Dialogues of Nodin and William - Mind of Prodigies #5
(PD) Leonardo da Vinci - The Adoration of the Magi
Copyright ©2007-2019 - updated May 11, 2019
William: Thank you Nodin for accompanying me to the library. I will show you the books that I spoke of earlier.
Nodin: It has been a long time since I visited a public library. Ah, the interior has been modernized, but it still smells about the same; of mildew, rotting paper, and too many humans. Is it not both peculiar and humorous that we can find a delight in the aroma of an old decaying manuscript? It is of course not the scent of decay that pleases, but the knowing that the scent describes the book's age, and therefore the book is of historical significance.
William: Here, Nodin, here are the books that I spoke about. Both of the books are biographies about child prodigies who entered into higher education at a young age. The more recently published book is partially based upon the information within the other biography that was written approximately thirty years earlier.
Nodin: I see that the earlier book is an autobiography, which is excellent for reading of a individual's own opinion of his life. The second book, however, upon my reading the fist few pages, I am detecting a non-rhythmic mental patterning, which lends us evidence that the stories are not true.
William: But Nodin, to my knowledge no one else but you has made such a comment as yours, and the book is today's most popular source of information about prodigies, especially the primary prodigy that the book speaks about.
Nodin: Are many newer books or articles about the prodigy based upon this book?
William: Yes, and to my knowledge almost all reports of the prodigy in question are based solely upon the book's information.
Nodin: Then the general public has been greatly misguided.
William: Misguided? In what way? How can you already know so much about the book without reading the whole?
Nodin: Is it not obvious? The book's author writes with recently-modern terms only slightly accented by words from near-previous decades, which implies that the author was born years after the prodigy died, and so it is impossible for the author to have asked the prodigy questions, and thus, it is impossible for the author to present a reasonably useful interpretation of the prodigy's life. Whatsoever the author claims about the prodigy's thoughts and choices in life, the author had to invent or base upon hearsay. Upon my thumbing through the pages, and choosing one in random, we find the author is claiming that the prodigy was aloof, anti-social, reclusive, and that he hated people. Is it not absurd for anyone to claim that they know the heart and mind of another person, especially a person who died about a decade before the author was born? Where is the necessary observation by the author? Where has the author presented verifiable evidence? The book is built upon hearsay and a fantasy that was colored by biased emotions and a non-prodigy interpretation of prodigious talents, plus numerous other obvious errors. The simple fact will always remain that no one can know the heart and mind of anyone but themselves.
William: I have read countless articles and reports by other people that the prodigy was indeed reclusive and that he did hate people. Can all the people be wrong? It does not appear logical to me to dismiss the claims of hundreds and thousands of other people, while accepting the claim that you are now proposing. I value your thoughts Nodin, and I fully agree that firsthand observation is a necessity for understanding a thing, but I believe that you are likely mistaken about the book.
Nodin: Ah, very good, we now have a difference of opinion, and we also have an excellent opportunity to present to us both an excellent lesson. Look, in the northwest corner is sitting Gary, a well-known intellectual and the region's only chess grandmaster. In my opinion, his mind is an excellent example of talent and the motivation to achieve goals. What do the town's people say about him?
William: I am surprised to see Gary in the library, for he is indeed a prodigy, and he is like the prodigy of the book. As a child, forty years back, and without an education in physics, Gary developed numerous theories in physics that science has just begun to investigate and validate. It has been said that Gary knew three languages before the age of nine months, and that upon birth he was already researching an interest into the nature of conceptual creations. Gary is reclusive, he rarely says a word to anyone, he is anti-social, he is neurotic, he has never learned to bathe properly, and everyone that I have spoken to has agreed that Gary hates people. Similar to popular opinion among the general public about all exceptional prodigies, and as was also written in the biography about exceptional prodigies, Gary indeed hates people, and we can verify the conclusion by observing Gary now sitting alone at a table. Of all his intelligence, his life is a waste. He accomplished nothing in life aside from playing chess, he published nothing that won awards, none of his recent theories were given to science, and as we can all easily see, he is a failure.
Nodin: Come, it is not profitable for us to discuss this further, come with me, and we will go speak with Gary.
William: Speak with Gary? But no one talks to him; the whole town knows that he will not speak with anyone, and if we should attempt to talk with Gary, the result will likely only be one of a negative memory. I vote that we remain here, stay in our chairs, and only discuss the books further.
Nodin: It is your choice; you can sit and believe that your eyes and imagination are all that is needed to observe, or you can follow me where your ears might describe to you a better observation. As with the firewood during a previous discussion, you can believe that the eyes tell all, or you can use your other senses to validate or invalidate a belief.
William: Very well, but I will follow under protest, and when we return to this table I am confident that I will feel myself vindicated.
Nodin: Hi Gary. You may not remember me; I am Nodin. You and I played chess together some years back. The young fellow with me is William.
Gary: Well hi Nodin, it's good to see you. Hi William. Oh yes, I do remember you Nodin, you are the one that won both games against me in the speed chess tournament twenty-four years ago. Take a seat and tell me what's going on in your life.
Nodin: Thank you Gary. William and I were discussing a biography about a prodigy, and upon my noticing you here, I thought that it would be an excellent thing to get your opinion about the book. Here in my hand is the book. Have you read this biography?
Gary: Yeah, a few years back.
Nodin: In your opinion, does the biography paint a valid picture of what an exceptional intellectual prodigy might feel or think?
Gary: Not really. Actually, no, not even close.
Nodin: Why not? As William has told me, almost everyone he knows believes that the book's interpretation of prodigies is correct. I would like for William to hear firsthand your ideas on the subject.
Gary: The book is made-up. It doesn't work that way. The author was not a prodigy, and so it was impossible for the author to have an idea of what it means to be a prodigy. You know that as well as me Nodin. You won the chess tournament on your first night at the chess club, and without your ever having played with real players before. All the trophies that you won during your years at the chess club were first place, so there is verifiable and undisputable evidence of your skill. I also remember the night that you were still a beginner to chess, and you were winning a game against a national grandmaster when he managed to force a draw, and when we asked how you did it, you said that you had briefly looked-over the grandmaster's book that he had written. If you can recognize a person's complex mental patterns by looking at their words, and you can then apply the knowledge to a degree that you can adapt the reasoning into a complex game of chess against an exceptionally well-experienced grandmaster, then you full-well know yourself what it is like to think differently than most people. Why did you stop playing chess anyway? We miss you at the chess club.
Nodin: Thank you Gary, I appreciate your comments. I truly did enjoy the club, it was a lot of fun, and I miss everyone there, but I needed to invest more time outdoors in Nature where I could work on my research projects. The weekend tournaments were wearing me down; concentrating eight to ten hours a day during tournaments was more chess than I wanted. I enjoyed the game, but it was turning into a job, which caused a lessening of enjoyment. Some people say that a person burns-out, but as you and I know, it is not burn-out, but rather it is merely having lost the chance to enjoy a simple pleasure. I still enjoy speed chess though, but only in an outdoor setting where there are no scores being kept. But back to the book, for the sake of my friend William, so that he might better understand, would you mind explaining your opinion of why the book does not present an accurate interpretation of exceptional prodigies?
Gary: One example, and there are many, was where the book said that the main character was anti-social. The author's interpretation was based upon numerous fallacies, namely those of believing that the choice was solely that of the prodigy's, and that the author somehow believed that his society is worthy of fitting-into. Among the other gross misinterpretations and total lack of comprehension of prodigious intellects was the author's comments about the main character's constant writing. To me, writing is an outlet for the need to communicate, and since the public behaves with an attitude of shunning and hating everyone with a higher than average intelligence, writing can become an individual's sole outlet of communication, even if no one ever reads what was written. And what was wrong about the prodigy choosing honesty? Why does the general public believe that honesty is idealistic and not a desirable thing? I have been told similar absurdities by individuals from all walks of life, from among the lowest to the highest rated IQs. Why does the public believe that it is right to be honest when summing a mathematical equation, but not right when summing one's own choice of behavior? Honesty is accuracy, and only a non-prodigy could arrive at a different conclusion to believe that honesty might be a bizarre mental trait of neurotic prodigies. The author was thoroughly ignorant of physics, biophysics, philosophy, psychology, theology, history, and just about everything else imaginable, and the lack of knowledge was apparent in how the author described the topics. How can an author, who knows absolutely nothing about prodigies and psychology, write about a prodigy whose life was dramatically affected by prodigious talents and psychology? What about the comment that the prodigy's refuge was in constant thinking? Am I expected to believe that the common person does not always think, or that maybe it's some sort of sin to think? Don't answer that; I already know the answer.
Nodin: Those are all excellent observations Gary, and for William's sake I am curious if you might tell us your view of why the public might believe some prodigies are anti-social. You and I know that chess clubs welcome intelligent individuals with open arms, and the clubs provide ample socializing for many intellectuals, but since the general public does not have experience with the nature of chess clubs, then the general public does not know of the socializing that a prodigy might participate in.
Gary: I was thinking about a similar topic as this one a few nights ago, and my thoughts seem to fit what you are pointing to. The way that I look at it, when I pour baking soda into water, I observe a reaction that communicates to me rules of chemical reactions. When I drop a coin to the floor, I observe a reaction that communicates to me the rules of kinetics, resistance, and thermodynamics. When I place wood into a fire, I observe a reaction that communicates to me a combination of chemical, kinetic, and thermodynamic rules. When I walk among wild animals, I observe a reaction, that of friendship, companionship, empathy, and concern of the animals' for my wellbeing. But when I speak to humans, no meaningful reaction occurs, basically no response at all, and the lack of response communicates to me that people do not care and that the general public does not have the capacity to care. Chess is one of the very few things where I can find a good level of communication between myself and another person, but still the communication is mostly limited to the game of chess itself. Communication is a common human need, in fact the very thing that Reality is based upon, information, and my need for honest and open two-way communication can only be fulfilled among wild animals. The song birds perch near me to sing, with attentive patience the scissor-tailed fly catcher birds acknowledge my presence and await beside me on a fence line for me to cut string for the birds to take in their beaks back to their nests, the road runners bring me grasshoppers and walk with me while patiently allowing me to learn their language, the quail walk with me to the cliff tops where we watch the sunrise together, the cotton tail rabbits walk with me and warn me of what they interpret as an approaching danger, the deer graze near me, the lizards jump into my hand for us to observe each other with curiosity, the turkey perch themselves on tree limbs above me to watch me target shoot, and even the plants respond to my voice and touch, but except for chess, from the humans there is no interactive response, no two-way communication, no walking with me, no talking with me, and my logic concludes that the wild animals are more aware and capable of extended interactive thought than most humans. It is the common man's interpretation that some prodigies hate people, and that the prodigies desire seclusion for the reason of being distant from other humans. What the common man does not comprehend is that he himself might be the one that has driven away the prodigy. I myself hate no one, I in fact love all things, even the humans that hate me, but I am human too, I need companionship just like all other healthy humans, and since humans refuse to be a companion of mine, then I must find companionship with the wild animals, and I must confess that I have not been disappointed in the quality and intellect of my companions. If it were not for my joy of chess, I would likely choose a life of solitude in the mountains. Now, what about the prodigy of the book? Was he not shunned and ridiculed by the public? It appears to me, from what information I have gleaned from dozens of other sources about the prodigy, that he may not have abandoned society, but rather the more likely thing was that society abandoned him by driving him away.
Nodin: I too am sharing a similar curiosity, that perhaps it was the negativity of society that became a primary cause, of the prodigy avoiding the negativity, and thus society's view that he desired to avoid society. I myself have never known of an exceptional intellect that hated society in general, for after all, as we all know, and ought to be obvious to everyone, negative emotions destroy the ability to properly observe a thing, resulting in inferior perceptions, inferior memories, and thus inferior logic. It should have been obvious to the general public that extraordinary intelligence begins and dwells within the realm of positive emotions.
William: That is a thing that I had not considered before, that if indeed the prodigy had hated humanity, as the book claimed, then it would have been impossible for the man to have exhibited the high intelligence that the book claimed.
Nodin: William, you and I have not spoken yet of the emotions relative to thought processing, and it is a topic that would be profitable for us to discuss someday, but for now, know that there is a need for specific emotions to be present for specific types of mental function. Some individuals can purposefully alter their emotions so as to allow unique talents, such as rapid mathematical calculations where the individual can sum large numbers quickly in the mind, and then alter the emotion again to perform a different type of mental function such as acute observation. Sufficient negativity in one's life will negate all prodigious talents. Negativity is the surest road to ignorance.
William: Then, if what you say is true, then there must be other errors in the book that were caused by the author's lack of knowledge about prodigious talents.
Gary: Slightly less than a tenth-way through the book, located on the left page at above the middle of the page, there was a remark about how a reporter claimed the prodigy would not perform the circus tricks of counting in foreign languages for an audience, but the prodigy was generous in his speaking when people lyingly pretended to ask questions. From out of thin air the reporter invented the myth that the prodigy was not interested in humanity. Numerous absurdities fly from the reporter's claims, one of which is that if the prodigy did not care about humanity then why was the prodigy eager to help a person asking questions? Another absurdity is to claim a person the smartest man on earth, and yet say the person was not smart enough to discern the lies that should have been obvious in the body language and emotional speech of the liars. What was worse was that the book's author did not speak against the report, which left the reader to assume that the author agreed with the reporter. The prodigy was known to the author to have written books about social structuring, and the book's author had also commented on how the prodigy cared about the feelings of other people, but the book's author let the contradictions stand. If the author had so much as a twinkling of an idea about prodigious talents, then the author would have recognized several reasons why a prodigy might feel muffed about being placed on stage to perform tricks for an audience of buffoons. In my opinion, the book is just one more fairytale of ignorance and hate directed towards people that the general public does not understand. As I said before, no one talks with prodigies; people have some sort of perverse idea that prodigies should want to perform tricks like circus animals for low intelligence people, and so far in my own personal life I have never met a non-prodigy that truly cares about the feelings of prodigies.
Nodin: It is a dilemma, that from what I have observed thus far amongst humanity, is that few people care about the feelings of anyone, and I feel it is fair to point-out that it is not just the prodigy's feelings being ignored, but rather it is almost everyone's, and perhaps it is the prodigy that is sensitive enough of mind to recognize the coldness and interpret the perception of an uncaring society as being directed towards himself more than others.
Gary: You are probably right Nodin, but it sure seems that talented individuals receive the greater proportion of being ignored and falsely accused. To me, it is absurd for the public to speak highly of a prodigy's ability to learn quickly, about how a prodigy can learn a thing the first time that the prodigy is exposed to the new thing, but then for some bizarre reason the public seems to believe that a prodigy will not immediately learn of the lying nature of humanity the first time the prodigy is falsely accused. It is not rational for the public to expect a prodigy to learn one thing quickly, such as memorizing a paragraph of words from a book, while the public expects the prodigy to not learn something else as quickly, such as the uncaring attitudes of people. I personally find it difficult to speak to a person who holds such contradictions in their mind, for regardless of what I might say, the person cannot accurately comprehend what I am pointing to because the person's mind is fighting its own contradictory logic.
William: Gary, the way that you described the information from the book, by location instead of page number, such a method appears interesting to me. May I ask why you remember such details instead of remembering page numbers as the prodigy was said to do?
Gary: If a book has a special meaning to me, and I am sufficiently interested in the book itself, I will remember the page numbers as well as the sentences and paragraphs, but I was not interested in the prodigy book, it was the most boring book about prodigies ever written, and so I chose to not give attention to page numbers, but I do remember the emotions that I felt during specific regions of the book, and the emotions tell me of the wording, concepts, and locations within the book. I guess it is similar to chess in that my personal manner of thinking gives attention to a thing's position, where the chess piece is located and how it affects all other pieces as well as the whole of the game.
Nodin: I have always wanted to ask you Gary; are you aware of different states of thought-processing while playing chess? The reason that I ask is that, as I alluded to earlier with William, some individuals choose specific emotions for specific thinking processes, as well as choose the differences of linear and conceptual thinking.
Gary: Linear and conceptual? Do you mean like the difference between tactical and positional play?
Nodin: Yes, sort of, but where there is a need to switch from one manner of thinking to another so as to best analyze a chess position. I have observed you to use the tactical method most, especially in the middle game, which quite impresses me by the way. I, however, for myself, prefer to primarily use the conceptual positional play through the middle game so as allow the most mental effort to be placed upon deciding what end game I want. That way, except against the best of players, I am already working through the final end game moves before we complete the first five of the opening. Linear thinking is like reciting strings of information from memory, where the strings are only connected to the immediate topic and do not connect to all other topics. Conceptual thinking is like the sensorial perception of a fluid sphere where all thoughts are connected within the sphere, no separation exists between the thoughts to allow space for a string, and every thought is intimately weighed relative to all memories.
Gary: I believe I grasp what you are pointing to Nodin, and yes, I am aware of how my thoughts shift into the linear thinking like a computer analyzing the many possible combinations, and then my thoughts shift into the conceptual where I am weighing the position's strengths as a whole pattern instead of singular pieces.
William: You two could ramble for days without end, with each comment raising new questions, and each answer raising new questions. Do either of you know where the conversation is leading? I am not seeing a coherence within the conversation; it is as if disconnected thoughts are being tossed back and forth, and I do not understand what the purpose might be.
Nodin: Excellent William, and so now you know one of the differences between how many people recite knowledge within a memorized academic answer of ten words or less, as was done in the prodigy book, and how other individuals actually build upon a conversation through perpetual questions and answers. For Gary and I, each comment is still held in the mind, no thought is disconnected, each comment has been given relevance to all other comments, each combination of comments has self-created new concepts within the mind, and each string of conversation has created a wider sphere of a singular spherical thought. Though it may appear that our conversation is not always directly related to the topic of the book, the fact is, every word that we have spoken is still at this moment being mentally weighed to the whole of the analyses of the book and numerous other topics as well. Chess is a good analogy, where a good player is fully conscious of all moves made and how each small move influences the whole of all other moves. After a tournament, ask a good chess player about his games, and he will be able to exactly tell you not only each of the hundreds of moves made, but he will also be able to tell you in great detail the analyses he had made for each move. The good chess player must have an excellent short-term memory to hold hundreds and thousands of analyzed thoughts in consciousness, and likewise will prodigies hold all other thoughts in a similarly acute memory. Where Gary and I might appear to be varying from the book topic, we are instead only analyzing variations that must be considered before we can then choose the best conclusion; our next best move. Expanding upon the concept that I am now speaking of, the exceptional prodigy might not be limiting his analyses to a single topic like chess, but rather his every thought might be connected to the process of weighing several other topics simultaneously. Imagine if you will, that surrounding an individual are ten tables, and upon each table there are different types of puzzles; one being chess, another being the origins of Reality, another being philosophy, another being biophysics, another being the origins of dimensional shaping, and so on, and that each move the person performs on one table affects all other tables, like an eleven-dimensional chess game as it were. For some of us, a useful conversation is one that brings into its focus scores of tables, and with each comment we then study how the comment has affected all the table puzzles. If you had remained seated instead of following me here to speak with Gary, your only believing with your eyes and imagination, you would have learned nothing, and you would have remained within the wrong belief that the book held valid information about prodigies.
Gary: I am enjoying the conversation. It is exceedingly rare to speak with anyone who will actually talk about topics where there is an analysis and a search for answers. Most everyone I speak to just wants me to do some stupid tricks like show chess traps or tell the people about dimensional equations or such. Our current conversation is the beginnings of a useful dialogue that could lead into a wealth of thought and discovery, and the conversation we are having now is similar to what I said about the prodigy book; it is wrong for an author to claim that a prodigy doesn't want to talk. But rather the prodigy is the one that loves to talk, and it is society that either does not have the capacity to maintain a creative conversation at a prodigious level, or society does not have the interest to want to. Either way, it was not the prodigy's fault for choosing to not reply to absurd questions from buffoons like what were described in the book.
William: Nodin, upon hearing you two speak of chess and metaphors of the game, I am now curious if what you spoke about before of mental patterns might have an analogy in chess as well.
Nodin: I suppose it might be possible to vaguely parallel the two, for it is true that a chess piece left in the open and unprotected will be observed as out of sync, not in a proper position; its position is irrational and not in rhythmic harmony with the other pieces. In chess, such a piece might quickly be taken by the opponent, resulting in a lost game for the piece's side. At minimum, the ill-positioned piece causes a hindrance for the player. In a manuscript, when a word or sentence is placed out of sync with the other words, it too is recognized to be unprotected and not in harmony with other sentences. A good chess player who also has a similar zeal for logic in language, he will recognize disharmonious positioning of words.
William: Gary, did you also notice irregularities of mental pattering within the prodigy book?
Gary: Only from the first page to the last.
William: So then the prodigy's thought-patterns were as both of you were talking about, conceptual, and the book's author misinterpreted the prodigy's thinking process.
Nodin: No no no, what Gary and I were discussing had nothing to do with the prodigy's mental processes. We were simply posing possibilities by comparing how different people think with different patterns, and then comparing the possibilities to how the book's author spoke of no alternative possibilities. The principle and fact never escaped our thoughts that it is impossible to know another man's heart and mind, and it also remains an impossibility for anyone, including ourselves, to really know the prodigy's thoughts or exactly how his mind worked. The book's information is in error, that much we know for certain, but just because we know the book has wrong information, it does not imply that any of our speculations must therefore be right about the prodigy himself. We know that there is a linear method of thinking, we know there is a conceptual method of thinking, we also know that there are other types of thinking that we have not yet discussed, and since the book took the stance that the prodigy must only have a thinking process similar to the author's, then we have verified that the author did not know about possible methods of thinking that prodigies might use, and therefore we know that the book cannot be correct. But just because the existence of variables proves the book incorrect, the variables themselves prove nothing about the prodigy himself.
Gary: I have read several of the prodigy's own writings, and quite bluntly, I did not find reason to believe his thinking style was remarkable. If pressed for a guess of the prodigy's thinking style during the age that he wrote the manuscripts, I would have to lean on the linear thinking style as Nodin spoke of. He might have evolved to the conceptual stage at an older age, I don't know, but of all that I have investigated, none of the writings exhibited conceptual thinking. I personally would truly enjoy reading his latest works so that I could determine if his mind developed further.
William: Then if what both of you tell me is true, then how is it possible for an author to write a valid biography?
Gary: It isn't.
Nodin: Agreed. It is not possible to write a meaningful biography about anyone except one's own self. It cannot be known if the prodigies in the book thought a specific way, and no quantity of hearsay can overcome the lack of evidence. The one and only rational conclusion about the prodigy's choices in life will forever remain "I don't know." Anyone who claims differently, has in so doing proven that he is quite ignorant of the topic.
William: Please answer me this, Gary; I have been told that you proposed numerous theories of physics decades before science began investigating similar lines of thought. How was it possible for you to have known such knowledge before even professional researchers? Intuition?
Gary: I personally very much dislike the word intuition, for it implies some sort of supernatural psychic ability that exists outside the laws of Nature. All things are natural, no thing can exist outside of Reality, and therefore there can never be a paranormal thing. Nevertheless, to answer your question, no it was not intuition, it was simple logic applied to simple observation. Most people are conscious of less than one percent of one percent of their perceptions and thoughts, and for some people when a unique subconscious thought surfaces in the consciousness, the people seem to believe the thought appeared from nowhere as if by paranormal magic, and the people then jump to believe in the myth of intuition. That is one of the other differences between prodigious intellects and the common mind, in that the prodigious intellect might be consciously aware of the sensorial perceptions that created the information that the conscious mind then used for analyses. Let me state this as clearly as I can, that I used conscious observation and conscious logic to derive my formulas, and absolutely none of my theories were based on intuition nor any other form of magic or subconscious thinking. I wish to state that it angers me somewhat when people of low intelligence invent their lying claims about me like that, that my theories are somehow based on subconscious thoughts. Just because the low intelligence man does not have the capacity for conscious observation and analyses, it does not necessitate that I too must have a similarly limited mentality. Not all minds are created equal, and it is absurd for the public to continue insisting that all minds are equal in function and ability.
William: But Gary, it is impossible for you to have known about nuclear compositions and dimensional origins without your having first studied the topics. No man can observe such a thing.
Gary: So then, as you are claiming, it is impossible for me to know something through thought, but it is possible for me to know a thing through non-thinking supernatural intuition? Is that not an absurdity?
William: Okay, yes, I see what you are saying, that both of my claims are absurdities, and I am reasoning within myself that I wrongly based the claims solely upon a belief that has no evidence. But please tell me, so that I might have sufficient knowledge to base a correct belief upon, by what means were you able to correctly theorize any of your theories?
Gary: I consciously observed Nature, I consciously applied reasoning to the observations, and I consciously derived theories that were logical relative to what is perceivable in Nature.
Nodin: Ha! A man after my own heart!
William: I understand the parts about consciousness and observation, but I am still without an understanding of what could possibly be observed to allow a person the ability to discern nuclear structuring and dimensional shaping. Even the prodigy of the book said that a mind's eye cannot see a four-dimensional shape, and yet your theories speak of five dimensions as if you are seeing them in the mind, and your eleven-dimensional theories appear to have a similar source of conscious observation.
Gary: Let me ask you instead; is it agreed that a prodigy can have a better memory than an average intelligence?
William: Yes, of course, a good memory is expected, even a photographic memory.
Gary: Is the prodigy allowed to have a memory that reaches back to before the age of thirty years of age?
William: Yes, of course.
Gary: Ten years of age?
Gary: Two years old?
Gary: Two months?
William: I am unsure of the answer, but I see where you are leading, and yes, I suppose it must be admitted that some people will be able to retain some memories from infancy.
Gary: What about before birth? Or are you one of those people that believe newborns are unconscious globs of flesh at birth?
William: I have heard stories about pre-birth memories, so I suppose it is possible.
Gary: Look, some of us have better memories than other people. It doesn't matter whether you believe it possible or not, some people do have better memories than other people. Admit it; deal with it.
William: But I have been told by experts that regions of the brain that allow long term memories and consciousness do not develop until an infant is several months old. How is it possible to have conscious long term memories of infancy if the brain has not yet developed well enough?
Gary: Good grief William, have you not heard a word I said? No brain is equal, period, and it matters absolutely nothing at all what some self-proclaimed expert might lie about, not all brains are equal, and not all brains develop at the same identical rate. Besides, who is so dull of intellect as to believe all the nonsense that is currently being taught about how the brain works? The current common public belief, about how the brain is the sole-singular seat of intelligence, is a huge error. It is beyond absurd for anyone to believe that anything exists singularly by itself, and it is even more absurd to claim that the brain is the single source of consciousness and intelligence. Look, some of us do in fact have good memories, some of us do in fact use different regions of the brain and body for logic and sensorial perceptions and memory, and until you abandon your belief in today's pseudo-science, you will never begin to grasp how it is possible to retain vivid memories from the first or second trimester.
William: But it is impossible to remember something at a time before the brain has developed, as would be the case in the first and second trimester.
Gary: OK, fine, you're right. I need to go. It was great seeing you Nodin. Drop by the club sometime. We'd all like to see you again.
Nodin: Bye Gary, take care, and I think I will see you at the club soon; we can continue our discussion then.
William: Nodin, why did Gary leave before answering my questions? His behavior is what I expected; he is abrupt and anti-social.
Nodin: He did answer your questions, but you refused to listen. You continued asking the same questions, you refused to analyze anything that Gary said, you repeatedly falsely accused Gary, you were openly aggressive, you refused to let-go of your unfounded beliefs in popular science, and you thoroughly insulted him to the very core, to the point that he could no longer endure sitting with us. You know nothing of physics, nothing of biology, nothing of biophysics, nothing of psychology, and nothing of prodigious intelligence, and yet you continued insisting that your unfounded beliefs were more valid than Gary's personal intellect and firsthand experience. You, William, did the same as the prodigy book's author. And by the way; did Gary stink?
William: Not that I noticed.
Nodin: Then remember this day and the things that you observed. Just because the general public believes in a thing, and professes the belief true a million times, it does not mean that the belief must be true. Many of the claims within the prodigy book are not true; deal with it.