of hard work can change that fact.

Show me the proof.

Quote:

Look, it's simple: not everyone can be Nikola Tesla, that kind of genius inventor, just by putting in extra hours or hitting the books. To be a Tesla, you basically have to be born that way. And who decides what we're born as? Not us, and certainly not our parents—it's some higher power.

I didn't realize biology was considered a "higher power" now. Honestly, people just love to wrap things they don't understand in this mystical, spiritual nonsense.

The proof is Stephen Hawking. He's the walking embodiment of raw, innate talent in physics.
And yet, at the exact same time, life dealt him a brutal hand. It's like God rolled the dice ten times in a row.
When it came to his intellectual capacity, the dice kept landing on 5 or 6.
But when it came to his physical health? They landed on 1 or 2.😲

redbear2 said:Exactly. If it didn't, they would have just kept it to themselves.

I don't really know what constitutes success in your eyes—what the criteria even are—so I can't quite grasp why you're using other people's comments as a benchmark, trying to turn them into proof that they're wrong by reflecting their own logic back at them. It seems like we're talking about two different things here.

I don't see how that matters. Whatever someone manages to achieve, it's their achievement. Period.

From what I can gather from this thread and the other comments, nobody is actually suggesting that personal effort is being undervalued. Quite the opposite.

You don't need to say it outright. We're talking about rationalizing one's own failures.

On the other hand, when looking specifically at Tesla, he explained his experience quite broadly himself.

Tesla wasn't exactly a saint, especially during the later stages of his life.

My argument is that a true contribution to the advancement of the human race is directly linked to the otherworldly (which isn't some distant realm, but an immanent entity, something Tesla himself confirmed).

Why bother with that side of things if it doesn't impact the human race?

Ideas aren't mere inventions or products of human imagination. They are principles that exist and are simply rediscovered. They aren't uncovered through the mental process of conceptualizing reality with thought, but rather through the process of clearing the mind—because thoughts alone wouldn't grant access to them.

I don't follow. Even if the mind is cleared, if something isn't accessible to it, it can't be known.

This isn't about attributing "effort" to someone or something; it's a natural phenomenon. Anything else is just the classic human fiction regarding what reality actually is (an illusion).

A natural phenomenon?

So the stuff you're claiming is reality isn't a fiction? How does that work? Are you the chosen one sent to tell everyone else the truth about the state of things?

Fair enough.

If you take two people with identical talent, the one who puts in the work—the one who grinds, studies, and actually tries to improve—is obviously going to outpace the lazy one who refuses to grow.

Okay.

But raw talent itself isn't something you earn through effort. You're born with it. No amount of hard work changes that fact.

Show me the proof.

Look at it this way: you can't just work your way into being Nikola Tesla. You can't become a genius inventor just by studying harder. You either have it or you don't. And nobody decides that—not the individual, not the parents. It’s decided by a higher power.

I didn't realize biology was considered a "higher power." People tend to wrap mysteries in mysticism whenever they don't understand how something works.

Even Tesla admitted his inventions weren't really "his." He claimed he received them as visions and sketches that just appeared to him. Who sent those sketches to Tesla? They didn't exactly mail themselves, did they? Just a thought. Cheers.

I've read theories suggesting that brilliant, innovative ideas often seem to arrive "out of nowhere." But really, it's just the byproduct of deep, conscious thought. What the brain needs is time and the right environment to let the subconscious bridge gaps between seemingly unrelated concepts. That's when the most creative solutions surface. Usually, it happens during mindless tasks like showering or taking a walk. When you focus too intensely on a single point, you actually block those connections. That's why the "lightbulb moment" usually hits you while you're sitting in a bathroom stall.

Kate King4 said:I am a firm believer that every single individual is hand-picked by the creator. We all enter this world carrying our own specific, one-of-a-kind energetic potential, yet it is a profound tragedy that so few people actually encounter that power or manage to cultivate it throughout their lives. Most people fail to recognize it entirely, choosing instead to spend their existence chasing someone else's dreams. The vast majority simply go through the motions of what they must do or what they think they ought to do, whereas a rare few are brave enough to let go of cold reason, rigid logic, and pure intellect to finally surrender themselves to the guidance of the soul and the heart. I am certainly not suggesting that everyone is destined to be famous or possess the sheer genius of Tesla—that is simply impossible, given that every soul is unique and irreplaceable in its own distinct way... I can only begin to imagine the kind of world we would inhabit if every person truly left their own meaningful mark on history...

redbear2 said:Not quite. I’m just making an observation.

I don't see any other reason why people would credit success to some imaginary entity or the "chosen one" narrative.

My point is that someone's success belongs to them—it's their own doing, not the result of some higher power picking them out of a crowd. On the flip side, a lot of people in this thread try to diminish what people have actually achieved by chalking it up to fate, destiny, or whatever else they want to call it.

"He isn't special because of his hard work; he was just chosen. If he had picked me, I'd be special too." Give me a break. 👏

Keith Miller30 said:To prevent this discussion from spinning its wheels unnecessarily, my answer to the question in the title is quite simply—no.

Michael Gonzalez77 said:When someone possesses the ability to heal others, it isn't because they simply cruised through high school or pulled a medical degree from an Ivy League university. It’s actually rooted in their energetic potential—something they carry forward and refine over many lifetimes.

Genius works exactly the same way.

🙂

darkcanyon10 said:Sweet. Got my answer. It was loud and clear—couldn't have been any more blunt if they tried.
Words don't even do it justice.

Thanks.

p.s. If I tried to write out exactly what happened, it’d just be a mess.

My two cents: we're all born with talent from God, it's just a matter of whether you figure that out now or much later.

Michael Gonzalez77 said:Look, it’s just a hypothesis. There is absolutely no way for the limited human mind to prove it using such restricted methods. Psychologically speaking, it just gives people a sense of comfort, which leads to the massive misconception that it's an absolute fact.

Michael Gonzalez77 said:I'm with you. Those massive breakthroughs usually belong to truly brilliant minds, even if those people seem humble or "ordinary." Most of the fundamental building blocks of history happened by "chance"—their very essence is metaphysical.

In contrast, look at how much stuff is pushed today as scientific "fact" just because some supposed "genius" dreamed it up. They claim to have "proof," but it's really just psychological persuasion to make people believe things are settled (like the Big Bang theory). We're talking about delusions being treated as truth, which is dangerous—and when you apply that kind of flawed logic to medicine, it turns into a straight-up tragedy.

Michael Gonzalez77 said:Perfect Teachers sit at the very top of the spiritual hierarchy, tasked with lifting up a stumbling human consciousness. They take on this work because of their eon-spanning existence as Perfect Beings. Essentially, this is a potential that undergoes Manifestation during an incarnation; they are the direct instrument of the Creator's will—God works through them, making Him the true Manifestation. Think of them like the Sun; at any given time, there are only a handful of them. They serve as the real saviors of American civilization, even if people aren't even aware they exist. Over long stretches of time, roughly every 700 to 1,400 years, five Perfect Teachers bring the Avatar Consciousness into physical form (Zoroaster, Ram, Krishna, Buddha, Christ, Muhammad, Meher Baba).

While some groups might be waiting for their Krishna or Christians are looking for the return of Christ, they are actually looking for the same entity. It’s the same Christ and the same Krishna acting as one single Avatar. There is only one Avatar, who appears whenever there is a desperate need for God's Consciousness to take a physical shape—specifically when human consciousness hits its absolute lowest, most malicious point.

Sarah Ruiz852 said:We’re talking about those rare, singular figures who actually managed to shift the needle during their lifetime. It’s a hard truth to swallow, but a single individual can sometimes achieve more than millions of people acting in unison ever could. I’m thinking of those titans who reshaped human existence through nothing but pure intellect and sheer force of will—people whose ideas and labor outweighed the collective effort of a billion souls. It makes you wonder, though: are these geniuses chosen by some higher power? Is it divine intervention, or are they simply operating on a cognitive level that puts the rest of us to shame? History shows us that when it comes to massive, paradigm-shifting projects, it’s almost always a lone visionary stepping up to the plate. They push forward, refusing to buckle even when the world around them is actively rooting for their failure. And then, the most predictable part of the cycle: once the work is finished and the impact is undeniable, the skeptics and critics suddenly scurry out from the shadows like rats to claim a piece of the glory. We see it all the time—fame often arrives only after the grave. So, I have to ask: where does this spark actually come from? Is it something celestial, or just a freak occurrence of human evolution?

redhawk76 said:

redhawk76 As specified by:
Quote:

No, that simply wouldn't work. To what end? Where exactly am I missing the mark? If you could provide some more detailed guidance, I’d appreciate it. And why exactly is that the case? My process is a bit more convoluted than most—I tend to quote the entire block, strip away the parts that don't serve my point, provide my response, and then repeat the cycle by pasting the full quote again only to prune it once more.

It’s stalling, and we’re nearly at the finish line...

Here is how I’m approaching this (I’ll provide as much detail as possible), From the very beginning....):
To quote a post, you simply hit the Quote button to trigger the quoted block; then, highlight the specific section of text you intend to address and click the icon—that little speech bubble symbol—to finalize your comment. Wrap Quote the designated portion of the text should be enclosed within quote tags at both the beginning and the end Wrap QuoteI will append my commentary following that Wrap Quote at the end; I’ll highlight the second section once more; add the icon again; and then follow up with another comment right after the quote.

It seems my formatting has gone completely sideways; everything—from my own commentary down to those smaller nested quotes—is getting swallowed up by one massive, oversized quote block at the end of the post. It makes sense, I suppose, given that my own remarks are nested within the primary quote block... wouldn't you agree?
I feel as though I am missing a crucial step in my process, or perhaps there is a fundamental flaw in my approach that remains stubbornly out of reach, yet despite my efforts, the error eludes everyone's perception.🤷
Everyone keeps telling me the same thing: highlight the text, hit the icon, leave a comment. So, I follow the instructions to the letter, but when you look at the actual results... well, the outcome speaks for itself.
Something isn't quite clicking, so I would appreciate it if someone with a bit of patience could take a look at my task list and help me pinpoint exactly where my logic is faltering.🙂

Alright

redhawk76 said:

redhawk76 As specified by:
Quote:

No, that simply wouldn't work. To what end? Where exactly am I missing the mark? If you could provide some more detailed guidance, I’d appreciate it. And why exactly is that the case? My process is a bit more convoluted than most—I tend to quote the entire block, strip away the parts that don't serve my point, provide my response, and then repeat the cycle by pasting the full quote again only to prune it once more.

It’s stalling, and we’re nearly at the finish line...

Here is how I’m approaching this (I’ll provide as much detail as possible), From the very beginning....):
To quote a post, you simply hit the Quote button to trigger the quoted block; then, highlight the specific section of text you intend to address and click the icon—that little speech bubble symbol—to finalize your comment. Wrap Quote the designated portion of the text should be enclosed within quote tags at both the beginning and the end Wrap QuoteI will append my commentary following that Wrap Quote at the end; I’ll highlight the second section once more; add the icon again; and then follow up with another comment right after the quote.

It seems my formatting has gone completely sideways; everything—from my own commentary down to those smaller nested quotes—is getting swallowed up by one massive, oversized quote block at the end of the post. It makes sense, I suppose, given that my own remarks are nested within the primary quote block... wouldn't you agree?
I feel as though I am missing a crucial step in my process, or perhaps there is a fundamental flaw in my approach that remains stubbornly out of reach, yet despite my efforts, the error eludes everyone's perception.🤷
Everyone keeps telling me the same thing: highlight the text, hit the icon, leave a comment. So, I follow the instructions to the letter, but when you look at the actual results... well, the outcome speaks for itself.
Something isn't quite clicking, so I would appreciate it if someone with a bit of patience could take a look at my task list and help me pinpoint exactly where my logic is faltering.🙂

Even better!