Vastness
Bluelight Crew
I admit I haven't read the entire thread, but what does "smart" mean to you? I think this needs to be defined to answer the question. Most people consider smart to be pretty much synonymous with intelligence, so as far as intelligence can be measured by IQ, no, dumb people are not actually smart.
Being a little more generous with the vagueness of the question, I could interpret it to mean, have we got the wrong idea about intelligence? But intelligence is a measure of cognitive and/or intellectual ability, itself being something that is used to mentally grow, and become capable of surpassing intellectual challenges that one was not capable of before. Being present is not necessarily an indicator of intelligence, although it can be. It's arguable that "lower" animals, or even brainless life like trees are the most "present" creatures, since they are almost 100% in the moment. A tree does no ruminating about it's past or planning for it's future. Neither do a large proportion of the animal kingdom. Cats are typically posed as an example of aloof, fairly zen animals. Are cats smarter than humans? I'd say probably not.
If anything, being present is more of an indicator of intelligence in more highly cognitive animals like humans, because it's so much harder and is a skill that needs to be learned. But this is only true if it is actually learned - if it comes naturally, such as to the aforementioned zen dumb people under discussion, then it's not necessarily a measure of intelligence or "smartness" because it's not something that had to be worked out or learned. It's just the default state of things, and that person may not be mentally capable of being any other way.
If someone is capable of living outside the moment, and in the moment, depending on the situation and what they choose to do, then this is far more likely to be a measure of intelligence than someone who is only capable of one thing.
I keep using the word intelligence instead of "smartness" because IMO the latter is just not defined here. But, a penguin who doesn't fly into a hurricane isn't smart for doing so - it's just not capable of being any other way.
Being a little more generous with the vagueness of the question, I could interpret it to mean, have we got the wrong idea about intelligence? But intelligence is a measure of cognitive and/or intellectual ability, itself being something that is used to mentally grow, and become capable of surpassing intellectual challenges that one was not capable of before. Being present is not necessarily an indicator of intelligence, although it can be. It's arguable that "lower" animals, or even brainless life like trees are the most "present" creatures, since they are almost 100% in the moment. A tree does no ruminating about it's past or planning for it's future. Neither do a large proportion of the animal kingdom. Cats are typically posed as an example of aloof, fairly zen animals. Are cats smarter than humans? I'd say probably not.
If anything, being present is more of an indicator of intelligence in more highly cognitive animals like humans, because it's so much harder and is a skill that needs to be learned. But this is only true if it is actually learned - if it comes naturally, such as to the aforementioned zen dumb people under discussion, then it's not necessarily a measure of intelligence or "smartness" because it's not something that had to be worked out or learned. It's just the default state of things, and that person may not be mentally capable of being any other way.
If someone is capable of living outside the moment, and in the moment, depending on the situation and what they choose to do, then this is far more likely to be a measure of intelligence than someone who is only capable of one thing.
I keep using the word intelligence instead of "smartness" because IMO the latter is just not defined here. But, a penguin who doesn't fly into a hurricane isn't smart for doing so - it's just not capable of being any other way.